A continuous explanation…

I start this post by asking the question: “Can we give a complete explanation of a continuous system without disturbing it?” Imagine you want to explain a cat for a little scientist. You may probably say that cat is a carnivorous animal, having sharp teeth and paws. You may say something about its size and sound and so… But would it be complete? So what about its DNA, central nervous system structure, immune system, etc.? There are infinite different kinds of information which you need to spot in you explanation in order to make it complete. Every definition has a level of abstraction so you can never give a complete explanation of any system. Consider a continuous system. You can only give a discrete explanation. So you’ll lose some infinitely small values. I wonder if any method exists in which we can use a system without any definition. For example in stead of any explanation, you give the cat directly to the little scientist. He would be able to extract any information which he needs…

Never miss any comment!

Few days ago we met one of the most distinguished professors in Iran, Dr. Rokni. He’s got his PhD in control from Cambridge University. There is no incertitude in his proficiency in dynamical systems and control. On the other hand he is an outstanding philosopher.

The only thing we expected to get was a reasonable answer to our question: “Why do you think Mathematics also is an experimental science?” But we managed to extract a noteworthy conversation which can help any scientist in his way.

Dr. Rokni believes that, for example, as you use a meterstick in physics to calculate distance between two points, we have a distance function in maths. He believes that whole the sciences have a same nature and structure. He says our intuition of it is so restricted, even if there is a metaphysical mathematical structure. The same as if there exist a physical law, governing hole the universe. But we are not able to capture all aspects of it. So we observe that metaphysical mathematics and then define our own laws.

We discussed the problem a lot. But we didn’t notice our big mistake. We wanted to prove our beliefs from the philosophical point of view. Dr. Rokni mentioned that philosophy helps us identify the reality we believe in. But it does not prove it. We have to try to make knowledge of the system.

I by myself believe that there must be a fundamental difference between physics and mathematics. Maths can remain all subjective while physical concepts must have an objective reality. And this helps mathematics define the same concepts more precise.

However maybe the most important advice from Dr. Rokni which we must keep in mind is that never miss anybody’s ideas because of your preconceptions. Let every comment subtilize your mind. Maybe you find your key concept in a comment which seems to be a silly one from a foolish man! Open your mind to every comment.