I've been thinking lately about whether mathematics "is" reality or whether mathematics merely represents reality, and something that I've noticed is that mathematicians and physicists seem to hold the philosophy that if one can create an isomorphism from one thing to another, then both of those things are "real" in some sense.
Take the holographic universe idea for example. There is an isomorphism mapping information within a volume to the boundary on that volume's surface; some physicists, like Leonard Susskind afaict, believe therefore that the universe is a hologram, even when there aren't any tests we can do to prove that the universe can only be a hologram because only holograms behave in such and such a way.
But when I think about it, this seems like a massive leap. We can hypothetically come up with isomorphisms that map, say, the four fundamental forces to like, four angels that work behind the scenes to orchestrate all the interactions in the universe. But that doesn't mean there really are four angels doing this. I suppose this is what someone means when they say we've "confused the map for the territory."
I can't read the text of the paper referenced by the article because I don't have a subscription, but the abstract says:
> We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.
Sounds to me like "we found an isomorphism between systems with internal time and systems without time that are entangled with external time..." and I just don't care, because I can come up with any isomorphism I want to. Without a prediction that contradicts our current theories, it's meaningless.
A lot of headlines in theoretical physics strike me as displaying this behavior. Listening to Sabine makes me think that this is the totality of string theory as well. Am I the crazy one?
No, you're not crazy. A ton of theoretical physics in the past several decades has gone into wild speculation about things we're able to mathematically justify and therefore imagine logically.
That doesn't inherently mean it's the only possibility, just that it is one that fits what we know about the math right now.
>mathematically justify and therefore imagine logically.
Isn't statistics a lot more of a down-to-earth branch with "theoretically" some of the most well-understood certainty determination?
I'm no expert but my odds are on having it hugely more probable for imagination to be illogical in some way, rather than logical through-and-through.
Equations can be confusing, what people really want is to draw a valid conclusion;
>one that fits what we know about the math right now.
What are the odds that right this minute there is actually anyone at all smarter than there ever was in the past? Making it very likely that this is not the highest point in math or very many other things either.
Take the holographic universe idea for example. There is an isomorphism mapping information within a volume to the boundary on that volume's surface; some physicists, like Leonard Susskind afaict, believe therefore that the universe is a hologram, even when there aren't any tests we can do to prove that the universe can only be a hologram because only holograms behave in such and such a way.
But when I think about it, this seems like a massive leap. We can hypothetically come up with isomorphisms that map, say, the four fundamental forces to like, four angels that work behind the scenes to orchestrate all the interactions in the universe. But that doesn't mean there really are four angels doing this. I suppose this is what someone means when they say we've "confused the map for the territory."
I can't read the text of the paper referenced by the article because I don't have a subscription, but the abstract says:
> We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.
Sounds to me like "we found an isomorphism between systems with internal time and systems without time that are entangled with external time..." and I just don't care, because I can come up with any isomorphism I want to. Without a prediction that contradicts our current theories, it's meaningless.
A lot of headlines in theoretical physics strike me as displaying this behavior. Listening to Sabine makes me think that this is the totality of string theory as well. Am I the crazy one?