Mathematical constants...can they change?

[TheFly]

Idk if this makes things more complicated but there is no past or future just "now" and with out memory like someone posted earlier this is an intresting observation that this is indeed true. Ultimatly i believe there is no time or space, just now

 

[polytrip]

I've had this thought for quite some time now. And I'm more and more sure of it everyday, so I think I'll share with you all, I would like to hear feedback (especially from a mathematician).

So hear it is:
-Paradigm shifts change mathematical constants
-observing truth changes it
-DMT is a tool that facilitates paradigm shifts (i think through worm holes)

what do you all think of my ideas?

I think that depends on what mathematical system you use.
The mathematics of string theory is full of constants that change. I don't think the constants behind that, the constants that determine how constants are changed, change themselves though.

There are many mathematical systems where the rules change during the proces of use.

 

[seven7seven]

WOW, thanks for all the positive feedback. I now feel much less insane. I looked into some of the theories, and it seems like a lot of people believe constants change. Thanks for all the replies!

 

[hoppah]

As someone else said, one must be careful when making generalizations. Some "constants", like c, could be variable depending upon how the physics of the Universe might change with time. Many such constants had no meaning before a certain point in time in the Universe's development (the Planck time). However, logical mathematical constants such as pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, cannot change (in any given mathematical domain).

H.

 

[TheFly]

I think we must all remeber that mathmatics is just a tool. A tool for our realm not the truth in its self just like a shovel is useless in the molecule realm but at the same time the shovel modifys wheres those molecules go. So constants can change if you apply them to a different realm

 

[hoppah]

I think we must all remeber that mathmatics is just a tool. A tool for our realm not the truth in its self just like a shovel is useless in the molecule realm but at the same time the shovel modifys wheres those molecules go. So constants can change if you apply them to a different realm

Statements like this are based upon an incomplete understanding of what mathematics is. Mathematics is an extension of formal logic. Mathematical truths (theorems) are built from fundamental logical statements (axioms). Axioms are statements that any rational being would agree are true without need for proof. Any being advanced enough to understand the _concept_ of a circle and the _concept_ of a diameter and the _concept_ of "flatness" (restricting, in this case, to what we call "Euclidean" geometry, that is, geometry of objects on a flat plane, for simplicity's sake), then they must necessarily note that the length of the circle's circumference divided by its diameter is pi, no matter what "realm" they're from.

H.

 

[polytrip]

I think we must all remeber that mathmatics is just a tool. A tool for our realm not the truth in its self just like a shovel is useless in the molecule realm but at the same time the shovel modifys wheres those molecules go. So constants can change if you apply them to a different realm

Statements like this are based upon an incomplete understanding of what mathematics is. Mathematics is an extension of formal logic. Mathematical truths (theorems) are built from fundamental logical statements (axioms). Axioms are statements that any rational being would agree are true without need for proof. Any being advanced enough to understand the _concept_ of a circle and the _concept_ of a diameter and the _concept_ of "flatness" (restricting, in this case, to what we call "Euclidean" geometry, that is, geometry of objects on a flat plane, for simplicity's sake), then they must necessarily note that the length of the circle's circumference divided by its diameter is pi, no matter what "realm" they're from.

H.

You could still define those concepts differently. Also, formal logic is not just one single system. There are many different logical systems like lambda and the most often used predicate and proposition logic.
You could argue that logically, the concept of a circle is an illusion that could only be computed within a certain range of scale. For instance because space is discrete or because the powers to compute pi are theoretically limited.
In the fist case, any circle would not be a line but a series of dots and then every circle would have anly an aproximation of pi varying with the scale of the circle. In the second case, there cannot be a concept of a circle because any conceptual circle would in the end exist out of a finite amount of bits and bites, with the same outcome.

 

[hoppah]

I think we must all remeber that mathmatics is just a tool. A tool for our realm not the truth in its self just like a shovel is useless in the molecule realm but at the same time the shovel modifys wheres those molecules go. So constants can change if you apply them to a different realm

Statements like this are based upon an incomplete understanding of what mathematics is. Mathematics is an extension of formal logic. Mathematical truths (theorems) are built from fundamental logical statements (axioms). Axioms are statements that any rational being would agree are true without need for proof. Any being advanced enough to understand the _concept_ of a circle and the _concept_ of a diameter and the _concept_ of "flatness" (restricting, in this case, to what we call "Euclidean" geometry, that is, geometry of objects on a flat plane, for simplicity's sake), then they must necessarily note that the length of the circle's circumference divided by its diameter is pi, no matter what "realm" they're from.

