Is it possible we are not equiped to understand the universe

[JimC]

There's something even worse -- the mathematics necessary to understand it. Even the math of Newtonian mechanics goes way over the heads of many people.

So we are not directly adapted to understand mathematics.

Strictly speaking, we haven't needed to. When we move, we don't solve the equations of motion and work out the best solutions. Instead, we use lots of unconscious rules of thumb.

The mathematics necessary to calculate the change you should expect at the supermarket exceeds the capacity of many people! However, provided that the right buttons are pressed, the till can be relied upon to give us the right answer. I can assure you that it would soon become apparent if the till were not doing!

When the 4-colour map problem was solved, a computer was used to mass-process a huge number of probable scenarios and eliminate them. No human has ever worked through these scenarios (nor could they in any reasonable length of time) but they are confirmed by other, improved, computer algorithms giving the same result independently.

I also take exception to your claim that 'we are not directly adapted to understand mathematics' - mainly because I am not sure exactly what you are saying, nor how you extrapolate that statement from what goes on in 'the heads of many people'. I can understand most Newtonian mechanics quite comfortably. In the case of 'most people', what is lacking is not the capacity but either the intelligence, or else the training, the will and the practice required to grasp the concepts.

I suspect lpetrich may have meant that we are not adapted to do or understand maths beyond simple counting and addition in the sense that it does not come easily and virtually unconsciously, like language development, reading faces, remembering landscape details and understanding social interactions. We can indeed manage it, but it requires a lot of effort, practice and does not come easily to most.

This is a very interesting thread, Rum as always has a knack of starting great threads. FUWF made a great contibution, as did others. I agree that some scientific models of the universe (Newtonian, for example) are very amenable to visualisation and processing by our cognitive structures. Others, like quantum mechanics, are not, but it is to our credit as a species that we have managed, by hard work, to create the mathematical tools which let us work within the model, even if it may never be a comfortable fit with our deire to intuitively grasp it as a pattern, one that we can relate to everyday aspects of our lives.

[Surendra Darathy]

Consider that 99.9999999999999% (that should be 13 9s after the decimal) of atoms are empty space, and that 96% of the universe is made of stuff that we can't detect and know jack shit about. We don't know dick about the universe.

The real tragedy is that we are not equipped to be satisfied until we under-fucking-stand abso-fucking-lutely every-fucking-thing. Starting with "what is a thing?"

Take domestic house cats, for an example in how to do it right. When they have nothing to do, they fall asleep.

[FBM]

Consider that 99.9999999999999% (that should be 13 9s after the decimal) of atoms are empty space, and that 96% of the universe is made of stuff that we can't detect and know jack shit about. We don't know dick about the universe.

The real tragedy is that we are not equipped to be satisfied until we under-fucking-stand abso-fucking-lutely every-fucking-thing. Starting with "what is a thing?"

Take domestic house cats, for an example in how to do it right. When they have nothing to do, they fall asleep.

I envy animals, except for humans.

If I can borrow and extend XC's analogy of painting our house while locked in the bathroom: Seems to me that until very recently, in historical terms, both scientists and theists have been guilty of claiming to have the house completely painted, all the while overwhelmingly ignorant of how much there actually was outside the bathroom. Scientists, as least, have started emphasizing how much they don't know, and how provisional their current models are, whereas theists...well, that's for another thread.

[lpetrich]

I suspect lpetrich may have meant that we are not adapted to do or understand maths beyond simple counting and addition in the sense that it does not come easily and virtually unconsciously, like language development, reading faces, remembering landscape details and understanding social interactions. We can indeed manage it, but it requires a lot of effort, practice and does not come easily to most.

That's indeed what I mean.

This is a very interesting thread, Rum as always has a knack of starting great threads. FUWF made a great contibution, as did others. I agree that some scientific models of the universe (Newtonian, for example) are very amenable to visualisation and processing by our cognitive structures. Others, like quantum mechanics, are not, but it is to our credit as a species that we have managed, by hard work, to create the mathematical tools which let us work within the model, even if it may never be a comfortable fit with our deire to intuitively grasp it as a pattern, one that we can relate to everyday aspects of our lives.

Although Newtonian mechanics is much easier to picture than quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics nevertheless requires some mathematics to get precise predictions out of it.

[JimC]

lpetrich wrote:

Although Newtonian mechanics is much easier to picture than quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics nevertheless requires some mathematics to get precise predictions out of it.

Indeed it does; it is, of course, a big part of what I teach in my high school physics class. I have found that the actual maths is not hard (the solving equations part, at least) for most reasonable students; it is taking the written information in a problem, and moving to an appropriate formula...

It's interesting that there are still some areas of human "intuitive physics" that need to be discarded before students can have a useful internal model of Newtonian mechanics. For example, the tendency to want to see a force responsible for motion in general, rather than just changes in motion...

[lpetrich]

It's interesting that there are still some areas of human "intuitive physics" that need to be discarded before students can have a useful internal model of Newtonian mechanics. For example, the tendency to want to see a force responsible for motion in general, rather than just changes in motion...

Seems like a side effect of moving by walking, and also of an environment with a lot of friction. But you could point out how cycling and skating will give one direct experience of low-friction motion that does not require continual leg action. You could even explain that bike brakes work by making friction.

[JimC]

It's interesting that there are still some areas of human "intuitive physics" that need to be discarded before students can have a useful internal model of Newtonian mechanics. For example, the tendency to want to see a force responsible for motion in general, rather than just changes in motion...

Seems like a side effect of moving by walking, and also of an environment with a lot of friction. But you could point out how cycling and skating will give one direct experience of low-friction motion that does not require continual leg action. You could even explain that bike brakes work by making friction.

Indeed, I use a variety of similar examples, and we also have an "air bench" which makes for a good demonstration. Actually, exploring and making explicit such intuitive impressions is part of the "deconstruction" phase of teaching physics.

[Boyle]

It is possible, of course. I don't think this is the case, however.

We like things being visualized. We use metaphors in order to comprehend things at a deeper level that we can't grasp at first. One example is electricity; it is always likened to water flowing through a pipe, which is great if you are just being introduced, but completely subversive once you start to understand that electricity has precious little in common wither the flow of water. It is convenient to think of it in terms of metaphors, but that will only prevent you from understanding it further.

Unfortunately, many people have an aversion to the only proper descriptor of electricity: mathematics. It seems so trivial when you say V=IR to describe electric potential, or when you say I=nAvQ to describe the drift of electrons.

What we find difficulty in doing is visualizing things. We can't really visualize many aspects of quantum mechanics because it is so removed from our experience that we have no metaphors to look through to bring it into focus. Instead, we use what many people view as clunky, impersonal, and boring definitions. We use numbers. In doing so, we can understand that we alter a particles state by observing it; we can understand that entering a black hole will kill you due to gravitational effects; and we can understand that a particle can't be fully described at any time t. Sure, this isn't wholly satisfying since we can't visualize it, but simply because we aren't satisfied with the answer does not mean that the answer isn't understandable.

We do understand, and can understand, the universe. We just aren't satisfied with it. We expect it to follow the rules that we set up, and then are surprised when it doesn't, which, to be honest, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. The nature of the universe isn't subject to our logic.

[The Dagda]

It's possible,it's possible that tiny vibrating fairies are responsible for all behaviours of matter too. That said the idea that quantum is what reality is even to the extent of time itself is hardly a new idea, it doesn't mean that we can't view reality though, just that when we do we have to allow for the subjectivity of such observation given our classical perspective. Without such intuitive allowances all of physics wouldn't exist.

Of course the string theorists may be right and the Universe is entirely classical after all but we'll likely never know as they don't do evidence.

