Cognitive Science and the Connection Between Physics and Mathematics

Chapter
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)

Abstract

The human mind is endowed with innate primordial perceptions such as space, distance, motion, change, flow of time, matter. The field of cognitive science argues that the abstract concepts of mathematics are not Platonic, but are built in the brain from these primordial perceptions, using what are known as conceptual metaphors. Known cognitive mechanisms give rise to the extremely precise and logical language of mathematics. Thus all of the vastness of mathematics, with its beautiful theorems, is human mathematics. It resides in the mind, and is not ‘out there’. Physics is an experimental science in which results of experiments are described in terms of concrete concepts—these concepts are also built from our primordial perceptions. The goal of theoretical physics is to describe the experimentally observed regularity of the physical world in an unambiguous, precise and logical manner. To do so, the brain resorts to the well-defined abstract concepts which the mind has metaphored from our primordial perceptions. Since both the concrete and the abstract are derived from the primordial, the connection between physics and mathematics is not mysterious, but natural. This connection is established in the human brain, where a small subset of the vast human mathematics is cognitively fitted to describe the regularity of the universe. Theoretical physics should be thought of as a branch of mathematics, whose axioms are motivated by observations of the physical world. We use the example of quantum theory to demonstrate the all too human nature of the physics-mathematics connection: it is at times frail, and imperfect. Our resistance to take this imperfection sufficiently seriously (since no known experiment violates quantum theory) shows the fundamental importance of experiments in physics. This is unlike in mathematics, the goal there being to search for logical and elegant relations amongst abstract concepts which the mind creates.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Courant and H. Robbins, What is Mathematics? (Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe (Penguin Books, 1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. W. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, 1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Ruelle, The Mathematician’s Brain (Princeton University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Appel and H. Wolfgang, Illinois Journal of Mathematics 21, 429 (1977).MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Faltings, Inventiones Mathematicae 73, 349 (1983).CrossRefADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Jones, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 12, 103 (1985).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 121, 351 (1989).CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Dehaene, The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. E. Antell and D. P. Keating, Child Development 54, 695 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Wynn, Nature 358, 749 (1992).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Bijeljac-Babic, J. Bertoncini, and J. Mehler, Developmental Psychology 29, 711 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Mechner and L. Gueverekian, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 5, 463 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. M. Church and W. H. Meck, Animal Cognition, edited by T. G. Bever and H. S. Terrace (Hillsdale, N.J.:Erlbaum, 1984).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. D. Hauser, P. MacNeilage, and M. Ware, Proc. Nat. Aca. Sci. USA 93, 1514 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Lakoff and R. E. Nunez, Where Mathematics Comes From? (Basic Books, 2000).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Narayanan, Embodiment in language understanding: sensory motor representations for metaphoric reasoning about event descriptions, Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley (1997).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Johnson, Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of SEE, edited by M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, and S. Wilcox (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. P. Singh, “Youtube video: Does nature play dice?” (2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSiDsMKS_uU).
  20. 20.
    J. S. Bell, Physics World, 8, 33 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon Press, 1965).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471 (2013).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Bera, B. Motwani, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Scientific Reports 5, 7664 (2015).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. P. Singh, Bulg. J. Phys. 33, 217 (2006).MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry (Academic Press Inc, 1995).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. Lochan and T. P. Singh, Phys. Lett. A 375, 3747 (2011).CrossRefADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. L. Adler, Quantum theory as an emergent phenomenon (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004) pp. xii+225.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Lochan, S. Satin, and T. P. Singh, Found. Phys. 42, 1556 (2012).CrossRefADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. P. Singh, in The Forgotten Present, edited by T. Filk and A. von Muller (arXiv:1210.8110) (Springer: Berlin-Heidelberg, 2013).
  30. 30.
    A. Connes, arXiv:math/0011193 (2000).
  31. 31.
    A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes, Fortsch. Phys. 58, 553 (2010).CrossRefADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Tata Institute of Fundamental ResearchMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations