Are Nicolas Gisin's Intuitionist Mathematics Theories Compatible with SR and GR?

In summary, the conversation discusses the theories of Swiss Physicist Nicolas Gisin and his arguments about intuitionist mathematics. The conversation also touches on the idea of reconciling these theories with more fundamental theories like SR and GR. The group agrees that there is no scientific utility in Gisin's line of reasoning and that it may not have much success with the GR community. They also discuss the potential issues with speculative ideas and the difficulty in predicting which ones will be successful.
  • #1
lektroon
19
4
Hello,

As a layman in physics, I wonder the ideas of people who have more knowledge in physics than I do about the theories of Swiss Physicist Nicolas Gisin and his arguments about the intuitionist mathematics. Is there a way to reconcile these ideas with more fundamental theories like SR and GR?

Kind Regards,
 
  • Like
Likes gentzen and PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you have some references?
 
  • #3
lektroon said:
As a layman in physics, I wonder the ideas of people who have more knowledge in physics than I do about the theories of Swiss Physicist Nicolas Gisin and his arguments about the intuitionist mathematics. Is there a way to reconcile these ideas with more fundamental theories like SR and GR?
[This thread probably belongs in the Interpretations and Foundations subforum.] Here's a reference I looked at. Admittedly, the only reason I even looked at this is because of Gisin's name. @lektroon I find it hard to believe you are a layman.

Indeterminism in Physics and Intuitionistic Mathematics

There really is no scientific utility in his line of reasoning. And he's probably not likely to have much success with the GR side of the community. I do find it interesting, as I generally reject the idea that the future is predetermined (as he does). And probably for some of the same reasons as he. But the following are issues for me in papers like this:

a) There is no specific prediction for something to be investigated or tested.
b) There are so many speculative ideas out there that can be said to hold "promise"; and yet only the rare few really do produce. No one really knows what "promising" ideas will lead to something worthy - if only more time were to be invested. So why "bet" on this one?

However... I think the paper is worth reading though - if nothing else for a section I would never have imagined to read in any paper. Keep in mind I am not a mathematician, and many of you may know this formula/idea already. His formula (5), coupled with footnote [16] at bottom of page, caught my eye. It allows one to calculate any digit of π without needing to calculate any prior digits.

His point is that an infinite series such as π must really be predetermined, and cannot therefore truly be random (as it might otherwise appear - I always thought π appeared to yield a random number sequence). He contrasts that (predetermination and the mere appearance of randomness) with the idea that our observable universe must have a different kind of randomness being injected into it.

That different kind precluding any possibility that the future is predetermined (i.e. there is no way to "calculate" the future, regardless of how much you know about the present). His footnote [17]:

In an indeterministic world the weather in both one and two years’ time is, today, undetermined. In two years time it will be determined. However, first the weather in one year from now will be determined. This is in strong contrast to the bits of π that can be accessed - and are thus determined - without first accessing the previous ones.

Pretty esoteric stuff. I think it's 4:20 somewhere... :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, gentzen, PeroK and 1 other person
  • #4
DrChinese said:
[This thread probably belongs in the Interpretations and Foundations subforum.]
Quite possibly it does, but we need some specific references from the OP to be sure.
 
  • Like
Likes DrChinese
  • #6
PeterDonis said:
Quite possibly it does, but we need some specific references from the OP to be sure.
That is perfectly fine by me. However, IDK how to move it.
 
  • #7
DrChinese said:
[This thread probably belongs in the Interpretations and Foundations subforum.] Here's a reference I looked at. Admittedly, the only reason I even looked at this is because of Gisin's name. @lektroon I find it hard to believe you are a layman.

Indeterminism in Physics and Intuitionistic Mathematics

There really is no scientific utility in his line of reasoning. And he's probably not likely to have much success with the GR side of the community. I do find it interesting, as I generally reject the idea that the future is predetermined (as he does). And probably for some of the same reasons as he. But the following are issues for me in papers like this:

a) There is no specific prediction for something to be investigated or tested.
b) There are so many speculative ideas out there that can be said to hold "promise"; and yet only the rare few really do produce. No one really knows what "promising" ideas will lead to something worthy - if only more time were to be invested. So why "bet" on this one?

However... I think the paper is worth reading though - if nothing else for a section I would never have imagined to read in any paper. Keep in mind I am not a mathematician, and many of you may know this formula/idea already. His formula (5), coupled with footnote [16] at bottom of page, caught my eye. It allows one to calculate any digit of π without needing to calculate any prior digits.

His point is that an infinite series such as π must really be predetermined, and cannot therefore truly be random (as it might otherwise appear - I always thought π appeared to yield a random number sequence). He contrasts that (predetermination and the mere appearance of randomness) with the idea that our observable universe must have a different kind of randomness being injected into it.

That different kind precluding any possibility that the future is predetermined (i.e. there is no way to "calculate" the future, regardless of how much you know about the present). His footnote [17]:

In an indeterministic world the weather in both one and two years’ time is, today, undetermined. In two years time it will be determined. However, first the weather in one year from now will be determined. This is in strong contrast to the bits of π that can be accessed - and are thus determined - without first accessing the previous ones.

Pretty esoteric stuff. I think it's 4:20 somewhere... :biggrin:
Thanks for the reply. Gisin actually kind of adapted the ideas of Dutch mathematician, Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer into physics. Therefore, these procedures that you have found "promising" have some basis. Moreover, Gisin is mainly an experimental physicists and he proposed some tests to check his "esoteric assertions" in his other publications rather than the one you shared. He is at least definitely not a crackpot, believe me :)
 
  • #8
lektroon said:
Is there a way to reconcile these ideas with more fundamental theories like SR and GR?….
For starters, you may read one of his articles which can be found under the following link:
https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/gisin/TimeReallyPasses.pdf
There’s nothing to reconcile here. One is physics and the other is philosophy.

In accordance with the forum rule about philosophical discussions, this thread is closed. As with all thread closures, if you believe that the closure is premature and you have something to add, you can ask any mentor to reopen it.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes topsquark, vanhees71 and Motore

FAQ: Are Nicolas Gisin's Intuitionist Mathematics Theories Compatible with SR and GR?

What is Nicolas Gisin's intuitionist mathematics theory?

Nicolas Gisin's intuitionist mathematics theory is an approach that emphasizes the constructive aspects of mathematics, where mathematical objects are built step-by-step rather than assumed to exist in a completed form. This contrasts with classical mathematics, which often relies on the law of excluded middle and non-constructive proofs.

How does intuitionist mathematics differ from classical mathematics?

Intuitionist mathematics differs from classical mathematics in that it does not accept the law of excluded middle, which states that any mathematical statement is either true or false. Instead, intuitionism requires that mathematical objects and proofs be constructed explicitly, focusing on the mental processes of mathematicians rather than on an abstract, external reality.

What are Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR)?

Special Relativity (SR) is a theory proposed by Albert Einstein that describes the physics of objects moving at constant speeds, particularly at speeds close to the speed of light. General Relativity (GR) is an extension of SR that includes gravity as a result of the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Both theories have been extensively tested and are fundamental to modern physics.

Are intuitionist mathematics theories compatible with Special Relativity (SR)?

Intuitionist mathematics can be compatible with Special Relativity (SR) to some extent, as SR primarily deals with the physical laws governing high-speed motion and does not inherently rely on the classical mathematical framework. However, the compatibility depends on how physical theories are formulated within the intuitionist framework, which may require reinterpreting or reconstructing certain mathematical tools used in SR.

Are intuitionist mathematics theories compatible with General Relativity (GR)?

The compatibility of intuitionist mathematics with General Relativity (GR) is more complex. GR relies heavily on differential geometry and the mathematical structure of spacetime, which are traditionally formulated using classical mathematics. Adapting these concepts to an intuitionist framework may pose significant challenges and require substantial modifications to the existing mathematical formulations of GR.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
863
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
60
Views
6K
Back
Top