Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Huang on 15 Mar 2010 08:53
On Mar 15, 7:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> > > I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> > > I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> > > care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>
> > Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
> > sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
> > cook beef" to soc.culture.hindu.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The reason it goes to sci.math is because Conjectural Modelling is
> equivalent to Mathematics. Any mathematical problem should be
> solveable using tools other than mathematics, and that is why it
> should be interesting to the math community.
>
> It gets posted in sci.physics as well because Conjectural Modelling is
> an appropriate tool for constructing physical models which satisfy the
> scientific method.
>
> My question for you is whether you actually understood anything that I
> said, and why you would criticize something if you dont completely
> understand it ?
>
> More reasons why it goes to sci.math:
>
> Conjectures (according to my usage) are based on existential
> indeterminacy. They become mathematical statements under the
> assumption of existence. Conjectural Modelling is "transformable" into
> Mathematics. That is why this is of interest to mathematics.
>
> Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential
> indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. That is why
> it is of interest to mathematics. This usage of conservation makes it
> interesting to a physicist.



Adding to this, there are many applications of mathematics here which
are useful in justifying everything I have been saying. Any
mathematician is always looking for new applications of his tools, so
I'll give you one.


With respect to the particular argument at hand regarding Descartes,
we are saying that Descartes is flat wrong in his methodology and his
reasoning because he seems to try to apply the scientific method to
observe something which is unobserveable. He seems to try to observe a
thought, which is impossible.

Our claim is that arithmetic is observable in nature by means of
physical experimentation. Arithmetic logic is an observeable thing
which satisfies the scientific method. We can get rid of Descartes and
use this instead to establish physical existence - in fact succeeding
where he failed.

But there is an additional question which remains. If we do such an
experiment, for example "take 2 apples and add 3 more to yield 5
apples.", we still dont really know what an apple is. You can use
Fuzzy Mathematics to model this, and the definition of apple becomes a
matter of probability. This again is amenable to Conjetural Modelling
for the reasons stated elsewhere.

But the point is that whether you have 5 apples you say that they are
all apples, or if you have 5 things which satisfy the fuzzy definition
of an apple, the fact remains that you can conduct such physical
experiments in arithmetic and draw conslusions based on the fact that
logicical relationships are easily observable in the physical world.






From: jbriggs444 on 15 Mar 2010 14:55
On Mar 13, 7:08 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you were to perform the following physical experiment : Take 2
> apples and add 5 more apples. If you obtain 11 apples, then you can
> safely surmise that you do not exist.

Nothing earth shattering to see here. You can safely ignore this
post. Press <next> now. It ain't Rocket Science.

It isn't even Peano arithmetic.

If I have a table and I keep adding apples on top of it, eventually
I'll have apples on the floor too.

If the pile gets high enough, I'll have apple sauce.

If the pile stays there long enough and isn't sterilized by the heat
of fermentation, I'll likely have apple trees.

If I wait still longer with fewer apples, I'll have apple dust, apple
stains and finally nothing at all.

Further, at least to the extent that time is continuous, there will be
times when the number of apples on the table is not well defined.

In Mathematics, we prefer models without such pesky limitatitions.

But yeah, within some fairly reasonable limitations, if you have two
non-overlapping groups of apples, A and B, the number of apples in A U
B is given by the number of apples in A plus the number of apples in
B.

I'm less sure that this counts as a fact of nature rather than an
artifact of what we consider to be reasonable limitations.

The principle of conservation of apples is not a universal law of
Nature. It is violated routinely.

> If you ever see a four sided triangle - then you can safely surmise
> that you do not exist.

Depends on your definitions, surely. And on how good your eyes are.
Sticks in nature are not always adequately modelled by line segments
in Mathematics.

Take triangle A B C

A
| \
| D
| \
B----C

Break stick AC at D. Is this now a triangle or a degenerate
quadrilateral? Neither? Both? Some of each?

Most of the triangle shaped toys I dealt with as a child had a top
side, a bottom side, an inside and an outside. That's a total of
seven. That's just the tip of that iceberg.

Also, realize that two Tinker Toy sticks two sizes down plus a spool
in the middle adds up to the length of a broken Tinker Toy stick after
you've run out of that size, thereby providing a reproducible physical
realization of a triangle with four sides.

> If you ever see a cube which is a sphere - then you can safely surmise
> that you do not exist.

A point satisfies the definition of both cube and sphere -- assuming
you use the right definitions.

Definitions

Sphere: The locus of all points in R^3 at a fixed distance from a
fixed center point using the standard metric:

m(a,b) = sqrt((a1-b1)^2+(a2-b2)^2+(a3-b3)^2)


Cube: The locus of all points in R^3 at a fixed distance from a fixed
center point using the metric

m(a,b) = max(abs(a1-b1),abs(a1-b2),abs(a3-b3))

or any rotation of such a cube.