H.

You could still define those concepts differently. Also, formal logic is not just one single system. There are many different logical systems like lambda and the most often used predicate and proposition logic.
You could argue that logically, the concept of a circle is an illusion that could only be computed within a certain range of scale. For instance because space is discrete or because the powers to compute pi are theoretically limited.
In the fist case, any circle would not be a line but a series of dots and then every circle would have anly an aproximation of pi varying with the scale of the circle. In the second case, there cannot be a concept of a circle because any conceptual circle would in the end exist out of a finite amount of bits and bites, with the same outcome.

Again, you confuse logic with a number of other things. A "circle" is _defined_ in the system in question, not an object with any independent quality. In Euclidean geometry it's defined as the collection of points - all of them, meaning a continuous object - which lie on a flat plane and are equidistant from a given point. Regardless of your "realm", this definition is understandable and immutable: it has only one meaning to a rational being of any stripe (given the axiomatic agreement of what a "point" is). The radius is also defined, as is the diameter. Given these definitions, pi is constant.

H.

 

[polytrip]

I think that's a misunderstanding. In the real world, space is discrete, meaning there can not be a continuous line. Meaning that in the real world any circle will always be a collection of a finite number of points.

Now back to mathematic's.

Concepts do not exist as such, they're generated by machines: brains, computers or any other instrument that could be theorised to process information.

This means that many mathematical concepts like infinity are illusory because of the theoretical limit to the computability of things. Therefore, any conceptualised circle will exist out of a finite number of bits and bites and never ever BE that perfect concept that mathematic's claim to be.

Mathematic's is the language that describes physic's, but it is also a physical phenomenon. The laws of physic's govern what can be computed and what not, the govern what our neurons can process and the speed of electrons through semiconductors.

The greek idea of perfect concepts in a platonic realm is a platonic ideal, but unrealistic.

There never can be a perfect circle. Nor in the real world, nor in anybody's head or in any supercomputer. Not even in a supercomputer that would exist of all atoms in the universe, build according to the most advanced scheme imaginable.

 

[TheFly]

I think we must all remeber that mathmatics is just a tool. A tool for our realm not the truth in its self just like a shovel is useless in the molecule realm but at the same time the shovel modifys wheres those molecules go. So constants can change if you apply them to a different realm

Statements like this are based upon an incomplete understanding of what mathematics is. Mathematics is an extension of formal logic. Mathematical truths (theorems) are built from fundamental logical statements (axioms). Axioms are statements that any rational being would agree are true without need for proof. Any being advanced enough to understand the _concept_ of a circle and the _concept_ of a diameter and the _concept_ of "flatness" (restricting, in this case, to what we call "Euclidean" geometry, that is, geometry of objects on a flat plane, for simplicity's sake), then they must necessarily note that the length of the circle's circumference divided by its diameter is pi, no matter what "realm" they're from.

H.

I realize that math isn't going to be torn down anytime son just because i made that statement. We can argue about what IS a rational being and what is mathematical truth, and go on this conversation forever. I was trying to make the point that how can you figure out the radius of an atom or multiple atoms for that matter. On a Macro-level note: Suppose you drew a circle on a piece of paper(a perfect circle). How many balls would it take to fill it up perfectly? Math may be able to tell you this with a consistent size of balls But i think you need to go to the molecule and atoms spectrum to fill it up perfectly...and suppose you did fill that perfect circle with atoms to fit perfectly, I'd think you'd still need something smaller to fill it up because filling a circle with circles still leaves empty space in the crevasses in between circles.

So when is a circle a circle if your always filling up that circle with more smaller space?

 

[TheFly]

WOW, thanks for all the positive feedback. I now feel much less insane. I looked into some of the theories, and it seems like a lot of people believe constants change. Thanks for all the replies!

If somebody made an equation that sums up everything i bet that equation would only be valid at that very moment;

If Everything Is Changing Constantly So Will The Constants In Time. (Maybe even time itself?)

 

[Poekus]

Interesting question.
For me mathematical constants are the ultimate form of perceptive agreement. Constants don't change because we agreed they don't change. Taking away your and others perception (ego) and again there is nothing to change because your perception of that constant is not there. So my vote is no they can't change.

 

[hoppah]

I think that's a misunderstanding. In the real world, space is discrete, meaning there can not be a continuous line. Meaning that in the real world any circle will always be a collection of a finite number of points.

Now back to mathematic's.

Concepts do not exist as such, they're generated by machines: brains, computers or any other instrument that could be theorised to process information.

