The Continuum: Mainstay or Menace? (erweitert)

The Continuum:  the original sin, from whose fecund loins
came all that is non-constructive in mathematics.

-- Anon.

Kronecker dismissed mathematical entities beyond the natural numbers as “Menschenwerk”.  An average practicing mathematician (who uses such entities all the time) may  agree with him to this extent:

(1)  Our intuitions about the natural numbers are clear and solid.   So long, indeed, as one deals only with some set of actual numbers (thus, a finite set), nothing especially surprising  or even all that interesting  turns up.  If we extend our horizon to the actual infinite of the set of all natural numbers, we meet some concepts that take getting used to (Hilbert's hotel):  but once we’ve done so, they seem natural enough.

(2) The rationals and negative integers  definitely, the algebraic numbers  probably, pretty much come along for the ride (that is, you can hardly exclude them once you’ve accepted N), and they still bring in no paradox – being, after all, of the same cardinality as the natural numbers themselves.  Though, a case could be made that these are not “entities” of the same standing as the integers, which in a sense we can hold in our hands (embodied in oranges, say), but rather abbreviations for operations on integers.  Thus, we cannot hold minus-two oranges in our hands; minus-two is not a thing, but a bookkeeping device. 

(3)  The real numbers, by contrast, are … a piece of work.  Maybe even Menschen-work, except that one could hardly imagine Menschen coming up with anything so intricate and even bizarre.  Their very cardinality baffles intuition  -- and the independence of the continuum hypothesis  shows that we are right to be baffled.  [Note:  The simple infinity of the integers already baffles *untutored* intuition;  but eventually you get the idea.  Click on the Label "Hilbert's Hotel" for further exemplification.  Whereas, the cardinality of the continuum is more like... Hilbert's Nightmare...] All sorts of queasy consequences arrive for simple quantification (cf. Quine re.  objectual vs. substitutional quantification).  The reals were invented (discovered?) for purposes of analysis, which in turn was developed largely for the sake of physics: but it now appears that physics (whether in its quantum cast, where Uncertainty provides a certain indissoluble granularity; or in the Wolframesque finite-automata approach) might not actually require, or afford, a continuum.

And yet standard mathematics speaks indeed ontologically of the reals, not merely pragmatically.  Thus for instance, Rudin’s standard text (Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3^rd edn. 1976, p. 8):

We now state the existence theorem [emphasis in original] which is the core of this chapter.

Theorem. There exists an ordered field R which has the least-upper-bound property.

The author then mentions that the proof actually constructs the Reals out of the Rationals.  This is, of course, the most solid sort of proof of all – not one of those Cantorian diagonalization thingies that has you winding up assenting to the Infinite Woodchuck, without ever quite knowing how you got into such a fix.  It gives you an actual recipe for the construction of these extended numbers, as concrete and explicit as for baking a cake.  And yet… all kinds of things can be thus “constructed”, at will, including items which presumably are not part of the furniture of the universe, in the sense that angels actually sit on them.

~

A roaring vote of confidence in the continuum  is voiced by the noted mathematician René Thom:

“God created the integers and the rest is the work of man.”  This maxim spoken by the algebraist Kronecker  reveals more about his past as a banker who grew rich through monetary speculation  than about his philosophical insight.  There is hardly any doubt that, from a psychological and, for the writer, ontological point of view, the geometric continuum is the primordial entity.

-- “’Modern’ Mathematics: An Educational and Philosophic Error?”, in American Scientist (1971), repr. in Thomas Tymoczko, ed., New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics (1986, rev. 1998), p. 74.

That is in-your-face Platonism, with which, quâ Realism, we have no quarrel.  But the psychological claim seems dubious:  Our intuition of the continuum is probably no more than a vague notion of a smear (and not very infinite at that, neither going out nor going down).   And as for the ontology … When we first meet the Real numbers mathematically (that was the very first thing we did in first-year calculus, with the opening chapter of Spivak’s text), we conceive them as the completion of the rationals.  And such they are indeed:  only, with respect to the metric provided by the absolute value.   With a p-adic valuation, you get a different completion of the rationals, the p-adic numbers.   Lastly, the surreal numbers augment the continuum in yet a different unexpected direction.  (I have less than no intuition about any of this.)

The physicist Schrödinger is less sure:

The idea of a continuous range, so familiar to mathematicians in our days, is something quite exorbitant, an enormous extrapolation of what is really accessible to us.

-- Erwin Schrõdinger, “Causality and Wave Mechanics”, repr. in translation in: James R. Newman, ed. World of Mathematics (1956), p. 1059

And from an Intuitionist (close kin to a physicist):

This could be done  by seeing the continuum as something that is infinitely becoming, instead of already being.

-- Dennis Hesseling, Gnomes in the Fog:  The Reception of Brower’s Intuitionism in the 1920s (2003), p. 333

(Compare our old friend the actio/actum distinction.)
Might be fine for physics, doesn’t work for math.  ‘See’ it however you like; that uncompleted-account doesn’t jibe well with Cantor-style constructions.

~

One might say:  The continuum feels unproblematic enough, so long you take it for granted, as just some kind of smooth dense slippery thing, like mud.  Yet so soon as you pause to enquire more nearly, you are back in Saint Augustine’s predicament with regard to Time: “Quid est tempus? Si nemo a me quaerat, scio …”

~

Even in a universe which (like Wolfram’s) abjures the continuum, the continuum might turn out to be mathematically indispensible for its treatment.   Cf. the indispensible role of “imaginary” numbers in electromagneticsm or quantum mechanics, even though all observables must be real-valued.

Quantum poem

Schroedinger’s Cat

Silent as twilight,

Shadowcat glides by.

Like the Moon, she moves in phases.

Like Time, she’s blind as ice.

Delicate as melancholy,

as distant as though nearer,

it seems as though she senses me;

I sense as though I see her.

I reach out as to pet her,

but my hand goes through her.

Years later, someone asks me.

I say “No, I never knew her.”

You are in my dreams;  I am in yours ...

Cream for your Coffee

[The following paragraph has just been added to our essay, "A New Proof of the Existence of Coffee-Cups".]

Having at length satisfied ourselves as to the reality, or at least reliability, of coffee-cups, would should not  on that account sink back into an attitude of Moorean complacency (“I’m all right, Jack;  I’ve got hands”).  For our commitment to these  suggests yet further commitments, which we had not realized were there to assess.  Such as :  Realism with regard to quantum state vectors.

The question of ‘reality’ must be addressed in quantum mechanics -- especially if you takes the view that the quantum formalism applies universally to the whole of physics -- for then, if there is no quantum reality, there can be no reality at any level.

-- Roger Penrose,  The Road to Reality (2004), p. 508

And:

The question of the objective existence of the objects of mathematics … is an exact replica of the question of the objective existence of the outer world.

-- Kurt Gödel, “What is Cantor’s continuum problem?”, in American Mathematical Monthly, 1947.

A complex Schrödinger equation,

after the Collapse of the Wave Packet

In for a penny, in for a pound.

E8: a Riposte (concluded)

Let us examine a bit more closely  Synge’s picture of physics as bricolage,  where theories have the intellectual status of just-so stories, and are really little more than pragmatic techniques, or tools -- Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics each useful in its own sphere, like screwdrivers and spoons, but of little interest in their own right.   Now, this is not to knock the status of a toolkit -- my respect for competent carpenters and electricians borders on reverence -- but fundamental physics is not like that.

            Synge presents the Newtonian view as having not been replaced or refuted by relativity;  it rules as before in its own realm.  Newton’s good for some things, Einstein for others, and Wiccan no doubt for others still.   But this view assumes a confusion.  For it is not the case that Newtonism and relativity are independently valid in their own way but incompatible;  rather, Newtonism is the limiting case of relativity, in a way very familiar in mathematics;  its continued use in everyday life is simply a calculational convenience, a shortcut.   To continue the tool metaphore:  Einstein and Newton are not like screwdriver and pliers, but like a hammer, and an old shoe used as a hammer, good enough for the task at hand.

            Furthermore, it is a good thing, not a bad thing, when initially separate paths converge.  If you only know one way to climb a thing,  perhaps it is only a Potemkin mountain -- a paper-maché façade, hollow behind the north slope.   It is quite a relief -- and an ontological ratification -- to meet another mountaineering party that has scaled up the other side.

            The reader may be familiar with the story of how Schrödinger and Heisenberg separately found Rome by different roads.  Let George Gamow tell it, in Thirty Years that Shook Physics (1966), p. 3:

The simultaneous appearance of Schrödinger’s and Heisenberg’s papers  in two different German magazines … astonished the world of theoretical physics.  These two papers looked as different as they could be, but led to exactly the same results concerning atomic structure and spectra.

We are, in hindsight, not overly surprised by this, since by now we most of us accept that there is something there at the quantum level, something real, something other than subjective, to be described.   It is describable by two quite different mathematical approaches, much as our peak may be scaled by walking up the north face  or rappelling up the southern cliffs.    Nor is such ‘duplication of effort’ a waste of time, for  in this instance, not only the factual success, but even the approaches themselves retained their usefulness -- for determining energy levels, Schrödinger’s wave mechanics was calculationally more convenient; and Heisenberg’s matrix methods had the edge when it came to calculated the intensities of the radiated frequencies.   Or, alternately, P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (4^th edn. 1958), p. viii:

Quantum mechanics … is known under one or other of the two names ‘Wave Mechanics’ and ‘Matrix Mechanics’, according to which physical things receive the emphasis in the treatment, the states of a system or its dynamical variables.

And (p. 115):

The Schrödinger form is the more useful one for practical problems, as it provides the simpler equations. … Heisenberg’s form for the equations of motion  is of value in providing an immediate analogy with classical mechanics.

Or again (R. F. Streater & A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin & Statistics, and All That (1964), p. 4):

Throughout this book, states will be described in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics.  The Schrödinger picture is much less convenient for the description of a relativistic theory, because it treats the time coordinate on a very different footing from the space coordinates.

And:

P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (4^th edn. 1958), p. 311:

The Schrödinger picture is unsuited for dealing with quantum electrodynamics, because the vacuum fluctuations play such a dominant role in it. … They get bypassed when one uses the Heisenberg picture, and one is then able to concentrate on qualities that are of physical importance.

Dr. Matrix

Dr. Wave

Approaching an abstract but genuine reality from two different theoretical complexes  has its counterpart in different experiments, or different means of calculation, strengthen each other when they arrive at the same result.   Thus Einstein, in his annus mirabilis of 1905, when not inventing Relativity, found it worth his while  to “develop theoretically  three independent methods for finding Avogadro’s number.” (Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord (1982), p. 55.)   It was worth his while because, independently of our endeavors, this number is indeed there.

Summarizing:  For epistemology, the fact that two or more radically different approaches each manages to describe the phenomenon of interest, reassures us that we really do have our arms around this thing.   The lesson goes over, I would submit, in cases where what is being described is nothing so tangible as an atom (which Rutherford reportedly saw in front of his face as plainly as a spoon), but rather a four-manifold, or a simple Lie group.

~ ~ ~

Afterword.

I recently happened across the following curious passage:

The algebras G_2, […] E_8  are called exceptional.  In 1945, Chevalley remarked  that the existence of these algebras  is a brutal act of Providence  which we must accept blindly.  Perhaps this should be revised today  to assert that the source of these algebras  is the wisdom of the Deity  in allowing the Cayley numbers to exist.

-- Irving Kaplansky, “Lie Algebras”; in: T. L. Saaty, ed.  Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol. I (1963), p. 126

~ ~ ~

There’s one further type of brane in M-theory  that is really surprising.  This brane is the edge of spacetime. … The photons at the edge of spacetime participate in supersymmetric E₈ gauge theory.

-- Steven Gubser, The Little Book of String Theory (2010), p. 95