Constructs of our minds: Revised.
Eduardo G. Moros (email@example.com)
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:16:50 -0500
De la Torre's letter in Physics Today (Sep. 97, p.15) argues that "physical
reality is, to some extent, a construct of our own; mathematics is innate to
this constructive process; and we construct physical reality so that it
complies to mathematics" and *not* always the other way around. He quotes Carl
Adler who argued that the neutrino could exist only in a certain context: a
theoretical structure and specific experimental arrangements. His letter
cites several interesting examples that show that "mathematics is essential to
the very existence of elementary particles and, in general, is an
indispensable condition of physical reality." He adds "we thus see that the
context in which elementary particles exist is, to some extent, constructed by
us, and so are the existence of those particles and physical reality ...... we
adjust physical reality so that it agrees with mathematics .......
consequently we find that reality is mathematical in nature." He even quotes
A. Eddington statement in Space, Time and Gravitation (1959) "the mind has but
to regained from nature that which the mind has put into nature." De la Torre
concludes his letter saying that "mathematics is inherent in the construction
of both physical reality and physics. "
Since we have been discussion rather abstracts subjects lately (multiplicity
of universes, cyclical universes, the B.B., I.D., extraterrestrial life, etc.
I thought I throw this wrench into the discussion.
Are the things discussed in this forum lately true "realities"?
How good is the Genesis account in view of the math of antiquity and of today?
Is the B.B. just a mathematical construct as the neutrino could be?
Are we trying to mold our scientific views to our theology or viceversa just
as physics and physical reality does to mathematics?
Are we deluting ourselves TO SOME EXTENT?