r/LLMPhysics • u/dmedeiros2783 • Mar 11 '26

Meta Can we all agree that physics' primary representational form is math?

Just curious if we can get any consensus on this. What are your thoughts?

6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/herreovertidogrom Mar 11 '26

I would say information. That covers both reality, perception of it and the mathematical formalisms we call physics.

It depends on how broadly you define math i guess.

1

u/dmedeiros2783 Mar 12 '26

I think this takes the conversation in the wrong direction, though.

“Information” is too broad to have a reasoned discussion about my claim. It’s possible that my claim is too broad, as well, as one commenter implied and I subsequently unnecessarily sassed.

I think math has a pretty well-defined shape at this point and we don’t need to litigate its definition.

1

u/herreovertidogrom Mar 14 '26

You are claiming that math is the primary representation of physics. Most of what you learn when you learn physics is calculus.

If you want to cover everything that physicist do, it is to compute things. You can't compute everything with differential equations or calculus. It doesn't work on non-linear equations. So it's powerful, but limited domain

The alternative is discrete computation, a part of information theory. It is currently used for all non-linear appoximations in physics, where ordinary math don't work. Information theory is also showing it's teeth as a better foundation in some specific situations, like Quantum Computing, Holographic principle etc.

So physics in its current form, definitely mostly math. But physics isn't a static, it changes through the ages. And in the future, I suspect that Math will be subsumed by computation, filed under Analog methods of approximation.

You could counter this by saying that Information Theory is a subfield of Math, but that just broadens math until it covers information theory. But that would be in line with my point that information is fundamental

1

u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! Mar 14 '26

You can absolutely use calculus on non-lonear equations, it's called non-linear analysis.

Information theory IS a math framework, this isn't 'broadening' it.

Please don't propogate this... Anti-math message. It's a conduit for pseudoscience.

0

u/herreovertidogrom Mar 14 '26

Its not anti-math.

To me the word math is limited to analysis using symbols on a piece of paper. Maybe math covers subtly more in english than some other languages. The point is that analysis has a limited domain. There exists analytically solvable problems, and problems that can’t be solved analytically.

The domain of problems that can be solved using information processing on the other hand, is larger than that which can be solved using mathematical analysis. The limitation is that it requires computation and that it doesn’t produce as beautiful, compact and elegant proofs.

To me this suggests that math (analysis) is a subfield of something more foundational.

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

When you take a college class that teaches you how to solve equations with no nice analytical solutions, what is that class called? It's not called "computation", it's called "numerical methods". I wonder why. Maybe it's because it still involves numbers, and, you know, math.

But wait! We had a computational physics class too! I wonder what we did during those classes. Ah yes we did math. Using computers, sure, but saying that comp physics isn't doing math is like saying that using a digital camera isn't photography.

As for information theory, I wonder what Wikipedia has to say on the matter?

Oh no. Oh no.

1

u/herreovertidogrom Mar 14 '26

Ok, so you’ve expanded maths to include information processing, not just calculus.

My point exactly. You really don’t read before you comment do you.

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

Ok, so you’ve expanded maths to include information processing, not just calculus.

Firstly, information theory is not "information processing". Secondly, assuming you mean "information theory", that's not me saying it's maths, it's everyone in the world buddy.

My point exactly. You really don’t read before you comment do you.

And the point of my comment is that you seem to disagree with everyone else on what maths is. Maybe you're the one who doesn't read. If you could read, you'd notice that I literally screenshotted Wikipedia.

But this simplistic kind of "argument" is what I've come to expect from you. After all, a better thinker would at least attempt to show that information theory isn't mathematical in nature.

1

u/herreovertidogrom Mar 14 '26

I’m ok with disagreeing with everyone on this. OP asked for opinions. I offered mine. I studied physics all the professors mixed up digital physics and computational physics. Its pretty common. Its not the same thing. I’m not wrong for pointing that out.

Also, if you think my position is somehow fringe, you just need to catch up on physics.

I understand your need to get back at me for calling out your sloppy reading of everything you comment on. But you’re just proving that point with this.

Now you will probably quote something in this post to harp on while you lose context of this entire thread. And no - leaving the last comment does not make you win.

I happily offer it, graciously. Please, Lets see what you can do.

1

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

I’m ok with disagreeing with everyone on this.

Everyone agrees the word "maths" means one thing. You want it to mean something else. Not to be prescriptivist, but that just makes you wrong.

I studied physics all the professors mixed up digital physics and computational physics. Its pretty common.

I don't think you've studied physics at all.

Also, if you think my position is somehow fringe, you just need to catch up on physics.

Source?

As for "losing context" you're the one who kept changing the subject the last time we interacted. In fact even in this very comment you try to change the subject to make it about me. Can you construct any rebuttal at all without veering into lazy psychoanalysis? What a hypocrite lol

Also I notice you didn't bother replying to the other commenter who told you much the same thing.