> But we never see such things in nature. We see things which imitate
> existence as modelled by mathematics.

We see approximations. We recognize patterns. We invent categories
and taxonomies. Sometimes we notice invariants.

Sometimes we formulate mathematical models which idealize some facets
of what we think we have discovered in Nature.

Often we see what we expect to see and describe what we see according
to conventions we have learned.


I would suggest that the perceived fact that there are no four-sided
triangles is a result of the way our taxonomy of shapes works.

For planar shapes with identifiable straight edges we are taught to
count the sides and classify such figures based on the number of
sides. We do not intentionally blur the distinction between three and
four-sided figures even in cases where the distinction might not be
physically meaningful. (e.g. a plane figure in which two adjacent
sides may or may not be colinear).

For solid shapes we are taught to distinguish between cubes and
spheres. We do not intentionally blur the distinction between cubes
and spheres even in cases where the distinction might not be
physically meaningful. (e.g. a solid figure too small to have an
identifiable shape).


Someone sometime may have mentioned to you that theory is black and
white while the real world is shades of grey. It's true. That
principle applies to triangles and quadrilaterals and to cubes and
spheres too. [It even applies to 1's and 0's in physical digital
computers. Just not very often].
From: Huang on 15 Mar 2010 15:59
On Mar 15, 1:55 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:08 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you were to perform the following physical experiment : Take 2
> > apples and add 5 more apples. If you obtain 11 apples, then you can
> > safely surmise that you do not exist.
>
> Nothing earth shattering to see here.  You can safely ignore this
> post.  Press <next> now.  It ain't Rocket Science.
>
> It isn't even Peano arithmetic.
>
> If I have a table and I keep adding apples on top of it, eventually
> I'll have apples on the floor too.
>
> If the pile gets high enough, I'll have apple sauce.
>
> If the pile stays there long enough and isn't sterilized by the heat
> of fermentation, I'll likely have apple trees.
>
> If I wait still longer with fewer apples, I'll have apple dust, apple
> stains and finally nothing at all.
>
> Further, at least to the extent that time is continuous, there will be
> times when the number of apples on the table is not well defined.
>
> In Mathematics, we prefer models without such pesky limitatitions.
>
> But yeah, within some fairly reasonable limitations, if you have two
> non-overlapping groups of apples, A and B, the number of apples in A U
> B is given by the number of apples in A plus the number of apples in
> B.
>
> I'm less sure that this counts as a fact of nature rather than an
> artifact of what we consider to be reasonable limitations.
>
> The principle of conservation of apples is not a universal law of
> Nature.  It is violated routinely.
>
> > If you ever see a four sided triangle - then you can safely surmise
> > that you do not exist.
>
> Depends on your definitions, surely.  And on how good your eyes are.
> Sticks in nature are not always adequately modelled by line segments
> in Mathematics.
>
> Take triangle A B C
>
> A
> | \
> |  D
> |   \
> B----C
>
> Break stick AC at D.  Is this now a triangle or a degenerate
> quadrilateral?  Neither?  Both?  Some of each?
>
> Most of the triangle shaped toys I dealt with as a child had a top
> side, a bottom side, an inside and an outside.  That's a total of
> seven.  That's just the tip of that iceberg.
>
> Also, realize that two Tinker Toy sticks two sizes down plus a spool
> in the middle adds up to the length of a broken Tinker Toy stick after
> you've run out of that size, thereby providing a reproducible physical
> realization of a triangle with four sides.
>
> > If you ever see a cube which is a sphere - then you can safely surmise
> > that you do not exist.
>
> A point satisfies the definition of both cube and sphere -- assuming
> you use the right definitions.
>
> Definitions
>
>  Sphere: The locus of all points in R^3 at a fixed distance from a
> fixed center point using the standard metric:
>
>   m(a,b) = sqrt((a1-b1)^2+(a2-b2)^2+(a3-b3)^2)
>
>  Cube: The locus of all points in R^3 at a fixed distance from a fixed
> center point using the metric
>
>   m(a,b) = max(abs(a1-b1),abs(a1-b2),abs(a3-b3))
>
> or any rotation of such a cube.
>
> > But we never see such things in nature. We see things which imitate
> > existence as modelled by mathematics.
>
> We see approximations.  We recognize patterns.  We invent categories
> and taxonomies.  Sometimes we notice invariants.
>
> Sometimes we formulate mathematical models which idealize some facets
> of what we think we have discovered in Nature.
>
> Often we see what we expect to see and describe what we see according
> to conventions we have learned.
>
> I would suggest that the perceived fact that there are no four-sided
> triangles is a result of the way our taxonomy of shapes works.
>
> For planar shapes with identifiable straight edges we are taught to
> count the sides and classify such figures based on the number of
> sides.  We do not intentionally blur the distinction between three and
> four-sided figures even in cases where the distinction might not be
> physically meaningful.  (e.g. a plane figure in which two adjacent
> sides may or may not be colinear).
>
> For solid shapes we are taught to distinguish between cubes and
> spheres.  We do not intentionally blur the distinction between cubes
> and spheres even in cases where the distinction might not be
> physically meaningful.  (e.g. a solid figure too small to have an
> identifiable shape).
>
> Someone sometime may have mentioned to you that theory is black and
> white while the real world is shades of grey.  It's true.  That
> principle applies to triangles and quadrilaterals and to cubes and
> spheres too.  [It even applies to 1's and 0's in physical digital
> computers.  Just not very often].



