I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: BURT on 15 Mar 2010 16:38 On Mar 15, 1:35 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "Sizes of infinities of the infinitely small" are manifest in the universe as space of finite length. There is a higher way to see finites in nature. Mitch Raemsch
From: Huang on 15 Mar 2010 19:17 > "Sizes of infinities of the infinitely small" are manifest in the > universe as space of finite length. There is a higher way to see > finites in nature. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > It is encouraging, Mitch, to know that such incredible and beautiful ideas would be completely and totally wasted on you.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 15 Mar 2010 19:32 Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> writes: > It is encouraging, Mitch, to know that such incredible and beautiful > ideas would be completely and totally wasted on you. Why do you find this encouraging? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 15 Mar 2010 19:39 On Mar 15, 5:53 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with concrete and precisely defined objects. You posts are nothing but hot air philosophical banalities thrown together. >> Any mathematical problem should be > > solveable using tools other than mathematics, No. Many math problems require unique tools available only through mathematics. Of course, you can dress these tools in different disguises, but at the core they will remain the same. > > > 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, Well, I can't say that I devoted a long time to your post, but I did understand some. For example when you wrote: "For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe. " I understood that you are learning basic arithmetic and expressing the same admiration for arithmetic logic that all children do at the age of 4 or 5. > > and why you would criticize something if you dont completely I am not criticising it. I am just saying that this is clearly philosophy, not math. I recommend that you take your research even further. For example, investigate what will happen if you take 3 apples and combine them with 7 apples. How about if we replace apples with avocados? > 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... Fuzzy Mathematics is not mathematics. It's a cult. > ... and the definition of apple becomes a > matter of probability. This again is amenable to Conjetural Modelling > for the reasons stated elsewhere. This is very deep and brilliant from a philosophical point of view. I can't wait for you to investigate the powerful probabilistic processes in apples that determine whether 2+3=5 or not. BTW, which apple variety do you plan to investigate first: Granny Smith or Golden Delicious?
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 15 Mar 2010 19:54
"Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> writes: > No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with > concrete and precisely defined objects. How is, say, the first extendible cardinal or a non-measurable set of reals "concrete"? > Fuzzy Mathematics is not mathematics. It's a cult. Fuzzy mathematics is perfectly fine, ordinary mathematics. Some people do associate the mathematical models, results, techniques, with dubious and bizarre philosophizing, but that's another matter[1]. Footnotes: [1] Bart Kosko's _Fuzzy Thinking_ is a wonderful read if one enjoys paranoid rants and fifth-rate philosophy. There's also a bit about fuzzy logic in the book. Alas, most texts on these topics are boring, entirely lacking the chutzpah and inanity of Kosko's more exciting fuzzy thinking. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |