Re: Survival langauge

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:29:07 GMT, "Purl Gurl" <purlgurl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>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."
>
>

Ok, then, just for you:

To say that "we do not yet understand the math involved" 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 and its
mathematical description) provides no insight about that which we
don't understand.

Means the same thing, as far as I can tell.





>> >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.
>

And, I have no idea what the above paragraph means, either. Such
statements as "mathematics is a universal constant" just don't convey
meaning to me. I understand what mathematics is and I know what is
meant when one refers to a "universal constant," but these things
(math and constants) are of such different meanings to me that I don't
have a clue what is meant by equating them. I guess I'm suffering
from some sort of birth defect because I didn't understand anything
like this when I was born and I have had no opportunity to learn it.
Apparently, it's knowledge that should be inate, and yet, I lack it.

>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.
>

Of course there can be no contradictions or paradoxes, because that's
the way we define things. I'm glad of that, by the way.

>
>> >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.
>

I don't agree that scientists have discovered any such thing. Some
scientists may so hypothesize, but that's not the same thing as making
a discovery. Michael Nitabach has offered. in this thread, another
definition of chaos which I think deserves attention. It's probably
closer to what physicists and mathematicians mean than anything I can
offer (and physicists and mathematicians are the ones who get to say
what "chaos" means in the realm of physics and math -- it's a
consensus thing). Anyway, the definition he offers (that vanishingly
small changes in initial conditions do not result in vanishingly small
changes in subsequent states) does not depend on mathematical
unsophistication, either.

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

I don't agree with that. If we're talking about the world we directly
observe -- the world of slow moving, medium sized objects like bowling
balls and automobiles -- it's probably an adequate explanation of
observed phenomena. If we're talking about the very small and fast,
the very large, or the chaotic, I think that a simple deterministic
explanation of reality is woefully inadequate. Just for something to
think about:

Richard Feynman wrote a small book (actually, I think it was a
collection of lectures)entitled "The Character of Physical Law." In
this book, he discussed, in easy to follow terms, one of the most
important experimental observations of modern physics: the double slit
experiments. The behavior of a single small particle cannot be
explained in a simple deterministic, non probabilistic way. In other
words, if you know everything there is to know about the initial
conditions, it is still impossible to predict the subsequent state.
Of course, I hear you say, we get around this by using math that
accounts for all this -- wave functions and such. The problem is,
that this math is descriptive and not explanatory.

I mentioned earlier Bell's inequalities (which had to do with the EPR
"Paradox") and experimental tests. Many years ago, when I was
interested in this sort of thing, I found the Scientific American
article by d'Espagnat("The quantum theory and reality" Scientific
American 241 #5) to be the most accessible explanation of the problem,
experimental design, and early results. My recollection is that the
observed phenomena defy a deterministic explanation.


>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."

If there were a God. It seems to me that attributing the "Big Bang"
to the caprice of God is very much begging the question. I agree, by
the way, that there is very good reason for scientists to believe a
"big bang" event but very little, if any, evidence to indicate what
was on the other side. That's my feeling about it, anyway. Like
almost everybody, I know just about nothing about it.

>
>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.
>

Plussed-wise, I remain non.
>
>> >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.
>

I don't think that's right. It appears to me that the laws of physics
are constant, immutable (though not completely understood -- perhaps
beyond human understanding) while the math used to describe the
physics is always being updated.

Newton's second law, for example, used to be mathematically described
as F = ma or (F = md2s/dt2 where "d2s/dt2" indicates the second
derivative of position with respect to time--a vector, as is F). We
now know this is inadequate. It works pretty well for bowling balls
and automobiles, though.

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

To paraphrase one of those guys (Rutherford, perhaps), biology is
stamp collecting. (For any non-physics scientists who may have
stumbled upon this foray into scientific exposition by those eminently
unqualified: it's a joke and not meant to be disparaging.)

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

Can you offer a clue as to what you mean by mapping the human body
"using pure mathematics?" Then, perhaps, I can decide whether I agree
or disagree. I'm not being deliberately obtuse -- it comes naturally.

>Mathematics is a universal constant. Numbers cannot be argued.

Pardon me for so observing, but it appears to me that this has become
some sort of mantra with you--almost as if you don't really believe it
but hope that if you repeat it a sufficient number of times it will
take on the aura of truth. (I understand that just because that's the
way it appears to me doesn't necessarily mean that that's the way it
is, so please don't take offense and assign me to one of those lists.)
Perhaps it would so become for me as well, if I had the foggiest clue
what meaning these words were meant to convey. Saying that "numbers
cannot be argued" conveys as much meaning to me (and no more) than
"oranges can't be interrogated."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why lorentz transformation?
    ... If he didn't think that it was mathematics, ... Deal with the math or shut the fuck up. ... >| new coordinates xi, eta, zeta, tau, and no symbol is used to denote ... notation became important for you later in your posting. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • =?UTF-8?B?2YHYsdmI2LQg2YXYrNmF2YjYudmHINqp2KfZhdmEINqp2KrYp9io2YfYp9uMINix24zYpw==?= =?UTF-8
    ... Probability Theory The Logic of Science, ... Copyright © 1989 by Addison-Wesley Publishing ... Elliptic Curves Number Theory and Cryptography Discrete Mathematics ...
    (sci.math.num-analysis)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... might learn that what he describes is in fact a branch of mathematics. ... But I will mention how well-respected, atheistic scientists, such ... If one never learns anything after they get out of high school, I imagine ... statistical unlikelyhood that this universe has the universal constants ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes
    ... You would find little solace in mathematics. ... The Universe does not *obey* mathematical principles or natural "laws". ... There is no necessary isomorphism between the math used to, say, describe quantum physics, and how that physics actually works in reality. ... So, yes, I grasp quite well the ideas found in game theory, probability, ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... might learn that what he describes is in fact a branch of mathematics. ... But I will mention how well-respected, atheistic scientists, such ... If one never learns anything after they get out of high school, I imagine ... statistical unlikelyhood that this universe has the universal constants ...
    (talk.origins)