Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Do waves move faster in a liquid with a higher density?
Next: ...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jan 2010 23:55 dorayme wrote: > In article <hi65bt0115f(a)news5.newsguy.com>, > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>>> Just wanted to know how you defined the terms. Seems that you've >>>> got it mostly right, however you need to remember that axioms are >>>> _always_ made up rules, in both math and physics. >>> >>> I cannot *remember* what is not true! And it is not true that axioms >>> in maths or logic or physics are always *made up of rules*. >> >> I didn't say they were made up _of_ rules, I said that they were >> rules that someone made up. >> > > On my newsreader your previous words are *still* "axioms are _always_ > made up rules, in both math and physics". It makes little difference > because if someone makes a rule, there are rules he makes. And I am > denying that all the axioms of physics or maths are rules. A rule is > an instruction of some kind, many axioms if not all, do not even look > anything of the kind. > >>>> In math, which is really a logic game, the >>>> axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, >>> >>> It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There >>> are semantics. And it is not clear what "having a basis in the >>> physical universe" really means. >> >> No, it is not an open question. Mathematics is a game, an >> intellectual exercise, any relation that it bears to practical >> reality is purely coincidental. > > Hardly! A coincidence is something particularly unlikely. Mathematics > is a human activity and its outputs are not highly unlikely > relationships with 'practical reality'. > >> A common toast among mathematicians is "here's to pure >> mathematics, may it never be of any use to anybody". >> > > It is a nice toast and it is true that some of the best maths may not > turn out to be of any use to anyone. That does not make some of your > previous remarks correct. We must not let it go to our heads that some > bit of maths just happens to become useful a few hundred years later. > It is not *a coincidence* that if I take out 4 apples from a barrel > and then another 4, that I will have taken out 8 or that if there had > been 200 to start with, there will now be 192. It is not a mere > coincidental relationship between these practical goings on and that > 4 + 4 = 8 or 200 - 8 = 192. > >>>> while in >>>> physics they are established by long observation and are subject to >>>> change if a confirmed observation to the contrary is encountered. >>> >>> Now you contradict yourself, one hardly looks to observations to >>> verify the truth of something made up of rules. >> >> In physics the rules were selected because they bear some relation to >> observation. The observation does not verify the rules, the rules >> are the result of the observation. > > Not in any sense of "relationship" or "the result of" that anyone > around these parts is explaining or understanding. It is a big and > open question in the philosophy of science. I don't mind chatting > further about it. You do some grad work in mathematics and physics and get back to us. As things stand you need more background than can be provided via USENET to get to where you understand the issues under discussion.
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jan 2010 23:56 Androcles wrote: > "Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:02992afd-889d-4a84-a905-27b4860735b7(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 7, 6:15 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >>>> In math, which is really a logic game, the >>>> axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, >> >>> It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There >>> are semantics. And it is not clear what "having a basis in the >>> physical universe" really means. >> >> No, it is not an open question. Mathematics is a game, an >> intellectual exercise, any relation that it bears to practical >> reality is purely coincidental. > > That's bullshit. <plonk>
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 00:29 On Jan 8, 6:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth > postulate is a postulate or not. What are the premises? Are the lines converging or they parallel? They cant be both. You do realize there are no lines in reality, they are mind dependent and only matter to man's survival, when a problem of matter / survival is solved with them. MG
From: M Purcell on 8 Jan 2010 00:45 On Jan 7, 9:29 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 8, 6:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth > > postulate is a postulate or not. > > What are the premises? Are the lines converging or they parallel? They > cant be both. It depends on the geometry, plane or otherwise. In either case the other postulates remain the same. > You do realize there are no lines in reality, they are mind dependent > and only matter to man's survival, when a problem of matter / survival > is solved with them. The fact that people use such concepts to solve problems makes them real. You may not see a national boarder but you probably don't want to be on the wrong side of it.
From: Les Cargill on 8 Jan 2010 00:47
Marshall wrote: > On Jan 7, 6:15 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> In math, which is really a logic game, the >>>> axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, >>> It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There >>> are semantics. And it is not clear what "having a basis in the >>> physical universe" really means. >> No, it is not an open question. Mathematics is a game, an intellectual >> exercise, any relation that it bears to practical reality is purely >> coincidental. > > That's bullshit. > > > Marshall Not really. -- Les Cargill |