Quantum Physics
November 7, 2005 9:45 PM Subscribe
I'm interested in learning about quantum physics especially in relation to the change in thinking it may bring about in terms of the nature of reality and in new approaches to spirituality. I am relatively intelligent but haven't cracked a textbook in years and never really "got" any of the hard sciences. I took "Physics for Poets" at Umass 25 years ago.... So who and what might be the best read? I've been debating between Brian Greene and Brian Swimme...but really haven't a clue! Thanks for all recommendations!
I loved Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" it's a very simplistic introduction, but I enjoyed it. The first half is about relativity, and the end it about Super String Theory, so the middle is what you'd be most interested in.
posted by piratebowling at 9:55 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by piratebowling at 9:55 PM on November 7, 2005
You may start with the movie What the [bleep] Do We Know, and maybe progress to the Tao of Physics.
posted by ae4rv at 9:56 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by ae4rv at 9:56 PM on November 7, 2005
Maybe you'd be interested in cheking out The Dancing Wu Li Masters. I've read (parts of) it, and Amazon's description is pretty accurate, so if that's what you're looking for, go for it.
posted by rossination at 9:59 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by rossination at 9:59 PM on November 7, 2005
Please don't watch What the [bleep] Do We Know if your goal is to learn about quantum mechanics. I second the recommendation for Brian Greene and add Hawking and Feynman to that as well.
posted by hindmost at 10:20 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by hindmost at 10:20 PM on November 7, 2005
It's not physics so much, but Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid might be up your alley.
posted by Brian James at 10:20 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by Brian James at 10:20 PM on November 7, 2005
This isn't a question about documentaries, but if it were I would refer you to this previous question: I will beef about the Elegant Universe.
posted by Chuckles at 10:27 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by Chuckles at 10:27 PM on November 7, 2005
For physics, Road to Reality. For spirituality, neuroscience/psychology, rather than QM is a better source of inspiration at this point in time.
posted by Gyan at 10:29 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by Gyan at 10:29 PM on November 7, 2005
This might be what you're looking for:
Doubt and Certainty: The Celebrated Academy : Debates on Science, Mysticism, Reality, in General on the Knowable and Unknowable
Its highly readable since its structured a series of debates between historical figures.
posted by vacapinta at 10:39 PM on November 7, 2005
Doubt and Certainty: The Celebrated Academy : Debates on Science, Mysticism, Reality, in General on the Knowable and Unknowable
Its highly readable since its structured a series of debates between historical figures.
posted by vacapinta at 10:39 PM on November 7, 2005
My favourite book on quantum physics--specifically, multiple dimensions and hyperspace, but the book covers quantum theory in a big way, as well as superstring--is Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:30 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:30 PM on November 7, 2005
Start with something close to reality: the incredibly readable QED by R. Feynman.
posted by fatllama at 11:47 PM on November 7, 2005
posted by fatllama at 11:47 PM on November 7, 2005
Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Alan Sokal.
Sorry. I meant that as a kind of snarky warning. The topic you're wading into here is a dangerous one. There's a lot of bullshit out there regarding the relationship between quantum mechanics and epistemology/ontology. Add "new approaches to spirituality" to the mix, and it's a stinking mire. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in either QM or philosophy, but I think I know enough about both to be suspicious towards anyone who tries to connect them.
Understanding quantum mechanics on even a shallow level (the level at which I think I understand it) requires a good bit of mathematics (calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations at least, probably some complex analysis, too). Several people I know who understand it more deeply have told me that it's the most conceptually difficult piece of science they've ever tried to wrap their minds around.
I hate to sound so discouraging, though! Greene's Elegant Universe is a good book; it's not really centrally concerned with QM, but there's a bit in there. I don't know Swimme, but based on looking at his books on Amazon, they seem to be more about cosmology. My recommendation to get a taste of the theory without the mathematical rigor would be to open up an introductory college chemistry text. Any modern chemistry text is going to have a chapter or two on QM, and none will require the student to know how to solve a differential equation. I happen to have Oxtoby and Nachtrieb's Principles of Modern Chemistry on my bookshelf, and it gives a nice gentle intro, including a historical background that explains why the theory was necessary. Maybe that's a crazy suggestion, but at least it's another option to consider...
posted by mr_roboto at 11:49 PM on November 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
Sorry. I meant that as a kind of snarky warning. The topic you're wading into here is a dangerous one. There's a lot of bullshit out there regarding the relationship between quantum mechanics and epistemology/ontology. Add "new approaches to spirituality" to the mix, and it's a stinking mire. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in either QM or philosophy, but I think I know enough about both to be suspicious towards anyone who tries to connect them.
Understanding quantum mechanics on even a shallow level (the level at which I think I understand it) requires a good bit of mathematics (calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations at least, probably some complex analysis, too). Several people I know who understand it more deeply have told me that it's the most conceptually difficult piece of science they've ever tried to wrap their minds around.
I hate to sound so discouraging, though! Greene's Elegant Universe is a good book; it's not really centrally concerned with QM, but there's a bit in there. I don't know Swimme, but based on looking at his books on Amazon, they seem to be more about cosmology. My recommendation to get a taste of the theory without the mathematical rigor would be to open up an introductory college chemistry text. Any modern chemistry text is going to have a chapter or two on QM, and none will require the student to know how to solve a differential equation. I happen to have Oxtoby and Nachtrieb's Principles of Modern Chemistry on my bookshelf, and it gives a nice gentle intro, including a historical background that explains why the theory was necessary. Maybe that's a crazy suggestion, but at least it's another option to consider...
posted by mr_roboto at 11:49 PM on November 7, 2005 [1 favorite]
Seconding not watching What the Bleep. What a terrible movie. Nothing to do with Physics at all.
As for reccomendations for... I'll make this comment first before I try and think of books. You have to realize that no one really understands Quantum Mechanics. We know how to do QM, but we don't know what it means. So there will be no book that will help you really understand it, although there will be a few that espouse one particular interpretation or another. To even come close, in some ways, you really do need to do QM. However, I'll freely admit that this is quite a difficult and daunting task, particularly if you don't have much of a background in calculus, linear algebra (probably the most important discipline at the elementary level, really), complex analysis, etc.
That being said, there are good books that, well, do their best. Off the top of my bookshelf, I would suggest Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, by Georege Gamow, or possibly QED by Feynman.
If you want a more technical, mathy introduction, and you know a bunch of calculus already, then I would honestly reccoment the textbook Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths. Honestly, it's a great book. It is a textbook, yes, but it is quite readable and even has some reasonable discussion on some of the material.
posted by vernondalhart at 12:27 AM on November 8, 2005
As for reccomendations for... I'll make this comment first before I try and think of books. You have to realize that no one really understands Quantum Mechanics. We know how to do QM, but we don't know what it means. So there will be no book that will help you really understand it, although there will be a few that espouse one particular interpretation or another. To even come close, in some ways, you really do need to do QM. However, I'll freely admit that this is quite a difficult and daunting task, particularly if you don't have much of a background in calculus, linear algebra (probably the most important discipline at the elementary level, really), complex analysis, etc.
That being said, there are good books that, well, do their best. Off the top of my bookshelf, I would suggest Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, by Georege Gamow, or possibly QED by Feynman.
If you want a more technical, mathy introduction, and you know a bunch of calculus already, then I would honestly reccoment the textbook Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths. Honestly, it's a great book. It is a textbook, yes, but it is quite readable and even has some reasonable discussion on some of the material.
posted by vernondalhart at 12:27 AM on November 8, 2005
A second for Roger Penrose, particularly The Emperor's New Mind. On reading the cover you might conclude that this isn't the book for you, since he has a point to make that is not of obvious interest to you. Don't be put off, on the way to making his point he gives one of the most lucid accounts of modern physics, and specifically the quantum world, that it's been my pleasure to read.
It's hopeless though. Take spin - all of the pop authors above will invite you to 'understand' this by using the analogy with a spinning top. That's simple enough. Think you understand it then? Well a particle with spin needs to be rotated not through 360 degrees to get back where it started but 720. How's that? It's at this point that the analogies break down, further progress is only possible through dense mathematics.
Penrose seems to enjoy this difficulty more than most, specifically Greene, who seems to be of the view that the important bits can be communicated to the layman if the inconvenient complexities are kept in the shadows. It's those riddles and complexities however which are much of the fun.
It sounds like you may already have the background, but for a good general grounding in twentieth century Physics, the Teaching Company course Modern Physics for Non Scientists is outstanding and cheap too, at $34.95.
posted by grahamwell at 1:49 AM on November 8, 2005
It's hopeless though. Take spin - all of the pop authors above will invite you to 'understand' this by using the analogy with a spinning top. That's simple enough. Think you understand it then? Well a particle with spin needs to be rotated not through 360 degrees to get back where it started but 720. How's that? It's at this point that the analogies break down, further progress is only possible through dense mathematics.
Penrose seems to enjoy this difficulty more than most, specifically Greene, who seems to be of the view that the important bits can be communicated to the layman if the inconvenient complexities are kept in the shadows. It's those riddles and complexities however which are much of the fun.
It sounds like you may already have the background, but for a good general grounding in twentieth century Physics, the Teaching Company course Modern Physics for Non Scientists is outstanding and cheap too, at $34.95.
posted by grahamwell at 1:49 AM on November 8, 2005
I unfortunately have to echo the naysayers here. The problem is as someone has suggested, people who write books on the relationship between quantum mechanics and spirituality almost universally tend to have some agenda to push. Or at least at times they confuse matters by using metaphors for mathematical equations that describe the functioning of small particles but that we typically associate with the functioning of large objects like people -- which is all linguistic handwaving and beyond the bounds of the QM itself. And as someone who hasn't at least gotten to the point of solving basic problems in QM like the "particle in a box" (again a ubiquitous and quite questionable use of a large-scale metaphor for a small-scale object) you won't have any way of separating fact from fiction, metaphor, and interpretation.
If you can't actually do the math, I guess I would start with QED. Feynman is a brilliant.
But in my opinion, people like Penrose and the "quantum consciousness" crowd are quite dodgy, and seemed to ignore a lot of the research in other fields (like say cellular neurobiology) when they formulated their curious theories on thinking. He and they are quite frankly full of shit.
posted by drpynchon at 3:16 AM on November 8, 2005
If you can't actually do the math, I guess I would start with QED. Feynman is a brilliant.
But in my opinion, people like Penrose and the "quantum consciousness" crowd are quite dodgy, and seemed to ignore a lot of the research in other fields (like say cellular neurobiology) when they formulated their curious theories on thinking. He and they are quite frankly full of shit.
posted by drpynchon at 3:16 AM on November 8, 2005
I'll third that you not watch "What the (Fuck) Do We Know?", a jumbled mess of a movie that intersperses interviews with real, like quantum physicists with New Age cult gurus. Some parts are interesting, but most of it, the "nonfiction" drama parts are embarrassingly bad. Marlee Matalin, you're a good actor....why??
The Dancing Wu Li Masters is great, as well as The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra (sorry I'm too lazy at the moment to provide links). For some more "out there" stuff, I really, really loved "The Cosmic Trigger" by Robert Anton Wilson. Physics as it relates to belief systems and "reality tunnels" as Wilson often puts it. It's actually a series of three books, but the second two weren't so focused.
Even more out there are the "Don Juan" books by Carlos Castaneda. A UCLA sociology grad student interviews a Yaqui Indian sorcerer in Mexico and becomes a sort of apprentice. Written as nonfiction but has been heavily critiqued as being made up, some say completely. Extremely fascinating nonetheless.
posted by zardoz at 3:44 AM on November 8, 2005
The Dancing Wu Li Masters is great, as well as The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra (sorry I'm too lazy at the moment to provide links). For some more "out there" stuff, I really, really loved "The Cosmic Trigger" by Robert Anton Wilson. Physics as it relates to belief systems and "reality tunnels" as Wilson often puts it. It's actually a series of three books, but the second two weren't so focused.
Even more out there are the "Don Juan" books by Carlos Castaneda. A UCLA sociology grad student interviews a Yaqui Indian sorcerer in Mexico and becomes a sort of apprentice. Written as nonfiction but has been heavily critiqued as being made up, some say completely. Extremely fascinating nonetheless.
posted by zardoz at 3:44 AM on November 8, 2005
On the same depressingly negative note as many others here, I find it difficult to think of any good literature that treats science in an intelligent and "correct" way. It's a big cultural hole and a real social problem, imho.
