But the real question is, is physics really applied mathematics? This is a question of applied semantics because one can consider physics to be the actual phenomena or to be the models of the phenomena. If one uses the definition that physics is the actual phenomena, then mathematics is used to model the physics; physics is not applied maths. If one uses the other definition, then physics is merely the mathematical description and so the answer to the opening question is yes.
This point is not to argue one way or the other, but rather to raise awareness of the dangers of misunderstanding. It is thus laudable to define one's terms at the start of a discussive argument (as opposed to a rather more unpleasant argumentative discussion); this also requires that all involved parties accept the others' definitions and at least try to see the argument from their point of view. That way, useless argument (that is really trying to find out the other's position and then make fuss to cover up one's tracks) is kept to a minimum and a real discussion of ideas can begin. Not to say either that all ideas are correct: but to give everyone a chance to see if anyone else's ideas are correct.
Today we were also discussing other semantic conventions concerning 'implicit' and 'explicit' hypothesis, and the exact meaning of being a 'scientist'. Is a scientist defined by their usage of 'explicit hypotheses' (I think we all agree that this is a no!), or by their problem solving technique (such as hypothesis testing, trial-and-error methods; any others you can think of?)? Does a scientist have to actually solve problems or can they merely be 'finding out stuff'? At the moment, I take the road where 'finding out stuff' is 'solving the problem' of 'what is there to be found?', but of course this is another contentious issue. What makes the difference between an engineer and a scientist? Can one be—(horror music)—both? Is 'scientist' even an accurate or useful description of someone's role in life or is it simply a discourse that we fall into?
And what is it about biophysics that makes these questions so apparent? And just what is 'biophysics'?
RE: "...if biology is explainable by physics and chemistry is explainable by physics, are all fields essentially different levels of physics?"
ReplyDeleteThis question is all too often answered "YES!" by physicists and I find the notion extremely naive and hubristic. (Nicely summed up in: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/2570276636/)
A rigorous debunking of this idea is presented in the paper I based my first blog post on: More is different - broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical nature of science.
I remember one of my previous lecturers mentioning that math is the language of the sciences. With this as a premise, my opinion would be physics is not applied mathematics. The maths is simply a way physics (or the other sciences) communicates to us.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the question you posted at the start of your blog, I'd say physics can be used to explain some of the biological or chemical phenomena, as we've experience in our previous biophysics course, but physics can never paint the whole picture of biology or chemistry. Or in other words here's what I'm trying to say. Let's say three blind men were asked to describe an elephant and they were lead to different parts. One touches the trunk, the other touches its' leg and the other touches its' body. The three blind men would come up of a description of their own 'observation', but still they are attempting to describe one thing: the elephant. In my opinion, physics, biology and chemistry are ways to describe something happening in real life, therefore you cannot say that this branch of science explains the other in a different level, since in the end both are talking about one thing.
Hi Wayne,
ReplyDeleteThe essential condition which should be placed on our initial statement is that we are making it from a `reductionist' viewpoint i.e. we are making the claim that all behaviours of every physical entity and all entities composed thereof (including you and I) are reducable to consequences of definite physical laws. Obviously our sciences are not at such a place at the moment (and I doubt they ever will be), but the question makes more sense when framed like this.
I suppose we are really addressing whether there is a distinction between the different scientific fields.
James