If the universe is intrinsically mathematical we might be in a bad situation when it comes to uncover the laws of nature by experiment and data analysis, as the attached file shows. It may be, as Einstein stated, that " the universe of ideas is just as little independent of the nature of our experiences as clothes are of the form of the human body."
For N=668 prime numbers we have the linear regression:
y=6.01953265178196606+1.00063244688489084*x
As N increase then b1-->1 and b0 increases
So, what is the actual question about primes?
I also would like to propose a book "A new kind of Science" https://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html rising similar questions concerning to the human cognition/ interpretation, nature, physics and mathematics
@Demetris Christopoulos
And what was the correlation coefficient you got? My point is that we get a high correlation coefficient and, yet, we know that relation is non linear.
Dear Oscar, it is similar to the lag-estimator in time series econometrics. If you analyse the scheme:
Y_t=b0+b1*Y_{t-1}+b2*Y_{t-2}+...+bn*Y_{t-n}+espilon_t
you will obtain many results, its a whole theory, but the main result is this:
Y_t and Y_{t-1} are highly correlated most of the times.
It has not to do with linearity.
The other issue is that you can predict the overall shape with such a regression, but you cannot trust it!
I would say that Nature is intrinsically mathematical in the sense of isomorphism. Even without any invented mathematics, the arithmetic of stones or apples is distinct from the arithmetic of water or space.
@Faulkner - only in term of the nature of items compared or summed. The sum of apples is just as the sum of pears, or of birds, or rocks. A better answer appeals to Rosen, and his notion that not all of biology is mathematisable; call it what you will, arguing that biological organisms are not machines is the same thing as saying not all of the universe is mathematisable.
Even a brief look on iSpace theory should be enough for most to feel uncomfortable about the seemingly simple exact symbolic relations (no integral math required at all).
To add to the rather exiting findings of iSpace theory (being a fully integer geometric approach to reveal the seemingly exact relations between and values of constants of nature), i would like to take the opportunity and announce to have found an extremely simple equation to unify the gravitational and electromagnetic force! So not one has to wait several month until I will be able to complete the forthcoming paper on this, i'll post for all an image of the identified relation and hope for further fruitful discussions!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/May_there_be_gravity_from_the_electromagnetism#view=56af698d7eddd31a658b45c5
Dear downvoter, if iSpace theory is not an extremely strong indication (have you even had a look at all on my conference papers published at IMS-2015 in Prag, some even see the intrinsic exactness and fit with CODATA values as a statistical form of proof for the integer geometric concepts of iSpace) that our universe is indeed intrinsically mathematical - which this question is all about - then I don't know what else could possibly be considered as a promising topic. So while my mentioning of recent success on finding an exact and simple relation for the over 100 year old problem of the relation of electromagnetic to gravitational force was slightly off topic (have my excuse to Oscar and the other posters for that), it nevertheless shows that the iSpace concept is giving way to real physical results and not just maximal close proximity to physical constants.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics