ivars.fabriciuss@gmail.com wrote:

I have noticed many negative comments about numerology in groups,
especially in physics sections.

I just wonder:

When You say :
"we are looking for analytical solutions .." or
"we are looking for solutions in the form.."or
"we expand the function and DISMISS smaller terms to arrive to
analytical solution "

When I hear or read these sentences, I feel like: " We have arrived to
this point safely. NOW STOP THINKING."

Is not that a Numerology ? In fact we put constraints on reality which
comes from a limited subset of Mathematics. Why is it correct?

I think Nature is able to produce everything mathematicians can
imagine, and more. Limiting ourselves to any subset and trying to
find solutions which correspond to it and also explains experience is
exactly what numerology is about.

Looking at the ability of continuos math to explain reality I have come
to a conclusion it is a very poor subset. Number theory is definitely
better, even if used at the level of ancient mathematicians.

e.g. Diophantine never looked for general solution to his equations.
Not because he was an idiot, or did not have the tools, but because he
new that such theory does not exist in principle and looking for it
would mean losing time and it will not give all solutions which he
easily found every time starting from a scratch. A lot of information
he looked for would be lost.

Nice Post. I don't know anything about Diophantine. Does he reject
physical theory?

To expose the paths that physics takes through the
theoretical/experimental and to what degree a theory rests on empirical
evidence versus as a standalone predictor of that empirical evidence
shows a lot of interwoven pathways. If a theory is merely a
mathematcial curve that fits some results then theory is quite
meaningless. Informational simplicity is a valuable measure and the
generalization of a simplistic theory should be our goal. The branching
of science into insulated domains cannot yield general results.
Instead these specialists have to ignore the others and claim to be
masters of one branch because mastery of them all is not possible.
Perhaps there should be a class of 'Generals' who will walk down the
branches and occassionally find a new crux. I suppose reality is more
of a hodge-podge than I paint it here and that these generals do in
fact exist, but the stricture of some of the domains seem to border on
a religious tone.

People who espouse particle wave duality as some sort of a superior
construction have taken a misstep. It seems that the mind is forced to
make a binary judgement and to go forward requires an affirmation of
the conflict that turns it into a shiny standard rather than a
tarnished one. These sorts of fundamental blemishes leave the problems
wide open and weaken the entire system. How many weak points can the
structure take? Could it collapse? For all of the intelligence that has
been imparted all of that intelligence is still human. If mistakes have
been made they should be exposed, no matter how embarrassing they may
be. Yet upon a theory becoming accepted it seems to become a concrete
entity and if you stray in contradiction you are steered immediately
back to the norm. The stray thought that eventually leads back around
to the existing evidence is what should be sought. It's okay to go
astray. Leave the problems open.

-Tim