Philosophy Now Forum

Physics and Mathematic. / dialogue./
#
For example, number ( -3 ) can exist as a mathematical
concept, but you cannot find a physical number (-3).
/ Bill S./
===.
#
‘ What I mean is illustrated by the case of the number Three . . .
. . . . take the number Three. Don’t you think that it must
always be described not only by its own name but by that
of Odd, although Odd and Three are not the same thing? ‘
/ The last days of Socrates.
Plato. Page 164. /
==.
Can it be that ‘the number Three’ is a individual physical
particle which acts ‘ by its own name’ independently.
And ‘ by that of Odd’ means its interaction with other
numbers/ particles which can be explain mathematical.
As Socrates said: ‘Odd and Three are not the same thing’
‘The number Three’ is reason for ‘Odd’ – for math solution.
/ Israel Socratus ./
#
Bill S. wrote:
I cannot see that ‘the number Three’ is a "particle"
of any sort, nor do I see how it could act independently.
Perhaps, in pure mathematics, at might be possible
to regard any number as an entity in its own right,
but as a practical application a number must be
a number of something in order to have any "reality".
===.
Socratus answered:
Let us take radiation .
The Kinetic Theory of Heat considered heat to be
the result of random motion of the numerous
individual particles. Since it would be impossible
to follow the motion of each single individual particle
participating in thermal motion,
the mathematical statistical method need be used.

So, the basis of Kinetic Theory of Heat is a single
individual particle, but the mathematical statistical
average value takes over a single individual particle. (!)

Therefore Mr. Bill S. wrote ’ I cannot see that
‘the number Three’ is a "particle" of any sort ‘.
#
But Kinetic Theory of Heat ---> goes to Quantum Theory (!)
What do we know about a single individual particle which
takes participation in Quantum Theory?
Do we know its geometrical shape ?
Point ? String ? Sphere? Drop?
Do we know how it can act?
We only can write the mathematical formula E=h*f
as a result of its individual electromagnetic vibration
(frequency).

Therefore Mr. Bill S. wrote ’. . . nor do I see how it
could act independently.’
#
We don’t know the particle, we know the result of its action.
The medal has two sides and we see only one of its side.
The particle and its waves not the same.
As Socrates said: ‘Odd and Three are not the same thing’
===.
I. S.

Comment by leonardomenderes :
#
Interestingly enough,
quantum pumps are used to control
and observe particles one by one now,
to achieve absolute zero.

Inside the working of Physics,
the waves and particles are coordinated
parts, not faces. A particle is waves
of moving energy trapped and stilled.
A wave is the energy free of
boundary conditions.

Sometimes the 'limits of my knowledge'
are projected to be 'the limits of all knowledge'.
But everyone has their boundary conditions.
Assume you are complete, and entropy
will come and gnaw on the defects.
What we know has a diffuse edge.
We need to know how to live with that,
to escape that personal desire for
simplicity that drives epistemic hegemony.
/ leonardomenderes /

socratus wrote:Comment by leonardomenderes :
#
Interestingly enough, quantum pumps are used to control and observe particles one by one now, to achieve absolute zero. ...

I thought this in theory impossible?