For what it's worth, Richard Powers gets technology, and his Gold Bug Variations deals brilliantly with genetic coding. Unfortunately I don't know of anything he's written that covers QM, but I've not read everything of his, so you might look at Amazon to check. But if you want to see how science (in a more general sense), and particularly scientific research, can relate to spirituality (in a broad sense - personality, if you like) then I would strongly recommend Gold Bug.
For reliable "popular science" Feynman is the man, but he wasn't the most spiritual flower in the meadow...
Sorry for not being more helpful. Although, I do wonder if you maybe should read some of the books criticised here anyway - perhaps that is what you are looking for even if it's not "good science". I'm not sure, when it comes to the arts, that it has to be correct to be useful.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:17 AM on November 8, 2005
For what it's worth, Richard Powers gets technology, and his Gold Bug Variations deals brilliantly with genetic coding. Unfortunately I don't know of anything he's written that covers QM, but I've not read everything of his, so you might look at Amazon to check. But if you want to see how science (in a more general sense), and particularly scientific research, can relate to spirituality (in a broad sense - personality, if you like) then I would strongly recommend Gold Bug.
For reliable "popular science" Feynman is the man, but he wasn't the most spiritual flower in the meadow...
Sorry for not being more helpful. Although, I do wonder if you maybe should read some of the books criticised here anyway - perhaps that is what you are looking for even if it's not "good science". I'm not sure, when it comes to the arts, that it has to be correct to be useful.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:17 AM on November 8, 2005
The Tao of Physics is almost exactly about "the change in thinking it may bring about in terms of the nature of reality and in new approaches to spirituality." Plus, no math.
posted by signal at 5:33 AM on November 8, 2005
posted by signal at 5:33 AM on November 8, 2005
Well, in defense of recomending What The Bleep, jswanson19 did mention looking at new approaches to reality and spirituality, and mentioned something about not having got hard science before.
As for me, I wanted to like it, and often did, but it was not a keeper for me. I do get, and like, hard science.
posted by ae4rv at 5:37 AM on November 8, 2005
As for me, I wanted to like it, and often did, but it was not a keeper for me. I do get, and like, hard science.
posted by ae4rv at 5:37 AM on November 8, 2005
Lisa Randall has a book out, "Warped Passages". It provides a good layman's grounding in particle physics and some quantum mechanics, as the basis to approach string theory. (I'm not past the basics yet).
posted by Goofyy at 6:04 AM on November 8, 2005
posted by Goofyy at 6:04 AM on November 8, 2005
You might want to look at some of the writings of John Polkinghorne, who is both a particle physicist and an Anglican priest. His book Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction (2002) might be a good place to start.
Polkinghorne is often held up by Christians as a sort of 'trophy scientist' -- the Anglican answer to Dawkins, as it were -- but if you can ignore this, and just concentrate on his writings, you'll find he does have interesting things to say. Unlike most of the people who blather about 'the dialogue between science and religion', he actually knows something about science, which is an advantage.
posted by verstegan at 6:29 AM on November 8, 2005
Polkinghorne is often held up by Christians as a sort of 'trophy scientist' -- the Anglican answer to Dawkins, as it were -- but if you can ignore this, and just concentrate on his writings, you'll find he does have interesting things to say. Unlike most of the people who blather about 'the dialogue between science and religion', he actually knows something about science, which is an advantage.
posted by verstegan at 6:29 AM on November 8, 2005
I'm also a non-physicist who is interested in quantum mechanics and its philosophical implications.
Here are some of the books I thought did a good job explaining QM for the lay person and touching on the interpretation / philosophy side:
Dreams of a Final Theory - Steven Weinberg
In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality - John Gribbin
The Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
The Fabric of Reality - David Deutsch
The Emperor's New Mind - Roger Penrose
posted by justkevin at 6:37 AM on November 8, 2005
Here are some of the books I thought did a good job explaining QM for the lay person and touching on the interpretation / philosophy side:
posted by justkevin at 6:37 AM on November 8, 2005
Back in the day, I really enjoyed In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics And Reality. I haven't read it since I actually got my physics degree, but it helped push me down that path.
posted by ewagoner at 7:36 AM on November 8, 2005
posted by ewagoner at 7:36 AM on November 8, 2005
Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert is a good popularization of quantum physics. Its thrust is examining the competing theories of what's the deeper reality underlying quantum physics (which, of course, he doesn't come to any conclusions about), and along the way he's fairly thorough about explaining things accessibly without sacrificing accuracy.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 7:42 AM on November 8, 2005
posted by Zed_Lopez at 7:42 AM on November 8, 2005
odinsdream- That was a really good response. Entirely. I also liked the last sentence quite a bit.
I still think the original poster would enjoy that movie, but after all this, it's probably low on the wish list. Perhaps rightfully so.
posted by ae4rv at 7:47 AM on November 8, 2005
I still think the original poster would enjoy that movie, but after all this, it's probably low on the wish list. Perhaps rightfully so.
posted by ae4rv at 7:47 AM on November 8, 2005
odinsdream: I'm going to disagree-- I think that some advances in science and physics do fundamentally alter our world view.
For example advances in astronomy beginning with Copernicus challenged our concept that we were the center of the Universe, both literally and figuratively.
The theory of evolution was (and continues to be) a blow to the literalist interpretation of the Bible and has had enormous effect on spiritual/religious discourse.
As we learn more about the brain, philosophers continue to re-examine the most "spiritual" questions of who we are.
Scientific discoveries continually force us (humanity) to revise our deeply held spiritual beliefs in light of the hard facts.
posted by justkevin at 8:08 AM on November 8, 2005
For example advances in astronomy beginning with Copernicus challenged our concept that we were the center of the Universe, both literally and figuratively.
The theory of evolution was (and continues to be) a blow to the literalist interpretation of the Bible and has had enormous effect on spiritual/religious discourse.
As we learn more about the brain, philosophers continue to re-examine the most "spiritual" questions of who we are.
Scientific discoveries continually force us (humanity) to revise our deeply held spiritual beliefs in light of the hard facts.
posted by justkevin at 8:08 AM on November 8, 2005
Nth-ing the recommendation for The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. It's one of very few science books that I have that I find I want to reread regularly, and every time I manage to pick up a bit more.
posted by mendel at 9:27 AM on November 8, 2005
posted by mendel at 9:27 AM on November 8, 2005
I am also interested in this. I read the Elegant universe, Fabric of the cosmos, The universe in a nutshell, Warped passages, Quantum reality, etc. I would start with the Elegant universe, but one book will probably not do it for you. I would also look for one of those "Introducing..." introductory books on Amazon.
Btw, I still don't understand, because the farther you get the more understanding requires you to know the math. However, I remain fascinated.
posted by xammerboy at 9:40 AM on November 8, 2005
Btw, I still don't understand, because the farther you get the more understanding requires you to know the math. However, I remain fascinated.
posted by xammerboy at 9:40 AM on November 8, 2005
QED is a great read, as is GEB. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid is not about physics but is easily the best book I have ever read. Mind expanding.
I would be careful about the physics and spirituality stuff, unless you are just looking for some warm fuzzies. Stick to science, then form your own ideas about the spirituality stuff. Why should you let someone else decide that part for you?
posted by jockc at 10:49 AM on November 8, 2005
I would be careful about the physics and spirituality stuff, unless you are just looking for some warm fuzzies. Stick to science, then form your own ideas about the spirituality stuff. Why should you let someone else decide that part for you?
posted by jockc at 10:49 AM on November 8, 2005
The best place to find this kind of thing is science fiction novels. No joke. A lot of science fiction authors are former/current physicists themselves, or at least take pains to get the physics reasonably correct. And since it's fiction, they can really explore some interesting ideas on the nature of reality and spirituality without getting bogged down in whether or not they're true.
Carl Sagan's Contact is the best example I can think of (the movie doesn't count). I'd also recommend Robert Sawyer's books which explicitly deal with issues as life after death, the nature of the soul/identity, intelligent design as evidence of a creator (or not) and so on.
If you want to stick to actual physics, I'd second (or third) QED (probably the most accessible book on quantum theory ever written) and Brian Greene's stuff. You might also want to check out Three Roads to Quantum Gravity which is a lot more readable than it sounds. If you just want to have your mind blown about the nature of reality - this is the book.
Avoid "Dancing Wu Li Masters," "The Tao of Physics," and "What the () Do We Know" as they're filled with sloppy thinking.
"The Physics of Immortality" might appeal to you, but, again, don't take it to seriously. It's written by a physicist but still takes some major leaps in logic.
posted by zanni at 1:07 PM on November 8, 2005
Carl Sagan's Contact is the best example I can think of (the movie doesn't count). I'd also recommend Robert Sawyer's books which explicitly deal with issues as life after death, the nature of the soul/identity, intelligent design as evidence of a creator (or not) and so on.
If you want to stick to actual physics, I'd second (or third) QED (probably the most accessible book on quantum theory ever written) and Brian Greene's stuff. You might also want to check out Three Roads to Quantum Gravity which is a lot more readable than it sounds. If you just want to have your mind blown about the nature of reality - this is the book.
Avoid "Dancing Wu Li Masters," "The Tao of Physics," and "What the () Do We Know" as they're filled with sloppy thinking.
"The Physics of Immortality" might appeal to you, but, again, don't take it to seriously. It's written by a physicist but still takes some major leaps in logic.
posted by zanni at 1:07 PM on November 8, 2005
What, specifically, is sloppy in The Dancing Wu Li Masters? Despite the woo-woo title, my recollection is that it was sound (and had the best popularization of relativity I've read.)
posted by Zed_Lopez at 9:11 PM on November 8, 2005
posted by Zed_Lopez at 9:11 PM on November 8, 2005
I'm interested in learning about quantum physics especially in relation to the change in thinking it may bring about in terms of the nature of reality and in new approaches to spirituality.
Quantum physics has no effect on spirituality, so you don't need to read anything.
That was easy.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 AM on November 9, 2005
Quantum physics has no effect on spirituality, so you don't need to read anything.
That was easy.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 AM on November 9, 2005
QED is a great read, as is GEB. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid is not about physics but is easily the best book I have ever read. Mind expanding.
I read that book when I was middle school age, and I remember thinking that it totally shaped my thought process, although I'm not sure if I'd still say that today.
That book (about thought and AI) would be much more useful in understanding 'spirituality'.
Quantum physics is very hard to actually understand, and if you don't understand it, trying to use it for anything (particularly anything not having to do with physics) won't get you anything other then some cheesy, meaningless metaphor.
posted by delmoi at 10:01 AM on November 9, 2005
I read that book when I was middle school age, and I remember thinking that it totally shaped my thought process, although I'm not sure if I'd still say that today.
That book (about thought and AI) would be much more useful in understanding 'spirituality'.
Quantum physics is very hard to actually understand, and if you don't understand it, trying to use it for anything (particularly anything not having to do with physics) won't get you anything other then some cheesy, meaningless metaphor.
posted by delmoi at 10:01 AM on November 9, 2005
Zed_Lopez: I may be lumping "Wu-Li Masters" in unfairly with "Tao." It's been a long time since I've read it. One particular thing that really irked me at the time was the implication that quantum mechanics invalidated conventional logic (a much stronger, much more "woo-woo" claim than saying conventional logic doesn't apply to that domain). Again, it's been a long time.
posted by zanni at 1:15 AM on November 11, 2005
posted by zanni at 1:15 AM on November 11, 2005
zanni : "One particular thing that really irked me at the time was the implication that quantum mechanics invalidated conventional logic (a much stronger, much more 'woo-woo' claim than saying conventional logic doesn't apply to that domain)"
The two claims amount to the same thing. If 'conventional logic' doesn't, in fact, apply to phenomena at subatomic scales, then it is invalidated as the fundamental logic of the universe. Then you have a case where you postulate a fundamental logic F that reduces to conventional logic in certain domains and other logics in other domains. Obviously, conventional logic still rules at experiental scales. But 'Wu-Li Masters' is trying to tackle metaphysics, hence the apparent breakdown of conventional logic is significant. It throws open the possibility that conventional logic may be wrong at macroscopic scales as well in subtle ways, although asserting that it is, in fact, wrong, seems problematic to me.
posted by Gyan at 1:47 AM on November 11, 2005
The two claims amount to the same thing. If 'conventional logic' doesn't, in fact, apply to phenomena at subatomic scales, then it is invalidated as the fundamental logic of the universe. Then you have a case where you postulate a fundamental logic F that reduces to conventional logic in certain domains and other logics in other domains. Obviously, conventional logic still rules at experiental scales. But 'Wu-Li Masters' is trying to tackle metaphysics, hence the apparent breakdown of conventional logic is significant. It throws open the possibility that conventional logic may be wrong at macroscopic scales as well in subtle ways, although asserting that it is, in fact, wrong, seems problematic to me.
posted by Gyan at 1:47 AM on November 11, 2005
Er, no. And that's exactly my problem with the book. Logic is logic. It can't be wrong, it can only be misapplied. Just like arithmetic is arithmetic. 2+2 always equals 4. Always. If you have some physical process where two things combined with two more things sometimes gives you more than four things, well, that's physics, not arithmetic. It doesn't mean that 2+2 sometimes <> 4. It doesn't mean arithmetic is wrong. It only means that you can't apply it to this particular physical process.
The confusion stems in part from the idea that logic and arithmetic have anything to do with "the universe" in the first place. They don't. They're strictly conceptual, not empirical. The rules of logic are not determined experimentally. Rather, a set of axioms is acccepted and a set of theorems that logically derive from them are worked out. You can err in proving a theorem, but that's an error in the logician, not in logic itself.
The discovery that space is curved doesn't mean that Euclid was wrong, only that the geometry of space isn't Euclidean. Euclidean geometry still holds for flat space.
The distinction is, perhaps, subtle but signifcant.
posted by zanni at 5:22 AM on November 11, 2005
The confusion stems in part from the idea that logic and arithmetic have anything to do with "the universe" in the first place. They don't. They're strictly conceptual, not empirical. The rules of logic are not determined experimentally. Rather, a set of axioms is acccepted and a set of theorems that logically derive from them are worked out. You can err in proving a theorem, but that's an error in the logician, not in logic itself.
The discovery that space is curved doesn't mean that Euclid was wrong, only that the geometry of space isn't Euclidean. Euclidean geometry still holds for flat space.
The distinction is, perhaps, subtle but signifcant.
posted by zanni at 5:22 AM on November 11, 2005
Sorry, I haven't been following every detail of this thread, but...
There is formal logic, like you find here, there is intuition, and then there is 'conventional logic' as it has been raised here. Looking at the first two, I think there is a natural confusion between them and I don't really care weather a formal distinction is drawn or not.
Formal logic is not at all unlike arithmetic. The problem is that 1+1 = {1, 2, 3}, where you decide which based on the formalized rules you are using at the time (OR logic, arithmetic, creativity)*. Similar to what zanni is saying, I think formal logic is fundamentally the same as any other theory we posit to explain the workings of the universe - a human construct that works pretty well when tested.
Intuition turns out to be the same as logic, just less formal. I had an electrical engineering prof. who said basically "you don't learn how this works, you just get used to it". I take that as a very accurate statement about how learning works in general. Basically, learning is a restructuring of your intuition to accommodate the newly learned ideas.
Quantum physics is necessary to determine the physical properties of a semiconductor devices. Nonetheless, it turns out that semiconductor physics can be just as intuitive as any other physical phenomena. I would suggest that it is just as 'logical' as anything else too, but I'm not equipped to argue about formal logic with the rigour required, so...
So, without really knowing exactly what is meant by 'conventional logic', I would have to agree with zanni. No human construct actually represents the actual universe. We test different constructs, and we keep the ones that work. In the end we end up with a pretty sophisticated model that is pretty useful, but the model is never 'real'.
* OR is basically analogous to addition while AND is analogous to multiplication. James Burke points out that creativity works by taking two individual ideas and coming up with a third 'new' thing, hence 1 + 1 = 3. I also left out complex numbers, vectors, and who knows what else.
I guess the original question is about how all that interacts with metaphysics, ala the Matrix, or whatever. In answer to the original question I would suggest that quantum physics has no more effect on the metaphysical question than any other theory, which is why I flagged odinsdream's answer as fantastic.
posted by Chuckles at 7:44 AM on November 11, 2005
There is formal logic, like you find here, there is intuition, and then there is 'conventional logic' as it has been raised here. Looking at the first two, I think there is a natural confusion between them and I don't really care weather a formal distinction is drawn or not.
Formal logic is not at all unlike arithmetic. The problem is that 1+1 = {1, 2, 3}, where you decide which based on the formalized rules you are using at the time (OR logic, arithmetic, creativity)*. Similar to what zanni is saying, I think formal logic is fundamentally the same as any other theory we posit to explain the workings of the universe - a human construct that works pretty well when tested.
Intuition turns out to be the same as logic, just less formal. I had an electrical engineering prof. who said basically "you don't learn how this works, you just get used to it". I take that as a very accurate statement about how learning works in general. Basically, learning is a restructuring of your intuition to accommodate the newly learned ideas.
Quantum physics is necessary to determine the physical properties of a semiconductor devices. Nonetheless, it turns out that semiconductor physics can be just as intuitive as any other physical phenomena. I would suggest that it is just as 'logical' as anything else too, but I'm not equipped to argue about formal logic with the rigour required, so...
So, without really knowing exactly what is meant by 'conventional logic', I would have to agree with zanni. No human construct actually represents the actual universe. We test different constructs, and we keep the ones that work. In the end we end up with a pretty sophisticated model that is pretty useful, but the model is never 'real'.
* OR is basically analogous to addition while AND is analogous to multiplication. James Burke points out that creativity works by taking two individual ideas and coming up with a third 'new' thing, hence 1 + 1 = 3. I also left out complex numbers, vectors, and who knows what else.
I guess the original question is about how all that interacts with metaphysics, ala the Matrix, or whatever. In answer to the original question I would suggest that quantum physics has no more effect on the metaphysical question than any other theory, which is why I flagged odinsdream's answer as fantastic.
posted by Chuckles at 7:44 AM on November 11, 2005
I don't know the words to the second verse,
I just make 'em up as I go along
Can you tell me all the words,
All the words to Sesame Street,
All the words to Sesame Street
posted by Chuckles at 8:00 AM on November 11, 2005
I just make 'em up as I go along
Can you tell me all the words,
All the words to Sesame Street,
All the words to Sesame Street
posted by Chuckles at 8:00 AM on November 11, 2005
zanni : "Logic is logic. It can't be wrong, it can only be misapplied
...
"The rules of logic are not determined experimentally. Rather, a set of axioms is acccepted and a set of theorems that logically derive from them are worked out."
Those set of axioms are accepted based on empirical observation. The human brain is not distinct from the universe. It operates according to the very laws that it is trying to conceptualise. When I say logic can be wrong, I mean that the logic one formalizes to coincide with the workings of the universe. Obviously, K(ripke) or M can't be wrong or right; they're just conceptual frameworks. But when an assertion is made that the universe can't violate the axioms or theorems of K, then that can obviously be right or wrong, which is what I meant.
Chuckles : "that quantum physics has no more effect on the metaphysical question than any other theory"
How so? Are you saying we can't say that it does, or that it doesn't have any more effect?
posted by Gyan at 10:34 AM on November 11, 2005
...
"The rules of logic are not determined experimentally. Rather, a set of axioms is acccepted and a set of theorems that logically derive from them are worked out."
Those set of axioms are accepted based on empirical observation. The human brain is not distinct from the universe. It operates according to the very laws that it is trying to conceptualise. When I say logic can be wrong, I mean that the logic one formalizes to coincide with the workings of the universe. Obviously, K(ripke) or M can't be wrong or right; they're just conceptual frameworks. But when an assertion is made that the universe can't violate the axioms or theorems of K, then that can obviously be right or wrong, which is what I meant.
Chuckles : "that quantum physics has no more effect on the metaphysical question than any other theory"
How so? Are you saying we can't say that it does, or that it doesn't have any more effect?
posted by Gyan at 10:34 AM on November 11, 2005
I didn't really mean it quantitatively, Gyan, although I suppose we could look at it that way... I'm also not exactly sure I am invoking 'metaphysics' accurately.
Any given theory may or may not have an impact on any given metaphysical question. Consider Michael Persinger's theories about the effect of electromagnetic waves on the feeling of religiosity - or related, the so called Neurotheology. (I don't know anything much about Persinger, but I did just see a very interesting lecture by him courtesy of Big Ideas, let me know if you are interested in it)
One could argue that quantum physics is more important because it governs the smallest things we know of... There was a pretty interesting article on the question of reductionism posted in this comment today. I'm not sure Anderson's statements about 'most scientists today' are accurate - anyway, it was 33 years ago so how the hell would I know - but even if the specifics of his points aren't 'correct' it raises the question well enough.
A bullet exiting the barrel of a gun isn't much effected by the quantum physics of the particles in the gunpowder, nor by Earth's magnetic field. It isn't even much effected by gravity. There is a certain dominant effect which dictates what is going to happen (stoichiometry I suppose), a few significant lower order effects (rifling in the barrel), and a bunch of effects that register bellow the noise floor. You could restate this as "Our understanding of a bullet exiting the barrel of a gun isn't much effected...", but... I think that requires a leap of faith, I think it assumes that there is a theory of everything, or that reductionism can be perfected, or whatever...
posted by Chuckles at 11:32 PM on November 11, 2005
Any given theory may or may not have an impact on any given metaphysical question. Consider Michael Persinger's theories about the effect of electromagnetic waves on the feeling of religiosity - or related, the so called Neurotheology. (I don't know anything much about Persinger, but I did just see a very interesting lecture by him courtesy of Big Ideas, let me know if you are interested in it)
One could argue that quantum physics is more important because it governs the smallest things we know of... There was a pretty interesting article on the question of reductionism posted in this comment today. I'm not sure Anderson's statements about 'most scientists today' are accurate - anyway, it was 33 years ago so how the hell would I know - but even if the specifics of his points aren't 'correct' it raises the question well enough.
A bullet exiting the barrel of a gun isn't much effected by the quantum physics of the particles in the gunpowder, nor by Earth's magnetic field. It isn't even much effected by gravity. There is a certain dominant effect which dictates what is going to happen (stoichiometry I suppose), a few significant lower order effects (rifling in the barrel), and a bunch of effects that register bellow the noise floor. You could restate this as "Our understanding of a bullet exiting the barrel of a gun isn't much effected...", but... I think that requires a leap of faith, I think it assumes that there is a theory of everything, or that reductionism can be perfected, or whatever...
posted by Chuckles at 11:32 PM on November 11, 2005
Did I just say "it governs"... That is exactly the thinking I am arguing against! Let's pretend I said "it models"... :)
posted by Chuckles at 11:36 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by Chuckles at 11:36 PM on November 11, 2005
Chuckles : "One could argue that quantum physics is more important because it governs the smallest things we know of"
That's not the point. The idea is that among the diverse multitude of phenomena encountered in the world, they all seem to conform, or rather not violate, an intuitive sense of a fundamental logic of the universe. The phenomena at subatomic levels is a part of the real world as much as supernovas, microwave ovens and cannonballs. And apparently the SAL logic is counterintuitive and bizzare. To the extent that our metaphysical speculation is informed and predicated on our conception of the universe's logic, the oddity of QM throws a spanner in the works.
posted by Gyan at 1:27 AM on November 12, 2005
That's not the point. The idea is that among the diverse multitude of phenomena encountered in the world, they all seem to conform, or rather not violate, an intuitive sense of a fundamental logic of the universe. The phenomena at subatomic levels is a part of the real world as much as supernovas, microwave ovens and cannonballs. And apparently the SAL logic is counterintuitive and bizzare. To the extent that our metaphysical speculation is informed and predicated on our conception of the universe's logic, the oddity of QM throws a spanner in the works.
posted by Gyan at 1:27 AM on November 12, 2005
I would suggest that whether QM has any metaphysical implications depends entirely on what your individual metaphysical speculations are. That is no different than the link I posted to Neurtheology. Who would have thought that you could induce a supernatural experience by subjecting areas of the brain to electromagnetic fields? Wouldn't that be just as counter intuitive to Joan of Arc (or George Bush for that matter) as anything QM might throw at you?
QM does directly attack the notion of a mechanistic world that can be perfectly modeled, but you would have to believe that such a perfect model is possible before that has any metaphysical implication. (is this what you mean by 'fundamental logic of the universe'?)
