Clarifying the foundations : maths, physics and more.
Introduction to the site settheory.net by Sylvain Poirier
I am a math PhD from France, and develop the site settheory.net to clarify
the foundations of math and physics, by self-contained undergraduate level
courses combining depth, generality, rigor and concision, involving many
simplified but accurate presentations of concepts usually
considered graduate level. I do it for free outside any institution.
Leaving academic "research" behind
I was always interested in mathematics, particularly algebra
and geometry (especially in my youth). More generally, I am interested
in global, foundational issues in diverse fields and the search for perfect
theoretical solutions. During my teenage, I was very unsatisfied
with the official teaching, which was an intellectual desert for me.
I managed to learn Special Relativity and then express General
Relativity by my own research. My dream was to become a particle
physicist, as I naturally guessed that the fundamental laws of physics
were rich of some of the most wonderful mathematical theories.
But things turned out very differently, for many reasons.
A first trouble was the low level of the teaching curriculum I went
through, which I so direly needed to escape in my free time to
explore theoretical physics far away from it, an exploration I thus
did alone outside any academic guidance. But people around almost
objected to this exploration, insisting that it wasn't time for
me to explore the high skies of theoretical physics because I first
needed to more fully assimilate the basic concepts on which higher
theories can be built. In fact there is some truth in this idea, but in
a very different way. It is not that I shouldn't have gone to theoretical
physics at the beginning because
I needed the help of schools (which I hated) to first teach me the
right basis, but that I'd rather not continue to further theoretical
physics at the end because schools (precisely: undergraduate
curricula) actually don't provide the right basis for this, so that
my help is needed to explain how to do it (but away from the system,
which isn't welcoming any such proposition of progress).
As in high school I was isolated in lack of hints for going further (to
quantum physics...), I spent time re-thinking and finding ways to
progressively clarify the same theories (general relativity and
electromagnetism). Still it wasn't
enough, so I also thought about metaphysics (absurdity of the AI
thesis which reduces the mind to a mathematical object), and
economics (foundations of money and its stabilization problem; what
problems occur in the world and which logical structures could
ideally resolve them).
At one point of my studies (in ENS Ulm), someone warned me
that particle physics was actually a terrible field to work
in. Following that advice I didn't continue far enough to fully
verify this claim by myself, however I see indirect reasons for this
to be true. One is the mess of divergences that the fundamental
equations of quantum field theory are plagued of, making it unclear
whether any possibility of a rigorous mathematical approach
should reasonably be expected at all. Another is, that many of the
brightest minds from around the world are already working on the
problem; so, what could just one more bright mind add to that,
unless he'd have both incredible lucks of being somehow "the
brightest", and that Nature would have chosen the ultimate laws
of physics (or something amazing in them) exactly appropriate to be
only discovered by the brightest physicist but not by others without
him ? Wouldn't it be both more polite and cheaper in efforts, in case
an amazing new discovery was just ahead of us, to leave the honor
of making it to someone else (who would need it, for some reason
I don't fully grasp but...), and simply later learn about it if really interesting ?
The golden age of physics research, quickly grabbing lots of low hanging
opportunities of discoveries, which Nature had available for us, seems
to be past. After just a few decades of rapid advances (that is the blink
of an eye compared to the long history of life on Earth), wonderfully
explaining most of the physical phenomena that could be experimented,
why did this quest have to suddenly stall without being complete ? God
knows ; anyway we must cope with it.
Generally, I was quite disappointed with the academic environment of
mathematical research I experienced during my PhD (in algebraic
topology : Vassiliev
invariants constructed from the perturbative expansion of
Chern-Simons topological quantum field theory, a topic I
abandoned since then). The main group activities (what makes a
life in official positions and labs differ from just staying home
doing free personal research) were regular seminars where people
reported their boring ideas to others who anyway don't care and
cannot use in their own research (as they don't work in the
same topic) but who anyway feel obliged to come and pretend
listening to just for the sake of politeness (I was once scolded for
not coming, since "being polite" in this way visibly mattered more
than any meaningfulness of time spent). Indeed, why would the ideas
of whoever happens to work in the same lab be worthier hearing than
those of any other people working elsewhere on Earth ? that is
something I couldn't figure out. I also several times heard of stuff like
HOMFLY having multiple independent co-discoverers. Why bother
researching and discovering something, just to end up being one of
several independent discoverers of the same thing ? Even if
institutions were okay to pay me for this, it didn't feel to me like
the best way of giving sense to my life.
Other factors drove me away from academic research, which I left
for good after one year teaching as assistant professor of
mathematics at Reunion university. It would still
take me quite a long further study to catch up existing works until
I could produce valuable new results myself in great fields such as
particle physics (I had the chance to manage my PhD by picking a
topic with not so great value to me, but wouldn't see what more to
do there), while I was already exhausted by the wasteful academic
path I previously followed with disgust as it wasn't done the way I
believed to be needed. I also felt that the kind of popular hard
unsolved problems which scientists usually work on, aren't often the
most valuable ones:- The popularity of a topic cannot define its real
value : the correlation may rather be negative, as popularity indicates
that its possible low hanging fruits have been already picked;
-
I once read a report of a result of complexity theory that "hard
theorems are useless" but lost the reference; anyway the point is
that things appeared this way to me in practice.
Generally, it seems too many people focus their works on tackling
some of the hardest questions, a bit like Olympic champions
training their strength for the purpose of demonstrating how strong
they are, but are not so good at asking the right questions (and I do not
see academic philosophers better at this either despite their claims).
A typical example is Bitcoin:
a wastefully sophisticated answer to the wrong questions about
how a good online currency should work. Hardly any of its
proponents seems to have seriously wondered for instance
how the value of a currency could be stabilized, or even
understood the fundamental importance of this question.
Also, institutions have fundamental flaws such as the Peter
principle (workers are tendentially raised to their "level of
incompetence"). As I want to make an optimal use of my work for the
world, I rather search for the right questions or tasks, where I can
produce the most valuable works not because I'd be the most clever,
but rather because these are crucially important questions on which, strangely,
no other good thinker seems to be working yet. But such a radical form of
originality, of choosing a research topic or other working direction
whose potential value is ignored by the rest of the world, also
makes unlikely to find any job open for this in any institution
(since job openings are set by administrators more often looking for
security than originality, while, logically, widely unexpected
discoveries are hard to expect). I explained more aspects of
my reasons for leaving the academic system and why it was a bad idea
to join it in the first place, in my video
"Why learn physics by yourself"
From physics to mathematical logic
I was initiated to mathematical logic with amazement during my
graduate studies (Magistère, ENS Ulm). It took me some maturation
time until I could be productive there. Like in physics, I focused on
simpler aspects, for which I could be directly useful: clarifying the basics
(so, the foundation of the foundation). Things which many students have
to go through but in need of clarification (to be done once and for all),
usually neglected by other researchers who focus on more complex,
high level issues with their hard open problems. But, as long as
researchers only care to do research for the sake of "doing research",
their productions are likely to stay desperately hidden in their ivory
tower, useless to anyone who isn't yet already another researcher
in the same field, having wasted many years of their life following
traditional curricula followed by the other lengthy wasteful initiation
path to that particular field of specialization.
Among the people to whom an initiation to mathematical logic could
benefit, but who currently cannot afford it because of the wasteful
complexity of its teaching path, there are... physicists who have no
time for this long path because they already wasted too many years
of their life with their own messy teaching curriculum. But, one of the things that
made them waste so much time in their own curriculum, is... their
weakness in mathematical logic. But what could be the use of
mathematical logic in physics, you may ask ? It is of course that
the laws of physics are deeply mathematical,
as reported by many great minds. Between the first guesses by Plato
and Pythagoras, and some recent reports such as Wigner's
"unreasonable efficiency of mathematics" (confirmed by Hamming
in 1980), a remarkable short formulation is the one by Galileo:
"Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand
book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to
our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to
comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it
is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and
its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical
figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a
single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a
dark labyrinth."
But, once confirmed that physics is indeed written in the language
of mathematics, we still need to specify what this language of
mathematics actually is, for better clarifying our understanding of
physics. Precisely, I found 3 interesting connections between
physics and mathematical logic. A first one is a lesson which
logicians have ready to teach to physicists. The second is an
interesting formalism of mathematical physics usually ignored by
logicians but in need of logical clarification for teaching. A third (but
debatable) one is a possible lesson from logic for philosophers of
physics.
First is the simple issue of what a theory
is. Physics has its list
of theories; mathematical logic has precise general
concepts of how a mathematical theory can be formed (as
can be defined by either first-order logic or second-order logic,
but their differences do not matter for physics), but strangely, physics
teachers never seemed to care whether any match between
these should be made and how. And which interesting lesson
can logic have to say to physics teachers about what a theory is ?
That each theory comes with its own language: the language
in which it is expressed, made of a list of names of the structures
of the system which the theory describes. Then, we may
introduce and study the automorphism group of the
system, made of all transformations which preserve these structures.
But physicists took completely different habits: instead of this, they just
express any of their theories in always the same language (the only
one they know, as if it was the only possible language of mathematics):
the language of packs of real numbers and packs of operations. Then,
among their packs of operations they choose some specific ones:
some transformation groups. And only at the end of this, they
investigate which of the many possible operations have a special property :
the property of being invariant by the given transformations
(which they may name by some more sophisticated adjectives such as
"covariant" to make it look like an amazingly intelligent quality,
no matter if students cannot decipher what it may really mean). But
did physicists consider that in logic, these invariant or
"covariant" structures are those which come first and are actually the
only structures which exist in the language of the intended
theory, in terms of which the theory naturally ought to be expressed
? Did they ever consider that they might have just wasted a lot of
time and obscured the understanding of the theory in the students
minds, every time they expressed something in formulas formed of
variables and operations which don't already belong to this short
list of invariant stuff ? Do I need to explain why such a way of
"mathematically expressing theories" can be a terrible one, making
the physics teachings much messier and harder to follow than actually
necessary ? (I was recently censored from
physicsforums.com just for the sin of defending this view, that
there exists such a thing as a mathematical conceptualization, and
that a explanation's quality of "being mathematical" cannot be reduced
to how numerically accurate it is ! Namely, I was denied the right to reply
to an accusation that my approach was "without using any math" just
because it wasn't purely computational)
Second, comes the issue of how formal expressions are structured.
Many logic specialists, in a desperate try to kill boredom and give
themselves some jobs, spend a lot of time inventing and
investigating their own alternative logical frameworks, eventually
involving some new extravagant ways of putting symbols together to
form formulas, regardless that nobody beyond them has any
chance of ever making use of such formalisms anyway. But hardly
any of them seems to have heard of the following facts, actually
well-known by anyone who studied graduate physics, just
because... most logic specialists never went to learn graduate
physics themselves:
- A large part of the concepts and formulas throughout theoretical
physics (from relativistic mechanics, electromagnetism and General
Relativity to basic quantum physics and quantum field theory), is
actually expressed in a common mathematical formalism: that of tensors which looks quite different
from all the "normal" style of mathematical formulas (the only one known
by undergraduate math students) described by classical logic.
- What is remarkable there is that each (monomial) tensorial
expression forms a graph made of occurrences of symbols linked together
in ways respecting their types (reflecting the spaces to which arguments
respectively belong), similarly to how, in classical logic, symbols are
normally linked together (each operation symbol to its arguments)
to form expressions, but without any definite hierarchical order of
sub-expressions from a root to branches.
- The strangeness of this formalism in which physicists are
already expressing much of their works, still makes it a big trouble
for them to properly explain what it all means. Their usual initiation
courses to the topic remain so messy and hard to follow, that this
"difficulty" forms one of the main obstacles against introducing it,
and with it some "more serious" physics, into undergraduate physics
curricula.
Third, is the philosophical understanding of the nature of time. General
Relativity only involves time as a geometric dimension, thus without any
philosophical feature of time such as its flow and its orientation. Then
quantum physics and statistical physics do involve a time orientation and
flow (with measurement and entropy creation), however these seem to
come "from nowhere" and are not really accounted for by any theory of
physics. Mathematical logic, on the other hand, explicitly provides some
kinds of time orientation interestingly similar to intuitions of the flow of
time and free will (though usually not pointed out) : complexity
theory, randomness (Chaitin), halting problem, truth undefinability and
incompleteness, transfinite induction... I already introduced the
main aspects of this flow of the time of mathematics in the philosophical
pages at the end of my Part 1 on mathematical foundations. I think
these similarities could be worth entering the philosophical debate, and
I already formulated my propositions for this in my metaphysics text A mind/mathematics
dualistic foundation of physical reality.
Mathematical foundations
To sum up some of the main points of my contributions in the foundations
of mathematics:- While I agree that ZF(C) is one of the best
references for research works on set theory, especially for relative
consistency results such as that of CH, I find it not the best choice of
basis to start mathematics: neither for "practical mathematics" for
undergraduates, nor even as properly self-explaining of why it is
indeed a good reference for high-level consistency results.
- For a better start of mathematics
I propose a new formalization of set theory, introduced in parallel with the
rudiments of model theory. There I admit as basic objects not only sets but also
pure elements and functions. Oriented
pairs and other tuples are more cleanly defined as functions.
- Several axioms of sets existence come as particular cases of a single principle, a
sort of "any class behaving like a set is a set", namely : the classes in
which a quantifier is equivalent to a formula with bounded quantifiers.
In the philosophical pages I then justify
this principle itself from a philosophical understanding of the
difference between sets and classes: not that of limitation of size, but using
a concept of mathematical time flow (through an interplay between set
theory and model theory) : "a class is not a set if it remains able to contain
elements which do not exist yet" (which may happen for very small classes
such as one just able to contain one future element). The remarkable fact
that the powerset does NOT
comply to this condition, accounts for the possibility for
different universes to interpret the powerset differently.
- I introduce categories quite early (even before a formal definition of natural numbers).
I start with a variant
of the concept of concrete category, without any mention of functors. (I used the
word "functor" for a more general
concept which I need to name but did not see named by other authors : the
structures of any theory are operators and predicates ; the unary operators are what
I call functors). That is my way to give categories a good place in the picture, implicitly
responding to arguments of some category theorists that "ZF is not good because it
does speak about categories, so let us take categories as an alternative foundation of
maths". No, categories are nice but I never saw a good way for category theory to
replace set theory as a foundation of maths anyway, so here is what I see as a good
balance instead.
- I give a clean abstract mathematical definition of the concept of algebraic term, which I did not see
well done elsewhere, as a particular case of relational system. It is not a particular
case of "strings of symbols", an approach seemingly common by other authors
(influenced by computer science where everything is a file that is a string of symbols
?), but which I see complicating things uselessly by its need to define criteria of syntactic
correctness and then interpretations of such strings, and by its implicit use of arithmetic
in the concept of "string". My way does not assume arithmetic (except for arities of
symbols) but, on the contrary, provides it as a particular case of term algebra.
- I give a short proof of the
Completeness theorem of first-order logic : less than one page, that is much
shorter than how I usually saw it done by other authors. Why do they spend so
much time with complications when a simple way is possible ?
-
I finally explain the right philosophical
justification for the axiom schema of replacement, which is much more subtle
and complex than naively assumed.
For now I just have a few drafts on the foundations of geometry, which I plan to improve
and develop later (affine, projective, conformal, hyperbolic... first done in French long ago).
Despite the abstraction which may repel some, I found interesting to present some
universal algebra (clones, polymorphisms,...) as a basis for linear algebra and duality,
before developing it into the formalism of tensors. I generally optimized the
expression of many topics, to take much fewer pages than usual courses
for a similar amount of knowledge, by many small ideas which I cannot list here.
Foundations of physics
In the physics part of my site I provide two general overviews of physics,
and a series of expositions of specific theories. I did not work on it as
much as on the math yet, so it remains quite incomplete, and more of
the pages are still drafts.
In the list of physical theories I
explain the logical articulations between the diverse more or less fundamental
theories of physics, and the hierarchical orders between them (another map of
theories is given in the metaphysics
text).
In the exploration
of physics by dimensional analysis I present a wide overview of many
phenomena by simply expressing the orders of magnitude of their characteristic
quantities, such as the size of atoms and the velocities of the sound, as determined
by the fundamental constants (and some contingent parameters), so as to give
hints of how things work according to diverse theories without entering their
actual formulation.
The exposition of specific theories starts with Special Relativity, which
I see as the logically second theory of physics after geometry: it just
describes the geometry of our physical universe, that is space-time,
more correctly than the mere 3D Euclidean space we usually imagine it to be.
I still have to develop the exposition of relativistic mechanics from the Least Action Principle to the
conservation laws (which would already need tensors for a clean and complete
formulation). But I already explained the fundamental equation of General
Relativity by a simple approach, already rather rigorous without the tensorial formalization
(required for more general cases) based on the example of the universal expansion.
This may be continued, on the one hand up to electromagnetism (I only wrote a comment on its Lagrangian),
on the other hand up to the symplectic geometry of the phase space.
But I wrote what comes after this: the Liouville theorem (conservation of volume
of the phase space) gives the foundation of
thermodynamics. I precisely explained the nature of entropy and its creation
process, by an exposition which follows the main logical structure of how it is
actually known to work on the basis of quantum mechanics, but without actually
formulating this basis; instead of this, I relate things with the approximation of
classical mechanics. While this exposition isn't actually rigorous (since the reasoning
does not match the described "classical foundation" while its actual quantum
justification isn't explicitly formulated at that step), it still provides a clarity making
it look somehow simpler, more intuitive and coherent than usual expositions still
nowadays trying (and failing) to provide a form of logical rigor on the conceptual
basis of pure classical mechanics (which was the only available one when statistical
physics was first formulated, until it was found to not be the best match to reality). In
particular I take account of the quantum fact that the states of systems are really
probabilistic ones as they are undetermined until they are measured. And despite
some widespread prejudices, this actually simplifies the math.
Then comes an introduction
to quantum physics, and a review of its main interpretations. I found a way to
express some basic aspects of quantum physics in mathematically accurate but quite
simpler ways than usual courses, actually explaining in a simple geometric language
(affine and projective transformations) the mathematical coherence of its paradoxical
predictions such as those of the double slit experiment. Then
I develop critical reviews of the main interpretations (Copenhagen, Bohm, many-worlds, spontaneous
collapse), and an exposition of the one I support with original details: the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation,
giving a fundamental role to consciousness (considered immaterial) in the wavefunction
collapse. I develop this into an original ontological position, variant of idealism :
mind/mathematics dualism
(admitting mind and mathematics as two distinct fundamental substances, separately
time-ordered, while the physical is a combination of them). I also provide many links to references on the topic.
Other pages
In settheory.net/world I developed a long list
of links to teams (and more isolated researchers) on logic and mathematical
foundations around the world, encompassing 3 kinds of orientations (and thus of
faculties they may belong to) : mathematics, computer science and philosophy. I
guess it may be about 80% exhaustive (it becomes harder to complete as the few
missing ones are harder to find). I also listed some other kinds of resources in the
field (journals, proving software, organizations, blogs, conferences, courses...). It
is ironical to see all researchers working in the institutions, so much focused on
similar kinds of missions and the publication of their own work without caring as
much about that of their peers, that none of them cared to invest as much efforts as
I did into this task of listing their peers worldwide.
Another important part of my site (settheory.net/future/) is a series of texts
commenting diverse aspects of the stakes of the world's future, such as the
failure of communism, human intelligence, and environmental, economic, demographic,
political and educational aspects. I wrote much of these in reply to many essays
I reviewed from the 2014 fqxi essay contest "How Should Humanity Steer the Future?".
Finally, another big part of my research was to design a plan of new online social
network which would resolve many current defects of the Web and other world's problems.
In the page "Why I am upset" I commented on the dire lack of people
combining the qualities of care and intelligence (ready and able to deeply and properly
think outside the beaten paths and then act over the conclusions); how the few such
people have no good place in this world, and the big consequence I faced: that, no
matter that I could usually convince all the people who took the time to understand parts
of my plan were convinced of its high value and rather cheap feasability, it still has "no
reputation" just because "reputation" in this world remains a matter of global rumor,
something completely mindless and circular which no mindful person ever cares to
correct, as there is no good way to share and structure non-trivial information on trust
and reputation. Ironically, this problem is precisely among the main ones my plan would
resolve, as it was the starting issue around which I designed it. To implement it, all I
need is one or a few good web programmers (a category of people usually very hard
to find available at an affordable price as they are so much demanded on the world market).
Published in the book Logic
around the world (cover), ISBN:978-600-6386-99-7