Prev: Einsteins patents
Next:  Entropy ( dissipation, lost eXergy ) is the fifth dimension.
From: Huang on 11 Apr 2010 12:46
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.



From: Sam Wormley on 11 Apr 2010 13:32
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".



From: JOHN on 11 Apr 2010 14:26

"Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d8d8d4f-101c-40d4-823d-a6501dd32067(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
>
>

agree, you are a dumbass.


From: Huang on 11 Apr 2010 16:54
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.






From: Sam Wormley on 11 Apr 2010 19:42
On 4/11/10 3:54 PM, Huang wrote:
> 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.
>

Let's say that that Earth's water came from comets. Seems logical.
To test that theory the ration of heavy water in comets compared
to the ratio on earth.

In the comets analyzed so far, the proportions of these two kinds
of water don't match the composition of water in our oceans.

One of the key things that every scientist keeps in mind, is you
should never fall in love with your theory. So it's an idea, it's
a hypothesis, it fits all the known facts. But it has not yet been
proven, and we must be willing to give it up and modify it if it
is not proven. But we will learn something in doing so.

The theory is only good if it make predictions and the predictions
are supported by observations. When the observations contradict the
theory, it is wrong.

Kepler had hoped that Brahe's data would verify that the orbital
path of Mars was circular... but the data showed that the orbital
path was elliptical. Choosing what the observation say over one's
pet theory is what science is all about. That is the heart of science.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Einsteins patents
Next:  Entropy ( dissipation, lost eXergy ) is the fifth dimension.