Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: Amen! (and more on String Theory)

The problem of modelling nature
Gary — (archived)

Nathan Koren said:

"While a valid Theory of Everything should be *elegant*, I don't think that it should necessarily appear *simple* to our very limited monkey-brains. It's an awfully complex universe out there, and a simple explaination for it shouldn't be presumed."

--- end quote ---

All we're really doing with physics is coming up with a model of nature. The model's media has to be something that is logically self consistent. It can be represented with compass and straight edge or the symbols of calculus or a numerical algorithm in a computer or what ever. The root problem with a "Theory of Everything" is: Do we have adequate symbols to model it? Or to put it in other words: Which is more fundamental, physics or mathematics? I would argue that ultimately mathematics is founded upon physics. You can only go so deep describing physics with mathematics until you drop within mathematic's own physical basis and then you're forced to use another media for modelling. I'm now touching upon the subject of metamathematics which is something that I do not understand.

Gary

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (36 posts)