This means that many mathematical concepts like infinity are illusory because of the theoretical limit to the computability of things. Therefore, any conceptualised circle will exist out of a finite number of bits and bites and never ever BE that perfect concept that mathematic's claim to be.

Mathematic's is the language that describes physic's, but it is also a physical phenomenon. The laws of physic's govern what can be computed and what not, the govern what our neurons can process and the speed of electrons through semiconductors.

The greek idea of perfect concepts in a platonic realm is a platonic ideal, but unrealistic.

There never can be a perfect circle. Nor in the real world, nor in anybody's head or in any supercomputer. Not even in a supercomputer that would exist of all atoms in the universe, build according to the most advanced scheme imaginable.

You're confusing a circle with a drawing of a circle. They are not the same thing. Any physical circle you can draw - or imagine - will be nothing more than an approximation. Neither is a point the same thing as a "drawing" of a point. It's a defined concept. Pi is the result of a defined relationship between two abstract, defined concepts. To change its value, one would have to change the definition of a circle, or the definition of a plane, or a line, or a radius.

To bring it into the concrete world, this whole question is like saying "will water some day not be made of two hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom?" Water is _defined_ as that substance.

By the way, "space" is not known to be "discrete."

H.

 

[polytrip]

I think that's a misunderstanding. In the real world, space is discrete, meaning there can not be a continuous line. Meaning that in the real world any circle will always be a collection of a finite number of points.

Now back to mathematic's.

Concepts do not exist as such, they're generated by machines: brains, computers or any other instrument that could be theorised to process information.

This means that many mathematical concepts like infinity are illusory because of the theoretical limit to the computability of things. Therefore, any conceptualised circle will exist out of a finite number of bits and bites and never ever BE that perfect concept that mathematic's claim to be.

Mathematic's is the language that describes physic's, but it is also a physical phenomenon. The laws of physic's govern what can be computed and what not, the govern what our neurons can process and the speed of electrons through semiconductors.

The greek idea of perfect concepts in a platonic realm is a platonic ideal, but unrealistic.

There never can be a perfect circle. Nor in the real world, nor in anybody's head or in any supercomputer. Not even in a supercomputer that would exist of all atoms in the universe, build according to the most advanced scheme imaginable.

You're confusing a circle with a drawing of a circle. They are not the same thing. Any physical circle you can draw - or imagine - will be nothing more than an approximation. Neither is a point the same thing as a "drawing" of a point. It's a defined concept. Pi is the result of a defined relationship between two abstract, defined concepts. To change its value, one would have to change the definition of a circle, or the definition of a plane, or a line, or a radius.

To bring it into the concrete world, this whole question is like saying "will water some day not be made of two hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom?" Water is _defined_ as that substance.

By the way, "space" is not known to be "discrete."

H.

That's such bullshit. You're assuming there is some platonic realm where the 'perfect circle' lives.

The whole concept of 'the circle' is nothing more than a picture as well. If there would be no matter in the universe, so no brain or computational device anywhere to conceptualise 'the circle', how could the concept of a 'circle' still exist?

If you think it could exist without any computational device, than you must believe in some sort of platonic realm.

And that shows that there is no such thing as one logic, but that also in logic there are different views. You have the intuitionistic view, you have the platonic view and other views as well.

You clearly belong to the believers in the platonic view, but i don't. I don't see how there could be 'squares' or 'circles' if there was no universe.

Oh, and space IS discrete. Check quantum loop gravity. Verified by experimental data.

 

[Xt]

even if i imagine my dog as a cat, in reality he still is a dog.

The question of whether consensus reality is the only absolute reality is a tough one. I'm skeptical of our perceived reality since I don't quite trust perception. Just as reptiles sense things solely based on heat, our human perception could be limited in ways we never thought of and we wouldn't even know it.

As to the original poster's question, I'm not incredibly knowledgeable of the axioms and technicalities of mathematics; but I subscribe to the belief that there are no absolutes. So, that would apply to all fields, making mathematical absolutes obsolete.

i don't believe our reality is the true or only reality but imagining something is different doesn't mean it's reality.

Well, then I'd concur with you on that to some degree. Perhaps in a different reality, imaginable things instantaneously become part of reality.

Sounds like my LSD experience's often my thoughts/imagination became a very very real part of my reality.

Ive been musing on this and well, could it be that hyperpercieving reality during the trip could cause some kind of false cause->effect sensation. I mean relative reality continues to balance in the eternal now, and does what it does, but this feeling of thought manifesting reality is generated as a result of psychedelia swamping our perception and distorting our sense of time. Kinda like De ja vu.

