Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-14-2009, 03:05 PM #22
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
I don't have the time or the intellegence to argue advanced physics, so I am not going to try to. What I am refering to goes hand-in-hand with Anthony Flew (only pertaining to this concept). I am assuming that I don't have to expain who that is.
I already responded to that quotation and explained why its bad science. Its premises are based on its conclusion so of course the premises will lead to the conclusion. It doesn't take into account the simplest explanation which is that our idea of numbers is based off the real world so of COURSE they fit into real world examples. What this guy essentially is arguing is: y comes from x; if y, then x. Its essentially how people conducted science "experiments" pre scientific method, and precisely why there are rigid rules for performing ACTUAL science.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 09:55 PM #23
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
I already responded to that quotation and explained why its bad science. Its premises are based on its conclusion so of course the premises will lead to the conclusion. It doesn't take into account the simplest explanation which is that our idea of numbers is based off the real world so of COURSE they fit into real world examples. What this guy essentially is arguing is: y comes from x; if y, then x. Its essentially how people conducted science "experiments" pre scientific method, and precisely why there are rigid rules for performing ACTUAL science.
You don't understand what I am saying. The discoveries made after the creation of the number system all seem to work out in neat little formulas.

All masses are found to attract one another with a force that varies inversely as the square of the separation distance between the masses. The equation is exactly "separation distance squared". Not to the 2.1 power; Not to the 2.00000000000000001 power. I find it odd that this worked out to fit perfectly.

I am not "conducting science "experiments" pre scientific method", just observing the oddities of nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
It doesn't take into account the simplest explanation which is that our idea of numbers is based off the real world so of COURSE they fit into real world examples.
Are you trying to say that Mesopotamian had a working understanding of electromagnetic forces and gravitational pull in 3400 BC ?
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."

Last edited by 270KIDZ : 12-14-2009 at 10:38 PM.
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 10:09 PM #24
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
You don't understand what I am saying. The discoveries made after the creation of the number system all seem to work out in neat little formulas.

All masses are found to attract one another with a force that varies inversely as the square of the separation distance between the masses. The equation is exactly "separation distance squared". Not to the 2.1 power; Not to the 2.00000000000000001 power. I find it odd that this worked out to fit perfectly.

I am not "conducting science "experiments" pre scientific method", just observing the oddities of nature.
Except that it isn't exactly two. Quantum fluctuations and approximation in the laws cause that.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 01:10 PM #25
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
You don't understand what I am saying. The discoveries made after the creation of the number system all seem to work out in neat little formulas.

All masses are found to attract one another with a force that varies inversely as the square of the separation distance between the masses. The equation is exactly "separation distance squared". Not to the 2.1 power; Not to the 2.00000000000000001 power. I find it odd that this worked out to fit perfectly.

I am not "conducting science "experiments" pre scientific method", just observing the oddities of nature.



Are you trying to say that Mesopotamian had a working understanding of electromagnetic forces and gravitational pull in 3400 BC ?

I was going to make this post sarcastic, but I decided not to.


Look, it very well may be that mathematics really represents the objective world and exists independently of us.

However, at this point as far as we really know its all just two parts of one system. Literally everything we experience through our senses is code interpreted by the brain, so the fact that we have a logical system of numbers (in our brains) that coincides perfectly with everything we see (also in our brains) is not necessarily a surprise.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 02:12 PM #26
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
I was going to make this post sarcastic, but I decided not to.


Look, it very well may be that mathematics really represents the objective world and exists independently of us.
it MAY also very well be that gravity and friction exist independantly of us as well.

realy makes you think.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 03:14 PM #27
markcheb
surrender...don't move
 
markcheb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: across the Jordan river
At first I didn't like him but then I do, probably won't like him again soon, but oh well.

Time to feed the troll:

^^ to above post, Lol.
__________________
Which thief ~»††«~ are you?
ChristKrew #185
Anointing foreheads with the paintball for a while now.
Where's God? - Read Luke 15:11-32
markcheb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 01:48 PM #28
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
You don't understand what I am saying. The discoveries made after the creation of the number system all seem to work out in neat little formulas.

All masses are found to attract one another with a force that varies inversely as the square of the separation distance between the masses. The equation is exactly "separation distance squared". Not to the 2.1 power; Not to the 2.00000000000000001 power. I find it odd that this worked out to fit perfectly.

I am not "conducting science "experiments" pre scientific method", just observing the oddities of nature.



Are you trying to say that Mesopotamian had a working understanding of electromagnetic forces and gravitational pull in 3400 BC ?
No, but you aren't thinking deeply about this at all. I'm going to try to break it down so you can see where I'm coming from:
-everything we see is filtered through the brain
-numbers are just an abstract idea created by man to describe the world we see

Also, those exact numbers are discovered by fitting the real world in abstract equations MAN invented which are based off numbers and those numbers are based off the real world. So you're essentially measuring things using themselves as the tool to measure them, then making a huge jump and saying that because things are exact they must have been created. Its non-sequitur.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 03:33 PM #29
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
No, but you aren't thinking deeply about this at all. I'm going to try to break it down so you can see where I'm coming from:
-everything we see is filtered through the brain
-numbers are just an abstract idea created by man to describe the world we see

Also, those exact numbers are discovered by fitting the real world in abstract equations MAN invented which are based off numbers and those numbers are based off the real world. So you're essentially measuring things using themselves as the tool to measure them, then making a huge jump and saying that because things are exact they must have been created. Its non-sequitur.
MAN didn't just rig up some random numbers. We observed them and tested them. So these numbers that we "make up" fit perfectly into equations that we observe.