That is where the Matrix comes in. It posits that a sufficiently large computer with a sufficiently good model could simulate reality. It is a perfectly good idea, but we have no way to know how big a sufficiently large computer would have to be. It is entirely possible that a computer capable of such a simulation would have to be larger, perhaps much larger, than the total of all matter in the universe. So much for a mechanistic world...
I guess if you want to get rid of the Matrix you could put it another way... Why should we assume that the fundamental logic of the universe can be expressed in any way that is less complex than the sum of all matter in the universe? It is entirely possible that the universe is an irreducible hole.
I don't know if the notion of an irreducible universe is true, I'm not even sure what I believe, but it isn't 'counter-intuitive' to me either way. On the other hand, I suppose an irreducible universe would have been just as counter intuitive to Einstein as EM induced supernatural experiences would have been to Joan of Arc.
posted by Chuckles at 2:34 AM on November 12, 2005
QM does directly attack the notion of a mechanistic world that can be perfectly modeled, but you would have to believe that such a perfect model is possible before that has any metaphysical implication. (is this what you mean by 'fundamental logic of the universe'?)
That is where the Matrix comes in. It posits that a sufficiently large computer with a sufficiently good model could simulate reality. It is a perfectly good idea, but we have no way to know how big a sufficiently large computer would have to be. It is entirely possible that a computer capable of such a simulation would have to be larger, perhaps much larger, than the total of all matter in the universe. So much for a mechanistic world...
I guess if you want to get rid of the Matrix you could put it another way... Why should we assume that the fundamental logic of the universe can be expressed in any way that is less complex than the sum of all matter in the universe? It is entirely possible that the universe is an irreducible hole.
I don't know if the notion of an irreducible universe is true, I'm not even sure what I believe, but it isn't 'counter-intuitive' to me either way. On the other hand, I suppose an irreducible universe would have been just as counter intuitive to Einstein as EM induced supernatural experiences would have been to Joan of Arc.
posted by Chuckles at 2:34 AM on November 12, 2005
Chuckles : "I would suggest that whether QM has any metaphysical implications depends entirely on what your individual metaphysical speculations are."
Oh yeah, ultimately, meaning is upto the observer. Including whether to adopt solipsism, but hopefully we aren't being so epistemologically austere in this discussion.
Chuckles : "but you would have to believe that such a perfect model is possible before that has any metaphysical implication"
Actually, the notion before QM was it might be possible. Now, not so much. But here's a key assertion that I've heard, which I'm not sure I agree with: that QM tells us that not only can we not know the exact position & momentum of a particle, the particle has no exact position and momentum. There's one thing you've brought up I don't agree with. Knowing the universe is mechanistic and/or reducible is not the same as reducing it. The ToE is a potential human expression of the fundamental logic, but the (reducible or not) FL still runs the world regardless. So one may discuss whether the world is ontologically simple, without discussing that simple principle itself.
posted by Gyan at 8:36 AM on November 12, 2005
Oh yeah, ultimately, meaning is upto the observer. Including whether to adopt solipsism, but hopefully we aren't being so epistemologically austere in this discussion.
Chuckles : "but you would have to believe that such a perfect model is possible before that has any metaphysical implication"
Actually, the notion before QM was it might be possible. Now, not so much. But here's a key assertion that I've heard, which I'm not sure I agree with: that QM tells us that not only can we not know the exact position & momentum of a particle, the particle has no exact position and momentum. There's one thing you've brought up I don't agree with. Knowing the universe is mechanistic and/or reducible is not the same as reducing it. The ToE is a potential human expression of the fundamental logic, but the (reducible or not) FL still runs the world regardless. So one may discuss whether the world is ontologically simple, without discussing that simple principle itself.
posted by Gyan at 8:36 AM on November 12, 2005
ultimately, meaning is up to the observer
That really isn't what I mean at all. It isn't that I think truth depends on the observer, but that QM only has a special place for certain observers - observers with a mechanistic/modernist world view, like Einstein (well, I don't know anything much about the real Einstein, but he seems like a good example).
the notion before QM was it might be possible. Now, not so much.
Ya... I'm not sure, but keep reading...
Knowing the universe is mechanistic and/or reducible is not the same as reducing it.
That sounds like a statement that isn't falsifiable (sorry to be pedantic with the links, I'm sure you get the point, but it makes it clearer on the off chance that there is a more general audience consuming this debate - as miniscule as that chance is).
The ToE is a potential human expression of the fundamental logic, but the (reducible or not) FL still runs the world regardless.
The universe is how it is, that is the only fundamental logic. As you say, the ToE is a potential human expression of that logic, and that is the real issue here.
The problem is that weather a ToE is possible or not is highly dependant on the semantics of what the ToE is to you. If you really do mean everything, then you pretty much have to run the simulation, and show that it worked, before you can actually claim that you've figured it out. If all you mean is a unified field theory, then so what! It wouldn't really address the ontological questions anyway.
(Of course a unified field theory would be earth-shattering, weather it is an important field of study or not isn't the point)
What does ontologically simple mean?
For example, I find random noise to be quite a simple idea. For practical purposes I don't care where it comes from, I know it is there, and that is that. Suppose I wanted to improve noise performance on some device. I could go looking for sources of noise, I might find a few and limit their effect, thus increasing the signal to noise ratio. But there would still be noise!
posted by Chuckles at 4:38 AM on November 14, 2005
That really isn't what I mean at all. It isn't that I think truth depends on the observer, but that QM only has a special place for certain observers - observers with a mechanistic/modernist world view, like Einstein (well, I don't know anything much about the real Einstein, but he seems like a good example).
the notion before QM was it might be possible. Now, not so much.
Ya... I'm not sure, but keep reading...
Knowing the universe is mechanistic and/or reducible is not the same as reducing it.
That sounds like a statement that isn't falsifiable (sorry to be pedantic with the links, I'm sure you get the point, but it makes it clearer on the off chance that there is a more general audience consuming this debate - as miniscule as that chance is).
The ToE is a potential human expression of the fundamental logic, but the (reducible or not) FL still runs the world regardless.
The universe is how it is, that is the only fundamental logic. As you say, the ToE is a potential human expression of that logic, and that is the real issue here.
The problem is that weather a ToE is possible or not is highly dependant on the semantics of what the ToE is to you. If you really do mean everything, then you pretty much have to run the simulation, and show that it worked, before you can actually claim that you've figured it out. If all you mean is a unified field theory, then so what! It wouldn't really address the ontological questions anyway.
(Of course a unified field theory would be earth-shattering, weather it is an important field of study or not isn't the point)
What does ontologically simple mean?
For example, I find random noise to be quite a simple idea. For practical purposes I don't care where it comes from, I know it is there, and that is that. Suppose I wanted to improve noise performance on some device. I could go looking for sources of noise, I might find a few and limit their effect, thus increasing the signal to noise ratio. But there would still be noise!
posted by Chuckles at 4:38 AM on November 14, 2005
Chuckles : "It isn't that I think truth depends on the observer"
Neither do I. I was replying to "QM has any metaphysical implications depends entirely on what your individual metaphysical speculations are.". Ultimately, each self is deciding what the meaning is.
Chuckles : "That sounds like a statement that isn't falsifiable"
Strictly, yes. Maybe, someone might formulates a condition that the world obeys only if it is mechanistic, and then confirm its presence, without finding out the mechanical principles themselves. But Induction remains a bitch.
Chuckles : "What does ontologically simple mean?"
That there aren't 204 distinct principles ruling the world in their different spheres. That's there is a single principle at work which manifests itself in diversity and multiplicity.
posted by Gyan at 10:04 AM on November 14, 2005
Neither do I. I was replying to "QM has any metaphysical implications depends entirely on what your individual metaphysical speculations are.". Ultimately, each self is deciding what the meaning is.
Chuckles : "That sounds like a statement that isn't falsifiable"
Strictly, yes. Maybe, someone might formulates a condition that the world obeys only if it is mechanistic, and then confirm its presence, without finding out the mechanical principles themselves. But Induction remains a bitch.
Chuckles : "What does ontologically simple mean?"
That there aren't 204 distinct principles ruling the world in their different spheres. That's there is a single principle at work which manifests itself in diversity and multiplicity.
posted by Gyan at 10:04 AM on November 14, 2005
odinsdream: Well - anyone with the basic knowledge that:
A. ...
B. ...
C. ...
Which is exactly the point, isn't it. That would be why you wrote this way up thread:
Gyan: That there aren't 204 distinct principles ruling the world in their different spheres. That's there is a single principle at work which manifests itself in diversity and multiplicity.
Okay, but the ontological questions still wouldn't be answered, even if you only had a couple of overarching principles, right? I mean, even if you could run the simulation you still wouldn't have the basic answers...
Anyway, I think the reason people feel drawn to the idea of a unified theory is the way so many connections keep coming up. I caught a bit of a Newton documentary that was on PBS last night, they were talking about how wondrous it is that the force which makes a cannon ball fall is also the force which keeps a planet in orbit. Sure, that is wondrous, but it is also misleading - aerodynamics are just as significant to the flight of a cannon ball as gravity!
posted by Chuckles at 12:19 AM on November 16, 2005
A. ...
B. ...
C. ...
Which is exactly the point, isn't it. That would be why you wrote this way up thread:
What if we lived in a time where magnetic fields were just now being discovered. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to say "I'm interested in learning about magnetic fields, especially in relation to the change in thinking it make bring about in terms of the nature of reality and in new approaches to spirituality." ?I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is now though.
Gyan: That there aren't 204 distinct principles ruling the world in their different spheres. That's there is a single principle at work which manifests itself in diversity and multiplicity.
Okay, but the ontological questions still wouldn't be answered, even if you only had a couple of overarching principles, right? I mean, even if you could run the simulation you still wouldn't have the basic answers...
Anyway, I think the reason people feel drawn to the idea of a unified theory is the way so many connections keep coming up. I caught a bit of a Newton documentary that was on PBS last night, they were talking about how wondrous it is that the force which makes a cannon ball fall is also the force which keeps a planet in orbit. Sure, that is wondrous, but it is also misleading - aerodynamics are just as significant to the flight of a cannon ball as gravity!
posted by Chuckles at 12:19 AM on November 16, 2005
If anyone is still following this thread it may well be worth noting that:
1. The founding father's of quantum mechanical theory all agreed that it was not about reality but about the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. See the introduction to Wilbur's Quantum Questions
2. Any theory or interpretation of physics is grounded in the metaphysical views held by the theorist or the interpreter. A theory (deriving from the same root as theatre) is a way of seeing. It may reveal certain information that another theory won't. A theory of everything is about as possible as a final poem after which no other poem ever need be written
3. If physics - the study of the physical world - cannot be relevant to the spiritual, then what is it about? The objects of study by physicists are supposed to be the stuff that we are all made of. If we are told we cannot understand it without understanding the math, then there is something funamentally wrong.
posted by donfactor at 7:42 AM on November 22, 2005
1. The founding father's of quantum mechanical theory all agreed that it was not about reality but about the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. See the introduction to Wilbur's Quantum Questions
2. Any theory or interpretation of physics is grounded in the metaphysical views held by the theorist or the interpreter. A theory (deriving from the same root as theatre) is a way of seeing. It may reveal certain information that another theory won't. A theory of everything is about as possible as a final poem after which no other poem ever need be written
3. If physics - the study of the physical world - cannot be relevant to the spiritual, then what is it about? The objects of study by physicists are supposed to be the stuff that we are all made of. If we are told we cannot understand it without understanding the math, then there is something funamentally wrong.
posted by donfactor at 7:42 AM on November 22, 2005
donfactor : "If we are told we cannot understand it without understanding the math, then there is something funamentally wrong."
No, it just means the language necessary to communicate, is different than what we expect. Both English and mathematics communicate ideas using symbols. They just operate along different routes and rules. After all, humans devised (and work with) mathematical symbols and logic.
posted by Gyan at 1:32 AM on November 24, 2005
No, it just means the language necessary to communicate, is different than what we expect. Both English and mathematics communicate ideas using symbols. They just operate along different routes and rules. After all, humans devised (and work with) mathematical symbols and logic.
posted by Gyan at 1:32 AM on November 24, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
If Hunter S Thompson wrote an introdutory physics textbook and had Jerry Bruckheimer work on the exciting bits and explosions, this is what you'd get.
posted by cosmicbandito at 9:53 PM on November 7, 2005