Re: Survival langauge

Hedberg wrote:

> Purl Gurl wrote:
> >Hedberg wrote:

> >> 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.

Careful, Hedberg. I did not write that. You are twisting my words.

"...we do not yet understand the math involved."


> >Numbers cannot be argued.

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

One is always one. When we establish a mathematical truism, this truism
cannot be changed. Some will argue, sure. Nonetheless a truism is that
which we have observed empirically, applied Scientific Method, have
concluded then verified through publication and independent testing.

E = MC squared.

This formula cannot be changed. It is a universal truism, noting this
is as we know our universe.

Newton's Three Laws Of Motion, these we cannot change. All three
are hard truisms tested by time.

Mathematics is a universal constant. Literally everything is mathematics.
Life is mathematics. Language is mathematics. God can even be described
using mathematics. We can communicate with others out there in our
Universe, using mathematics. Mathematics is a universal constant.

Many create a paradox using mathematics, although this is impossible.
There are no mathematical paradoxes. There is our inability to yet
understand a solution to a mathematical paradox.


> >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.

I disagree. Chaos is not random. Chaos is a result of highly complex
mathematics. Years back, scientists discovered our Universe is not
chaotic but rather extremely complex mathematics.

All events have a causation and resultant, and are predictable when
sufficient mathematical understanding is effected.

cause ----> result

A note worthy exception "might" be the Big Bang. We have zero clue
what is on the other side of the Big Bang. We do not know if there is
even an other side. Our Big Bang could very well be God's utterance,
"Let There Be Light."

However, Planck's Time exemplifies we can understand the Big Bang
from the very instant to current time and into the future. We just cannot
get behind the Big Bang. This understanding is pure mathematics.

Mathematics is a universal constant. We cannot argue numbers.


> >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.

Yes, but when you look at the bottom line, when you look at the basic
premise of observation and discovery, it is pure mathematics expressed
with words.

Energy equals mass times the (speed of light squared).

E = MC squared

Another claims Physics is not mathematics. Not so. Physics is
a language expression of mathematics; Newton's Three Laws.

Biology is mathematics. Biology is a language expression of
mathematical combinations of DNA constituents.

We can present a map of our human body using pure mathematics.
Would not be very practical to do so, but we can.

Mathematics is a universal constant. Numbers cannot be argued.

Purl Gurl
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Survival langauge
    ... >>>the math involved. ... Literally everything is mathematics. ... >Universe, using mathematics. ... I don't agree that scientists have discovered any such thing. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Hawking: God is an unnecessary hypothesis
    ... the math works to describe the world when the math was *devised* to do ... litre of water and 1 litre of ethanol does not equal 2 litres of fluid ... The behavior of the universe is in accordance with mathematics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking: God is an unnecessary hypothesis
    ... surprise that the math works to describe the world when the math ... physics problems, it also is useful in describing biological ... universe is a mathematical one. ... But the universe of *mathematics* is infinitely ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking: God is an unnecessary hypothesis
    ... the math works to describe the world when the math was *devised* to do ... a discovery rather than an invention. ... In fact the universe is a mathematical one. ... But the universe of *mathematics* is infinitely ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking: God is an unnecessary hypothesis
    ... the math works to describe the world when the math was *devised* to do ... In fact the universe is a mathematical one. ... But the universe of *mathematics* is infinitely ... Would "events" in a perfect mathematical model of the universe be ...
    (talk.origins)