How Mathematics Describes Reality
Introduction
Why does mathematics so effectively correlate with empirically verified physical phenomena?
Discussing the nature of mathematics with a friend, I compared it to religion. Indeed, both these
descriptive systems possess a metaphysical nature, an axiomatic foundation, and aim to describe
an objective reality (which we assume exists in this context). Mathematics, by its nature, is
entirely metaphysical, appealing to concepts and entities that exist only in human consciousness.
Mathematics itself is not empirically verifiable; its essence is ephemeral, and any of its
postulates is ultimately based on a set of immutable, unprovable assumptions.
However, despite this, mathematics possesses the remarkable ability to describe and predict
objective physical phenomena using a system of symbols that exist solely in the human mind.
How did mathematics, formulated independently of physics, become the foundation of physics,
which describes objective reality?
There are numerous examples of this paradox. One prominent instance is the discovery of
celestial bodies without their direct empirical observation. For example, the discovery of
Neptune: Urbain Le Verrier predicted the existence of this planet by observing the motion of
Uranus along its orbit, which did not align with mathematical calculations. From this, he
hypothesized the existence of another celestial body that could explain the discrepancy—a
hypothesis later empirically confirmed.
Other examples include Dirac's prediction of positrons, Higgs's prediction of Higgs bosons, and
Maxwell's proposal that oscillations of magnetic and electric fields create waves. These are all
instances proving the ability of mathematics to predict physical laws that describe reality, despite
mathematics itself being unrelated to reality.
Albert Einstein wrote about this:
"How can mathematics, a product of human thought independent of experience, be so admirably
suited to describing objects in reality? Can human reason, purely by thinking, discover
properties of the universe without experience?"
Even more striking is the fact that many areas of mathematics existed long before their
applications in physics were discovered: complex numbers were proposed centuries before their
utility in quantum physics was recognized, and non-Euclidean geometry was created decades
before the theory of relativity.
Attempts to resolve this problem include Plato's world of ideas, encompassing all mathematical
objects, forms, physical laws, and the Truth. However, this theory introduces a third world,
whose interaction with the two existing ones (reality and mathematics) is unclear and raises more
questions than it answers.
Another popular solution to the paradox of mathematics’ inexplicable effectiveness is the idea
that we come to understand mathematics by observing the physical world. For instance, humans
understood the properties of addition and multiplication by counting sheep and stones; they
developed the basics of geometry by observing physical shapes.
From this perspective, it seems unsurprising that physics follows mathematics, given that
humans created mathematics through careful observation of the physical world. However, the
problem remains: mathematics describes physical phenomena far beyond the limits of human
perception.
For instance, why does the subatomic world align so well with mathematics, which was
originally developed by counting sheep and stones? This paradox remains unsolved. Let us
reflect on this topic and attempt to draw some conclusions about the nature of mathematics,
physics, and empirical evidence. To do this, we need to understand what mathematics and
physics actually are.
What is Physics?
Before discussing the mysterious connection between physics and mathematics, let us clarify
what we mean by physical laws. To claim that physics describes physical phenomena (as per
Kant) would be somewhat unserious and, in essence, tautological.
To begin with, it is important to note that any physical law describes numerous phenomena
simultaneously. For example, the law of gravity explains what will happen if I drop a bottle of
Château Ausone wine from the picturesque vineyards of southwestern France. Regardless of
whether I drop it today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now on a successfully colonized Mars, the
law of gravity applies in all these scenarios. Physical laws describe a wide range of phenomena.
Additionally, physical laws are independent of the perspective of the observer. For instance, the
theory of gravitation will describe the fall of the aforementioned bottle, regardless of whether it
is observed by me, a passerby looking through a car window, or someone standing near a black
hole.
This raises the following question: how do we classify physical phenomena? Which phenomena
should be grouped together under one law? To answer this, physicists use the concept of
symmetry.
In everyday life, we call something symmetrical if its left side resembles its right side—for
instance, a room is symmetrical if swapping its two halves leaves it unchanged. Physicists
expanded this definition: a physical law is symmetrical concerning a transformation if it
describes the transformed phenomenon in the same way.
