ASSumptions of science
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 14:45 On Apr 11, 3:54 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4/11/10 11:46 AM, Huang wrote: > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > which is mathematics. > > > Even your first sentence is flawed -- Look up "science". > > I was not trying to redefine science, Sam. Just making a simple > observation. > > Science and mathematics proceed this way. > Assume [a] exists, then you can say that [b] [c] [d] exist, and so > on....and that there are logical relationships among these things. But > you must start by ASSuming existence. You start with "that which is", > and you and with "that which is". Everything is proveable. > > There is no reason why that should be the only way to do science. > > If I start instead by saying "what might be", and building up a system > of things which also "might be", and all of these things are > consistent with respect to each other, then you have achieved the same > thing that mathematics did with some fundamentally different > ASSumptions. The difficulty with this scheme is that not everything conceivable will produce the outcome we desire. For example, it is possible to imagine things such that the laws of physics are much different than what we've discovered so far. And we can come up with a wholly different physics that is based on this alternate set of assumptions. But if you actually tried to build a device or something useful that would be based on that alternate physics, it's our experience that such devices do not work -- that is, they will not actually produce an desired outcome in the set of circumstances created by them. PD
From: john on 12 Apr 2010 14:51 On Apr 11, 10:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > which is mathematics. All of mathematics is based on relationships > among abstract things (such as numbers etc) which are said to exist. > > If you assume existence then you have all of these logical > relationships and everything works out nicely. > > You are predicating everything on reasoning which tries to understand > "what is", or what exists. You assume existence, and conclusions can > be drawn based on those assumptions. Fine. > > But that is not the only way to reason. > > You can devise a tool for modelling which does not assume that it is > actually known that anything exists at all. You can say "I dont know > if it exists or not, but if it does exist then other conclusions can > be drawn...", etc. > > You do not need to model things based on what is known to be. You can > model things on what might be, and if all of these "maybes" are > consistent then you will have achieved the same thing that mathematics > has achieved. > > To not recognize this - to me - is silly, ridiculous, and absurd. Yes, this is exactly how to think. Go to the barrier. Pretend it doesn't exist, and go further until another barrier comes. Maybe even pretend this one doesn't exist either (depending on how difficult it looks) and see where you get. Come from different angles on it until you recognize the barrier. This is Calculus of the mind. john
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 14:54 On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > which is mathematics. All of mathematics is based on relationships > > among abstract things (such as numbers etc) which are said to exist. > > > If you assume existence then you have all of these logical > > relationships and everything works out nicely. > > > You are predicating everything on reasoning which tries to understand > > "what is", or what exists. You assume existence, and conclusions can > > be drawn based on those assumptions. Fine. > > > But that is not the only way to reason. > > > You can devise a tool for modelling which does not assume that it is > > actually known that anything exists at all. You can say "I dont know > > if it exists or not, but if it does exist then other conclusions can > > be drawn...", etc. > > > You do not need to model things based on what is known to be. You can > > model things on what might be, and if all of these "maybes" are > > consistent then you will have achieved the same thing that mathematics > > has achieved. > > > To not recognize this - to me - is silly, ridiculous, and absurd. > > Yes, this is exactly how to think. Why do you think this is useful, other than it being mental diddling for exercise? > > Go to the barrier. Pretend it doesn't > exist, and go further until > another barrier comes. Maybe even pretend > this one doesn't exist either (depending on > how difficult it looks) and see where you get. > > Come from different angles on it until > you recognize the barrier. > > This is Calculus of the mind. > > john
From: john on 12 Apr 2010 15:02 On Apr 12, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 10:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > which is mathematics. All of mathematics is based on relationships > > > among abstract things (such as numbers etc) which are said to exist. > > > > If you assume existence then you have all of these logical > > > relationships and everything works out nicely. > > > > You are predicating everything on reasoning which tries to understand > > > "what is", or what exists. You assume existence, and conclusions can > > > be drawn based on those assumptions. Fine. > > > > But that is not the only way to reason. > > > > You can devise a tool for modelling which does not assume that it is > > > actually known that anything exists at all. You can say "I dont know > > > if it exists or not, but if it does exist then other conclusions can > > > be drawn...", etc. > > > > You do not need to model things based on what is known to be. You can > > > model things on what might be, and if all of these "maybes" are > > > consistent then you will have achieved the same thing that mathematics > > > has achieved. > > > > To not recognize this - to me - is silly, ridiculous, and absurd. > > > Yes, this is exactly how to think. > > Why do you think this is useful, other than it being mental diddling > for exercise? > > Because of what he plainly said above? Out of the box thinking. It's *in*. :-) john
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 15:17
On Apr 12, 2:02 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Apr 12, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 10:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Science draws conclusions based on calculations using on primary tool > > > > which is mathematics. All of mathematics is based on relationships > > > > among abstract things (such as numbers etc) which are said to exist.. > > > > > If you assume existence then you have all of these logical > > > > relationships and everything works out nicely. > > > > > You are predicating everything on reasoning which tries to understand > > > > "what is", or what exists. You assume existence, and conclusions can > > > > be drawn based on those assumptions. Fine. > > > > > But that is not the only way to reason. > > > > > You can devise a tool for modelling which does not assume that it is > > > > actually known that anything exists at all. You can say "I dont know > > > > if it exists or not, but if it does exist then other conclusions can > > > > be drawn...", etc. > > > > > You do not need to model things based on what is known to be. You can > > > > model things on what might be, and if all of these "maybes" are > > > > consistent then you will have achieved the same thing that mathematics > > > > has achieved. > > > > > To not recognize this - to me - is silly, ridiculous, and absurd. > > > > Yes, this is exactly how to think. > > > Why do you think this is useful, other than it being mental diddling > > for exercise? > > Because of what he > plainly said above? > > Out of the box thinking. > It's *in*. > :-) > john Park-bench mutterers and poets also do out of the box thinking. So as an amusement, it can be a hobby. But what USE is it? And if it's not useful in itself, what needs to be added to make it useful? |