is it safe to say that physics is math using reality as axioms

>>8221562
Partially. Physics is also an experimental science. And every 'axiom' has to be empirically verified.

>>8221562
In physics you try to reverse engineer a set of axioms that describe the real world (with limited success).

In math you start with sets of axioms and work out what sorts of things they describe.

>>8221562
Mathematics is immune to misinterpretation, and it is the language of the universe which is why it is used in physics.

>>8221707
One exists within zero

>>8221562
>reality
science doesn't care about "reality"
physics doesn't use axioms, it makes models. so it just tries to make a model that seems to fit all the data, and assumes it to be true. you can use math over that

>>8221562
>physics is math
No.
>reality as axioms
Double-fckn-no.
Lrn2physics-math-reality

>>8221625
>In physics you try to reverse engineer a set of axioms that describe the real world
I really like this perspective.

(Except for it could be improved by a formulation that doesn't strictly imply that indeed there are (final) axioms to be found, even in principle.)
I also don't like "with limited success", as that's either a tautology or a subjective judgement.

I don't agree with the second sentence
>In math you start with sets of axioms and work out what sorts of things they describe.
because in practice you hardly ever start with axioms - you take everything that suits and try around until you solved a problem.

However you formulate "what math is", I would want to have it involve this "considering an (basically arbitrary) task" and be a bit creative of how you may approach it

>>8221707
Hmm. . This doesn't work... I will invent a new constant to suit it.

>>8221721
>>8221621
>>8221625
>>8221707
But what if you subtracted human error? If there was some magically advanced super computer that could calculate things beyond our knowledge then wouldn't OP's response be true? I mean that is physics in itself; physics makes the calculations taking in everything (including the things we can't measure yt) into account.

>>8221562
>is it safe
NO! It's not safe.
This mindset is why so many people associate geometry with physics, and why classical mechanics is still popular, even among /sci/entists, nearly a century after it's been debunked.

>>8222100
classical mechanics weren't debunked

they merely were shown to be approximations that only work under certain conditions

and they are still useful in those conditions

>>8221562
They are different. Mathematics can explain the axiom of physics, for mathematics is a language, that simplifies logical and extensive concepts in order to avoid redundance and obtain quick answer. There's nothing simpler than letters and numbers in any language, so basically math is the least complex languages there is, and always striving for unquestionable efficience.

You can say that physics is the computer and all the programs it contains, with its own language. Mathematics is the mean to reach and talk with the computer.

>>8221562
No. Axioms cannot be proved, neither by Physics nor Mathematics. Axioms are logical statements on which mathematics are built. Physics has similar things that are not rigorously defined logical statements, but serve the same purpose than axioms
These are the ones I can think of :
- The universe can be described by mathematical laws.
- These laws are constant in time and space.
- The scientific method yields laws that get closer to the actual laws of the universe.