In physics maths is so important that its hard to see how you can get a truly representative understanding of quantum mechanics without at least knowing the basics of calculus, trig etc. Hence the sheer weight of thread on forums about why light doesn't ever propagate at less than c, the twins paradox is a paradox. Is light a wave and a particle and so on. Of course the answer to all is, because of relativity, no it isn't, and yes like the old bird and cage spinning disc it is both.

http://blog.stylefeeder.com/wp-content/ ... 00x300.jpg[/imgc]

[hackenslash]

I have a sneaking feeling that the question will be answered if gravity and QM are ever unified. It may be, of course, that they can't be unified, and that the universe really does operate on different principles at different scales, in which case we probably may never it, even once we work out why they may not be unified.

If M-Theory turns out to be the answer, then I think yes, we are equipped to understand it, once they work out how to tame the infinities so that more straightforward calculations can be made.

[lpetrich]

Newtonian mechanics is the most intuitive of the fundamental theories devised so far, but even Newtonian mechanics has its counterintuitive aspects.

Special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are even more counterintuitive. Try picturing wave-particle duality some time.

String theory is even worse, I'm sure, and I suspect that M-theory will be at least as bad as string theory in that respect.

[hackenslash]

Newtonian mechanics is the most intuitive of the fundamental theories devised so far, but even Newtonian mechanics has its counterintuitive aspects.

Special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are even more counterintuitive. Try picturing wave-particle duality some time.

String theory is even worse, I'm sure, and I suspect that M-theory will be at least as bad as string theory in that respect.

Err, M-Theory is string theory. More accurately, it's the unification of the string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity, through duality.

[The Dagda]

Newtonian mechanics is the most intuitive of the fundamental theories devised so far, but even Newtonian mechanics has its counterintuitive aspects.

Special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are even more counterintuitive. Try picturing wave-particle duality some time.

String theory is even worse, I'm sure, and I suspect that M-theory will be at least as bad as string theory in that respect.

Err, M-Theory is string theory. More accurately, it's the unification of the string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity, through duality.

It's a house of cards built on a house of cards with no scientific foundation atm too. But then since when has scinece neededd experiments that are independantly tested and verified? Oh no right always. And no I'm not trolling I just don't see how an evidenceless theory is a theory at all. Science requires you to at least take a shot at experiment without it you're not even wrong.

[hackenslash]

Science doesn't require that you have tested and verified, only that your ideas are testable and falsifiable. I have already stated that I don't consider M-Theory to be worthy of the appellation 'theory' as yet, so I'm not sure quite what your objection is here. It is in principle testable and falsifiable based on the predictions arising from it so, while it may not yet be worthy of the appelation 'theory' it still constitutes science.

[The Dagda]

Science doesn't require that you have tested and verified, only that your ideas are testable and falsifiable. I have already stated that I don't consider M-Theory to be worthy of the appellation 'theory' as yet, so I'm not sure quite what your objection is here. It is in principle testable and falsifiable based on the predictions arising from it so, while it may not yet be worthy of the appelation 'theory' it still constitutes science.

That would be a hypothesis then, if it can be falsified but isn't testable it isn't even a very good one but meh I've seen worse. Do you just repeat such things like a mantra to convince yourself that theory means maths not evidence, and a hypothesis is something that wont be testable for perhaps ever.

I never argued it wasn't science to hypothesise but to not deliver on your promise is not science it is arm waving away things. What I object to is not that it isn't science, I don't think it is even proper science but meh been there seen that. I think its nothing more than the doodles of bored mathematicians that can and does apply to anything. But then prove me wrong? I don't get why anyone becomes enthralled by a "theory" with so little going for it empirically, I don't get why they feel no need to prove anything they say and just go on to build ever taller house of cards. That is not science speculation on speculation is wishful thinking, it certainly isn't good form.

It's not even that important that I don't think these people are really doing science, that's a matter of opinion, its the fact that they seem to have no use for the method that is really damaging to the field.