Thanks for that insightful and well written posting.

The question which remains is whether "physical manifestations of
arithmetic logic" can constitute a valid observation to a physicist.

My claim is that Descartes could not possibly produce a "thought"
which was reproducible, falsifiable, quantitative, qualitative, etc.
But, physical experimentation can show that basic logical processes
can be observed in action in the physical world, and I think these
observations would satisfy the prerequisites to be called "science".





From: BURT on 15 Mar 2010 16:31
On Mar 13, 9:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 11:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 10:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 7:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 8:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 13, 7:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > > > > > > > > > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > > > > > > > > > > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > You have no proof either way. Nobody does. prove to me that it is an
> > > > > > > > invention and not a discovery, or vice versa. You cannot.
>
> > > > > > > It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not
> > > > > > > fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of
> > > > > > > itself.
>
> > > > > > There is one math that is physical. It is known as Gamma mathematics
> > > > > > and it is universal in physics.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be
> > > > > > > > fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a
> > > > > > > > component of nature.
>
> > > > > > > Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of
> > > > > > > the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself.
>
> > > > > > > > More fundamental even than space itself, that
> > > > > > > > things like logic are embedded in reality and we simply fail to
> > > > > > > > acknowledge this as part of our natural world.
>
> > > > > > > > There is a huge difference between the two views (discovery or
> > > > > > > > invention), and it is very important to the debate at hand.
>
> > > > > > > Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to
> > > > > > > discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics.
> > > > > > > Mathematics does not exist without nature.
>
> > > > > > Zero.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > Without nature there is no zero.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Zero math is real in the Mind of God. The Mind of God does not need
> > > > the universe.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > I'm discussing the physical universe. Without a physical universe
> > > there is no zero. My definition of physics is the 'physics of nature'..
> > > I realize I'm not supposed to use 'physics' when defining 'physics'
> > > but you get what I mean.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You said math is only abstract. So now zero math is more than a mind
> > construction? Please show how you can find zero in nature.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> You are the one who responded with 'Zero.' to my statement of
> 'Mathematics does not exist without nature.' It is up to you to
> demonstrate how zero exists without nature.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It depends on your origin of math.
The Mind of God.

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 15 Mar 2010 16:35
On Mar 13, 9:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 11:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 10:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 7:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 8:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 13, 7:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > > > > > > > > > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > > > > > > > > > > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > You have no proof either way. Nobody does. prove to me that it is an
> > > > > > > > invention and not a discovery, or vice versa. You cannot.
>
> > > > > > > It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not
> > > > > > > fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of
> > > > > > > itself.
>
> > > > > > There is one math that is physical. It is known as Gamma mathematics
> > > > > > and it is universal in physics.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be
> > > > > > > > fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a
> > > > > > > > component of nature.
>
> > > > > > > Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of
> > > > > > > the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself.
>
> > > > > > > > More fundamental even than space itself, that
> > > > > > > > things like logic are embedded in reality and we simply fail to
> > > > > > > > acknowledge this as part of our natural world.
>
> > > > > > > > There is a huge difference between the two views (discovery or
> > > > > > > > invention), and it is very important to the debate at hand.
>
> > > > > > > Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to
> > > > > > > discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics.
> > > > > > > Mathematics does not exist without nature.
>
> > > > > > Zero.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > Without nature there is no zero.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Zero math is real in the Mind of God. The Mind of God does not need
> > > > the universe.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > I'm discussing the physical universe. Without a physical universe
> > > there is no zero. My definition of physics is the 'physics of nature'..
> > > I realize I'm not supposed to use 'physics' when defining 'physics'
> > > but you get what I mean.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You said math is only abstract. So now zero math is more than a mind
> > construction? Please show how you can find zero in nature.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> You are the one who responded with 'Zero.' to my statement of
> 'Mathematics does not exist without nature.' It is up to you to
> demonstrate how zero exists without nature.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is more than Gamma math expressed in the universe. There are
spherical sin waves for matter and light nature.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question