No, it's an invention. A tensor—for instance—can be used to express a certain relation in nature. But the tensor itself isn't physically there, just like the number 2 isn't hovering above a pair of apples.
'E' always equaled 'mc^2', whether we ever discovered this mathematical relationship or not. We did not invent this relationship, nor others found in nature, only the symbols for expressing them, eg, like the numeral '2'.
Hey, no one's perfect.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
ΔE = Δmc˛ is a mathematical expression of a relationship in nature deduced from postulates and observations. We don't know if this expression perfectly describes the phenomena, what we do know is that it describes the phenomena well enough for practical purposes, i.e. atom bombs and nuclear reactors, and that's all we know.
Would you call ΔE=mΔv˛ a discovery even though it doesn't describe any relation in nature? Probably not.
We discovered the phenomena, we invented the expression.
Last edited by Astner on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 06:28 PM
A philosophical point, to be sure, and I agree. We don't know if our entire reductive-materialist model is valid, but it is (apparently) quite reliable. And that's good enough to treat what we discover as a "real" deal, a viable as-if, for all current intents and purposes.
My friend, we're basically saying the same thing:
I think our differences are semantic.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I think 'numbers' is an invention as it's a lexicon we've imposed on quantitative values which exist independent of our labels, but it's possible that it is also an emergent property of reality (since at a base quantities simply exist, and intelligent life can acknowledge them).
Any number is merely the measurement of a quantity.
This is the most basic concept.
"The brain does much more than just recollects, it analyzes, synthesizes, it generates abstractions. The simplest thought, like the concept of the number one, is an elaborate logical underpinning."
-Carl Sagan on the human brain.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
KMC Community Forums
Jun 22nd, 2014 06:10 PM