For example, physical laws are symmetrical concerning space and time: the same experiment
observed in Paris and Vladivostok, at different times of the day, will yield the same result. Many
other types of symmetry also govern physical laws. General relativity states that laws remain
consistent even if an object accelerates. Special relativity asserts that laws hold true even when
objects move at speeds approaching the speed of light.
All these symmetries can be unified under the concept of invariance concerning the observer.
This means that physical laws remain unchanged regardless of who observes them or when they
are observed. Phenomena related to a single principle are interconnected, even if they are viewed
differently.
Understanding the importance of symmetry in physics emerged with Einstein’s theory of
relativity. Before Einstein, physicists would first discover a law and then identify the symmetries
within it. Einstein, however, used symmetry as a tool to derive laws. He postulated that a law
must remain consistent for both a stationary observer and an object moving at speeds near the
speed of light. From this premise, he formulated the equations of special relativity. Einstein
demonstrated that symmetry does not arise from laws; rather, laws emerge from symmetry.
In 1918, Emmy Noether made an even more profound discovery: she showed that symmetry is a
far more fundamental concept in physics than previously thought. She proved a theorem linking
symmetry to conservation laws: each symmetry corresponds to a conservation law, and vice
versa. Temporal invariance gives rise to the conservation of energy, spatial invariance leads to
the conservation of linear momentum, and so on. This insight spurred physicists to search for
new symmetries to discover new physical laws.
Thus, we can define physical laws as invariant phenomena concerning the observer, describing
independently occurring events. It is no surprise that these laws appear objective, timeless, and
independent of humans, as they are invariant concerning space, time, and human interpretation.
This creates the impression that they exist objectively in some "other world."
However, instead of claiming that we observe the consequences of objective laws, one could
argue that humans merely identify patterns in observed physical phenomena and consolidate
them into laws. We notice only what we perceive, label it as a law, and overlook everything else.
We cannot escape the human factor and the limitations of human perception when attempting to
understand the laws of nature. This leads to the fundamental problem of empiricism, for which I
have no solution.
But this is not the subject of this essay. Let us return to the central question: the enigmatic
connection between physics and mathematics.
What is Mathematics?
Let us consider a few examples to illustrate how mathematics operates in principle.
Long ago, a simple farmer noticed that if three sacks of grain were combined with two more, the
result was five sacks of grain. Later, he observed the same pattern with sacks of oats. Thus, if
one were to exchange a sack of grain for a sack of oats, the total number of sacks would remain
unchanged. Eventually, humans formalized this observation with symbols: 3+2=5; 3 + 2 = 5.
This small expression describes all possible combinations of this kind. It holds true for any
discrete objects exchangeable for sacks of grain.
A more complex example is the Gurevich homomorphism, a fundamental concept in algebraic
topology:
For every topological space X and a positive integer n, there exists a group of homomorphisms
from the n-homotopy group to the n-homology group. This homomorphism has a specific
property: if the space X is replaced by another space Y, and n is replaced by n', the
homomorphism will change accordingly. While an individual case of this assertion may not hold
much significance in mathematics, gathering all such cases together forms a theorem.
In these examples, we demonstrated the alteration of semantic symmetry in mathematical
statements: we swapped grain for oats and one topological space for another. The key is that
when the substitutions are appropriate, the mathematical assertion remains valid. This, I boldly
claim, is the fundamental property of mathematics: we can classify an assertion as mathematical
if it allows us to replace the referenced objects without invalidating the assertion.
Every mathematical statement also requires a domain of applicability. When a mathematician
declares, "for every integer n" or "let C be a coassociative, cocommutative involutive coalgebra,"
they are defining the domain where their mathematical statement holds. If the statement is valid
for one element within the domain, it is valid for any other element in that domain.
Replacing one element with another in this context is termed "semantic symmetry." Once again,
I assert that semantic symmetry is a fundamental concept for both mathematics and physics.
While there are other symmetries in mathematics—such as syntactic symmetry—exploring them
falls within the domain of linguistics, and I will leave that analysis to the linguists. The
symmetry of semantics, however, is fundamental and underpins all mathematical assertions.
Just as physicists define their laws, mathematicians crafting their mathematical statements
simultaneously establish the domain where the statement preserves semantic symmetry.
Furthermore, I argue that any assertion preserving semantic symmetry can be classified as
mathematical.
Expanding the Scope of Mathematics
At this point, some skeptical readers might argue that such a definition of mathematics is overly
broad. However, mathematics itself is an expansive discipline. It describes not only numbers but
also shapes, sets, propositions, logic, macro- and microstates, properties, and much more. To
encompass all these objects as mathematical, a broad definition is necessary.
Many statements do not satisfy semantic symmetry. For example:
"Lille is a beautiful city."
"Politicians are wonderful and honest people."
"Police officers are worthy of respect."
None of these statements meet the criteria of semantic symmetry and, therefore, are not
mathematical. Similarly, if there exists a counterexample within the domain of application, the
statement ceases to be mathematical.
Implicit Symmetries in Mathematics
It is worth noting that many symmetrical properties of mathematics are so obvious that we often
do not articulate them. For example, it is self-evident that mathematical truth is invariant with
respect to time and space. A mathematical statement, if true, will hold equally well in the forests
of the Amazon, illuminated by the vibrant hues of a sunset, and in the dreary disgusting morning
drizzle of Nord-Pas-de-Calais(despite the fact that mathematics will probably be the only thing
that works humanly in this godforsaken place).. Moreover, it will remain true regardless of who
utters it, be it Mother Teresa or François Hollande.
Since mathematics (like physics) adheres to these symmetries and is symmetrical in its nature, it
becomes clear why mathematics and physics appear to us as objective, transcendent constructs
from another world. However, semantic symmetry is the fundamental component that defines
mathematics.
There are countless examples of mathematical truths, and human reasoning unites them into
broader mathematical statements. Yet, no "mathematical truth" exists independently, as some
claim, that we might discover solely through physics.
Why is Mathematics Effective in Describing Physics?
Let us look at some examples of physical laws expressed through mathematical formulas.
The first example is gravity. A description of a gravitational phenomenon might read as follows:
"At 14:08:08 in Braunau am Inn, at the address Salzburger Vorstadt 15, a spoon fell from a table.
It took 1.44 seconds to hit the ground." Even if our records are meticulously detailed, they will
not be sufficient to describe all gravitational phenomena. However, this is precisely what a
physical law does. The only effective way to record this law is to express it mathematically:
By substituting values for masses and distances, we can describe specific instances of
gravitational events.
Another example is the ideal gas law:
This law connects pressure, volume, the amount of substance, and temperature of an ideal gas.
Every instance of a related phenomenon can be described using this equation.
In each of these examples, physical laws naturally manifest as mathematical expressions. All
physical phenomena we wish to describe fall within the domain of these mathematical equations
(or more precisely, their specific cases).
In terms of symmetry, we observe that physical applicability symmetry is a subset of
mathematical semantic symmetry. Specifically, the symmetry of applicability implies that we
can replace one object with another (within the same class), and the mathematical expression
describing the phenomenon must exhibit the same property.
Concluding Thoughts
In other words, one might say that mathematics is so effective at describing physical phenomena
because both physics and mathematics developed similarly. Physical laws do not exist in Plato’s
world and are not central ideas of mathematics. Both physicists and mathematicians select their
assertions to fit numerous contexts.
Thus, it is unsurprising that abstract physical laws originate from the abstract language of
mathematics. Similarly, it is not surprising that some mathematical assertions were formulated
long before the corresponding physical laws were discovered—they adhere to the same
symmetries.
Nevertheless, many questions remain. For example:
Why do humans have mathematics and physics at all?
Why are we capable of perceiving symmetries around us?
Why does the world conform to these symmetrical axioms?
These questions require further reflection, but the aim of this essay was to demonstrate that the
structure we observe in the world is naturally and effectively described through mathematics.
I hope I have succeeded in conveying this idea.
Related links and articles:
The Role of Symmetry in Mathematics; Noson S. Yanofsky Mark Zelcer
«The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences»
«The Outer Limits of Reason»
SOSNIN