Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Michio Kaku says that God could be a mathematician: "The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God."
Jan 8, 2013 3:24 AM
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
For string theory to be physics it needs to be true first, right? So, I don't really buy the last part of his story that physics gave rise to new mathematics. It's probably way more accurate to say that physicists just became obsessed with mathematics, which - surprise, surprise - produced interesting new mathematical insights.
By: wadadde
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
String theory is a branch of physics. It may be onto something big, or it may lead nowhere, but either way, it's physics. Even if it's completely wrong, it's physics.
The concept of proof goes with math, not science. Science is never true. But strong science is consistent with observation. The most revolutionary science begins with speculation and stretching imagination as far as it can go. But eventually, as with his story of Newton and Einstein, these ideas must eventually match the natural world in a verifiable way. String theory is beyond our experimental reach for the foreseeable future. It's hugely incomplete, and has not provided us anything useful. Perhaps it's become a "badge of honor" for Michio Kaku to work in a field as useless as some branches of mathematics.
However, we do know that the two most experimentally accurate theories ever developed, quantum mechanics and general relativity are useless at the opposite scale, and are mathematically incompatible. In some sense, we can say that one or the other, probably both of the most highly verified theories in all of science MUST be untrue. Even so, they are science.
The concept of proof goes with math, not science. Science is never true. But strong science is consistent with observation. The most revolutionary science begins with speculation and stretching imagination as far as it can go. But eventually, as with his story of Newton and Einstein, these ideas must eventually match the natural world in a verifiable way. String theory is beyond our experimental reach for the foreseeable future. It's hugely incomplete, and has not provided us anything useful. Perhaps it's become a "badge of honor" for Michio Kaku to work in a field as useless as some branches of mathematics.
However, we do know that the two most experimentally accurate theories ever developed, quantum mechanics and general relativity are useless at the opposite scale, and are mathematically incompatible. In some sense, we can say that one or the other, probably both of the most highly verified theories in all of science MUST be untrue. Even so, they are science.
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
A very informative comment.
Do you understand, Loqi, that I tried to reveal the ambiguity in terms like "physics" that the story of Kaku (giggle)relies upon. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair of me to frame physics as the science that describes how our universe works (consistent with our best observations blablabla...), as opposed to the endeavor of trying to unravel how our universe might work.
The thing that makes Kaku's story an appealing story is that it has an elegant simplicity to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it's a forced simplicity. Language sucks.
"Even so, they are science". Well, for now, right? If you're right then on of them will be science history, which is no doubt still science, but that's only because the word "science" is very inclusive. Again, language..
"The concept of proof goes with math, not science..." Bullshit. Or, very true. Do you really have a problem with people using the word "proof" in the context of science? If so, I'd like another word that already has built into it the idea that scientific proof is not absolute, that it's just not exactly the same as with math. I don't know such a word.
Thanks.
Do you understand, Loqi, that I tried to reveal the ambiguity in terms like "physics" that the story of Kaku (giggle)relies upon. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair of me to frame physics as the science that describes how our universe works (consistent with our best observations blablabla...), as opposed to the endeavor of trying to unravel how our universe might work.
The thing that makes Kaku's story an appealing story is that it has an elegant simplicity to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it's a forced simplicity. Language sucks.
"Even so, they are science". Well, for now, right? If you're right then on of them will be science history, which is no doubt still science, but that's only because the word "science" is very inclusive. Again, language..
"The concept of proof goes with math, not science..." Bullshit. Or, very true. Do you really have a problem with people using the word "proof" in the context of science? If so, I'd like another word that already has built into it the idea that scientific proof is not absolute, that it's just not exactly the same as with math. I don't know such a word.
Thanks.
By: wadadde
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
Mathematics can use proof precisely because it is has no obligation to match reality. It basically goes like this: If we make up a bunch of logically consistent rules, then we can deduce new, less obvious statements which must also be true within the context of our internally consistent game. I find it surprising that the natural world appears to be obliged to play that game along with us, despite mathematics not even trying to match any particular reality.
The preferred word in science is 'evidence.' There is no proof or truth, only evidence and expert consensus. Sometimes people say proof when they mean lots of evidence. No big deal, unless they're a creationist or something, like so:
"Evolution is merely a theory. After over a century, it still hasn't been proved."
Translation: "The theory of evolution is merely a fundamental explanation for how life functions. After over a century of attack by informed and ignorant opponents alike, it continues to be supported by a growing mountain of observational and experimental evidence, and is now accepted by close to 100% of working biologists."
String theory has little or no evidence supporting it. For this reason, some observers criticize it as being in the realm of faith. Relativity was beyond verification before we developed the means to see gravitational lensing, or to cause nuclear fission. That doesn't make it non-science until proven science. General relativity has overturned, or at least refined Newtonian mechanics. We still use Newtonian mechanics for most engineering purposes, even though we now consider it not quite right. The math is easier and it's usually right enough.
String theory is potentially falsifiable. It's just not actually falsifiable with current technology.
The preferred word in science is 'evidence.' There is no proof or truth, only evidence and expert consensus. Sometimes people say proof when they mean lots of evidence. No big deal, unless they're a creationist or something, like so:
"Evolution is merely a theory. After over a century, it still hasn't been proved."
Translation: "The theory of evolution is merely a fundamental explanation for how life functions. After over a century of attack by informed and ignorant opponents alike, it continues to be supported by a growing mountain of observational and experimental evidence, and is now accepted by close to 100% of working biologists."
String theory has little or no evidence supporting it. For this reason, some observers criticize it as being in the realm of faith. Relativity was beyond verification before we developed the means to see gravitational lensing, or to cause nuclear fission. That doesn't make it non-science until proven science. General relativity has overturned, or at least refined Newtonian mechanics. We still use Newtonian mechanics for most engineering purposes, even though we now consider it not quite right. The math is easier and it's usually right enough.
String theory is potentially falsifiable. It's just not actually falsifiable with current technology.
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
"String theory has [potentially] no evidence supporting it. For this reason, some observers criticize it as being in the realm of faith."
Well, some of those observers are world class scientists. And they're not saying that it's within the realm of faith just because there isn't any evidence for it yet. They're complaining because string theorists, they allege, design their 'theories' as 'eternal hypotheses', impervious to falsification. Not a theory of everything, but a theory of anything.
Yet you assert unequivocally : "String theory [...] is physics. Even if it's completely wrong, it's physics".
Do you see my problem? Either you've simply chosen to disregard the objections of 'the haters', in which case everything makes perfect sense to me, but then why am I not allowed to do the same thing in reverse and refer to string theory as mathematical science fantasy (at least for the time being). Or the idea that string theory is certainly physics has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether it's entirely scientific (evidence-oriented, information-generating) . In this case things get a bit more complicated, despite the fact that we've now cast of the burden of science. I'm sure you agree that there are ideas about how the (material) world work that are really not physics. So let us list the criteria required for labeling something 'physics'. Nr1: intent. Math is not physics (among other things) because it doesn't presume to explain anything about the natural world. String theory does deserve to be included because of intent. The trouble is that the only interesting thing string theory brings to the table is math and faith in math. Well, it also builds on scientific ideas/knowledge. So that's potentially requirement nr2. Trouble is that the first scientific (in its most narrow sense) theory doesn't build on science. So it's not a solid requirement. What's nr2? Fuck it, I'm already stuck.
I guess what I'm trying to show - mostly to myself - is that on the one hand you're very precise and knowledgeable about the subject, but on the other you're very generous about applying the label "physics" with regard to string theory. Enough people, who are part of the science gang are pursuing this stuff, therefore it's physics, even if it never gets to the stage where falsification will be possible. It's intimately related to science and shares the same goal as science, therefore it's science. It's close enough or somthingh.
As you can see, I still think it's all a bit fuzzy. Not confusing, just fuzzy and a tad bit arbitrary.
Well, some of those observers are world class scientists. And they're not saying that it's within the realm of faith just because there isn't any evidence for it yet. They're complaining because string theorists, they allege, design their 'theories' as 'eternal hypotheses', impervious to falsification. Not a theory of everything, but a theory of anything.
Yet you assert unequivocally : "String theory [...] is physics. Even if it's completely wrong, it's physics".
Do you see my problem? Either you've simply chosen to disregard the objections of 'the haters', in which case everything makes perfect sense to me, but then why am I not allowed to do the same thing in reverse and refer to string theory as mathematical science fantasy (at least for the time being). Or the idea that string theory is certainly physics has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether it's entirely scientific (evidence-oriented, information-generating) . In this case things get a bit more complicated, despite the fact that we've now cast of the burden of science. I'm sure you agree that there are ideas about how the (material) world work that are really not physics. So let us list the criteria required for labeling something 'physics'. Nr1: intent. Math is not physics (among other things) because it doesn't presume to explain anything about the natural world. String theory does deserve to be included because of intent. The trouble is that the only interesting thing string theory brings to the table is math and faith in math. Well, it also builds on scientific ideas/knowledge. So that's potentially requirement nr2. Trouble is that the first scientific (in its most narrow sense) theory doesn't build on science. So it's not a solid requirement. What's nr2? Fuck it, I'm already stuck.
I guess what I'm trying to show - mostly to myself - is that on the one hand you're very precise and knowledgeable about the subject, but on the other you're very generous about applying the label "physics" with regard to string theory. Enough people, who are part of the science gang are pursuing this stuff, therefore it's physics, even if it never gets to the stage where falsification will be possible. It's intimately related to science and shares the same goal as science, therefore it's science. It's close enough or somthingh.
As you can see, I still think it's all a bit fuzzy. Not confusing, just fuzzy and a tad bit arbitrary.
By: wadadde
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
How does one describe the physical universe without mathematics?
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
Oh, I didn't say that that 's possible. I even think that the idea that mathematics on steroids can force a major breakthrough in science is unbelievably cool. I like that whole 'mathematics : language of the universe' stuff and all that it could mean.
By: wadadde