Im in two minds about the whole thing. Id love to believe consciousness is a vital and fundamental factor on which existence resides and that the consciousness itself gives rise to matter or subatomic particles arranging the way they do. But i have no idea. I don't fully understand the whole observer->observed wave function collapse.

Perhaps the hypothesized higgs field is consciousness.

 

[Enoon]

hahaha, great thread.

mathematical constants change when we redefine them.

physical constants change when we realize they're not constants.

paradigm shifts are shifts in our perception or understanding of the world, not the world itself. Let's not get the two mixed up.

 

[thpthial]

I know this is slightly off topic, but in keeping with the thread title.

Just for clarification, I am talking about the constants that are in physics... there are only really 3 - or three that matter the 3 constants that govern our universe. Rather than mathematical constants like pi, etc. they are a whole different ball game, but equally as interesting. - for example gregory chatlins constant being not constant.

anyway

you can describe everything in the entire universe (except gravity - so this is also assumed to be a fundamental constant. although it doesnt make sense for it to be, which in a very loose way is why we have particle accelerators)

These forces/constants are:
1 - the strong nuclear force (this is the force that holds protons and neutrons together in the centre of atoms)
2 - the weak nuclear force (this is the force that holds electrons in 'orbit' around the nucleas of an atom)
3 - electromagnetism (how light and matter interact)

When constants might not be constant ...

http://leebor2.741.com/web4.html

that is about possibility that the fine structure constant changing as the universe has aged. if this has happened this is incredible. This value is used in electromagnetism. We can only get this value from measurement though there is nothing that tells us what it should be.

so if that value has changed then electromagnetism did not used to work or interact with the weak/strong forces in the same way. completely altering the universe and making all current physical laws non applicable... crazy eh.

check out the links for proper explanations, and the implications.

What is even more astounding is they now think that this constant might change over location in the universe as well... being higher in one direction and lower in another. this would make for a truly amazing place. this has been independently verified by another lab on the other side of the world. in all honesty no one thinks it has changed or does change, but until the mistakes are found... it is what the evidence might suggest.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43657

wikipedia has an alright page on this too.

Fine-structure constant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

a great, and really accessible book about all of this is "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feymann", (the QED stands for Quantum Electro Dynamics) who is sorely missed. his writing style is amazing and really easy to understand.

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What i do find interesting is the possibility that if something was trying to communicate with us, and our 'universe' but could not interact with our time and space, they might have coded and hidden a message in these constants. what is more likely though is that our maths is wrong and we are looking at things from a slight odd view point - my old hyperspace visits used to make me feel like there is a lot more going on, its pretty obvious, but we have no way to recognise it. i hope that makes sense.

cheers,

thp.

(I agree read some rupert sheldrake, and some lyall watson - supuernature and supernature 2 are good starting points)
there is a lot of my bias in this post and it has been abstracted to the point of being wrong, but it is for simplicity this is not meant to be a techincal post follow the links to find out a lot more.

 

[DMTripper]

Precisely what are you referring to when you use the term 'wormhole'? And just how distinguishable is it from the mental phenomenon called imagination?

You know, that shit from Star Trek hehe

 

[seven7seven]

...beam me up Scotty. lol

but for real, thanks ya'll got my mind abuzz!!!!

 

[hoppah]

*snip* - for the sake of space.

That's such bullshit. You're assuming there is some platonic realm where the 'perfect circle' lives.

The whole concept of 'the circle' is nothing more than a picture as well. If there would be no matter in the universe, so no brain or computational device anywhere to conceptualise 'the circle', how could the concept of a 'circle' still exist?

If you think it could exist without any computational device, than you must believe in some sort of platonic realm.

And that shows that there is no such thing as one logic, but that also in logic there are different views. You have the intuitionistic view, you have the platonic view and other views as well.

You clearly belong to the believers in the platonic view, but i don't. I don't see how there could be 'squares' or 'circles' if there was no universe.

Oh, and space IS discrete. Check quantum loop gravity. Verified by experimental data.

Your grasp of the very idea of propositional logic or a mathematics is either nonexistent or tenuous at best. I have posited the existence of no particular realm. I have said nothing more than that a mathematical construct such as pi is dependent only on the logical definitions that give it birth, and given the acceptance of such definitions, pi must be constant. That is all. I have no idea where you got the rest of this.

As for loop quantum gravity, it is one of a list of _proposed_ unifying theories. It is far from confirmed. It's not even provisionally confirmed.

H.