Re: Survival langauge

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:39:24 GMT, "Purl Gurl" <purlgurl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Hedberg wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I haven't kept up with experiments involving what we know as "Bell's
>> Inequalities" for a number of years, and my understanding of the
>> problem was from the perspective of a graduate student in electrical
>> engineering and not that of a physicist or mathematician. But,
>> doesn't the bulk of the empirical evidence (eg experiments by Alan
>> Aspect) indicate that Einstein's intuition about gambling gods was
>> wrong?
>
>Nope. Personal opinion of course, but it is we do not yet understand
>the math involved.

To say that "we do not yet understand" is, of course, trivially true.
The fact that we don't understand something (in this case, the
behavior of the very small and very fast) provides no insight about
that which we don't understand.

>Numbers cannot be argued.

You keep repeating that. I didn't know what you meant the first time,
and I still don't.

>
>I cite an example in a different article of discovery our Universe is
>not chaotic, rather the math involved is so complex we have only
>recently come to understanding.

I don't think that it's accurate to imply, as I believe you do, that
science has established that chaos is an illusion resulting from a
lack of mathematical sophistication. It may turn out that it is, and
it may turn out that it's not, but conjecturing about it (or wishing
about it, for that matter) makes neither possibility more likely than
the other.

>
>Another example is thought there is a lack of sufficient mass in our
>Universe to collapse it, other words, an expanding Universe is the
>rule. This is defeated by recent discovery of dark matter and string
>cosmology. There is now sufficient mass to eventually collapse our
>Universe. These discoveries are made through math.

No, these "discoveries" (and I don't think that conjecture and theory
about such things rises to the level of "discovery") are not "made
through math." The discoveries are made through observation and
inference. Math is just a tool used to describe what is observed and
inferred. Typically observations and inferences from those
observations occur first (or firstly?) and then math is used to
describe. (Of course, this is necessarily an extremely gross
simplification.) Sometimes, though, the math appears first and when
the observations and inferences are made, the previous "math without
applications" is there waiting to be used. I believe that QM
application of the math of William Hamilton is an example.

>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cosmological Models and the Big Bang
    ... Oh, I know, Chris. ... understanding of the nature of mathematics. ... I don't think math has much to do with it. ... or the idea of something "outside" the Universe were seen as ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • JSH: Pathetic, but world is still here
    ... One neat thing is that I've verified just about all of the mathematics, ... reason worrying about potential fall-out from my discovery. ... I have my other research results, where the math is so ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Survival langauge
    ... >>the math involved. ... Mathematics is a universal constant. ... Universe, using mathematics. ... This is defeated by recent discovery of dark matter and string ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Vermont Lake Monster
    ... Remember when Republicans claimed that PBS was unnecessary because ... all thanks to  the free market? ... Discovery is annoying because they stretch 20 minutes of material to ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: My prime counting function
    ... it online in various places but every once in a while I get in a mood ... It's been over six years since I made the discovery, ... That's not my fault: you try to stay positive for 6 years on your math ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)