For example:
-A = L * W. It always has and always will.
-We make up a number system and determine that L = 10 and W = 15
-We can now say that A = 150 but nothing has changed to A. A has always been 150.

The equations are there before we think of them. They might not be in our terms but putting them in our turns doesn't make them anything new.
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 07:11 PM #30
Umami
"That guy"
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
so..... if you are given the diameter of a nucleus (say 1*10^-14m) how would you estimate the kinetic energy of an electron trapped within it using hysenberg. (relativistic)
...
You just made me vomit. Please tell me you're not actually finishing a quantum course.

1.) It's spelled Heisenberg
2.) The uncertainty principle is h/4pi. Also known as hbar/2
3.) You're not doing actual quantum mechanics there, you're slinging random nonsensical classical terms around.
4.) Relitivistic quantum mechanics is actually called Quantum Field Theory. I know you're not doing that. Wikipedia FTW.
5.) I assume you're in High School, the problem was probably pertaining to the ground state of Hydrogen (-13.6eV) and the teacher wanted you to calculate the velocity in a classical orbit around the nucleus (which I believe *might* be relativistic, I don't know though) at the bohr radius. Is that even close?

If you're curious about the observable aspect of quantum mechanics, read up on Linear Algebra/Differential Equations, in particular Sturm-Liouville Theory. If you want an introductory text I recommend Quantum Mechanics by David J. Griffiths, it's readable.

By the way, if you don't get it that doesn't mean God came up with it. Well, unless you want to call Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr and Schrödinger Gods. Sometimes I do...
__________________
Everything great in the world is done by neurotics; they alone founded our religions and created our masterpieces.

SOG
I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 09:10 PM #31
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
You just made me vomit. Please tell me you're not actually finishing a quantum course.

1.) It's spelled Heisenberg
2.) The uncertainty principle is h/4pi. Also known as hbar/2
3.) You're not doing actual quantum mechanics there, you're slinging random nonsensical classical terms around.
4.) Relitivistic quantum mechanics is actually called Quantum Field Theory. I know you're not doing that. Wikipedia FTW.
5.) I assume you're in High School, the problem was probably pertaining to the ground state of Hydrogen (-13.6eV) and the teacher wanted you to calculate the velocity in a classical orbit around the nucleus (which I believe *might* be relativistic, I don't know though) at the bohr radius. Is that even close?

If you're curious about the observable aspect of quantum mechanics, read up on Linear Algebra/Differential Equations, in particular Sturm-Liouville Theory. If you want an introductory text I recommend Quantum Mechanics by David J. Griffiths, it's readable.

By the way, if you don't get it that doesn't mean God came up with it. Well, unless you want to call Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr and Schrödinger Gods. Sometimes I do...
So many big words... head hurts...

__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."

Last edited by 270KIDZ : 12-17-2009 at 11:53 PM.
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 09:52 PM #32
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
So many big words... head hurts...
Most important part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
By the way, if you don't get it, that doesn't mean God came up with it. Well, unless you want to call Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr and Schrödinger Gods. Sometimes I do...
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 11:51 PM #33
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
sorry. forgot to throw the dodgy in there... fixed
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 11:57 PM #34
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
sorry. forgot to throw the dodgy in there... fixed
If people can't figure out you're sarcastic based on previous posts you may want to change your level of discourse.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 04:17 AM #35
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
MAN didn't just rig up some random numbers. We observed them and tested them. So these numbers that we "make up" fit perfectly into equations that we observe.

For example:
-A = L * W. It always has and always will.
-We make up a number system and determine that L = 10 and W = 15
-We can now say that A = 150 but nothing has changed to A. A has always been 150.

The equations are there before we think of them. They might not be in our terms but putting them in our turns doesn't make them anything new.
Thats entirely debatable. This is a philosophy forum, not a math one and in philosophy math is not necessarily an objective truth.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2009, 05:22 AM #36
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
Thats entirely debatable. This is a philosophy forum, not a math one and in philosophy math is not necessarily an objective truth.
well now.. there isnt really anywhere for the math guys to go.

otherwise this thread would not have had the "god" addition at the end of the OP. but because I knew (viking) of physics students in this forum this was where the thread went.

and math/religion/philosophy sounds pretty good to me.

they are all basically the same right
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2009, 01:17 PM #37
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
Thats entirely debatable. This is a philosophy forum, not a math one and in philosophy math is not necessarily an objective truth.

Problem: if we're calling math into question, we're essentially calling logic into question, correct? And if we're calling logic into question, then on what grounds are we doing so? Do you get what I'm saying?


edit: vikings, have you taken classical mechanics?
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2009, 10:11 PM #38
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Problem: if we're calling math into question, we're essentially calling logic into question, correct? And if we're calling logic into question, then on what grounds are we doing so? Do you get what I'm saying?


edit: vikings, have you taken classical mechanics?
I have.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 01:07 AM #39
MVPaintballer
Mega Flagellator
 
MVPaintballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: New Hope, PA
Annual Supporting Member
MVPaintballer is a Mega Moderator
MVPaintballer is a Supporting Member
MVPaintballer donated to help Peyton Trent
MVPaintballer supports Bob Gurnsey
MVPaintballer posts videos on PbNation
MVPaintballer supports our troops
Looks like somebody finished their 200-level physics course this week, lol.

Science uses math as a tool to explain and predict phenomena. Philosophy is the interpretation of phenomena. The overlap is so similar, they all go hand-in-hand.

On the validity of math;
Math is a defined language, not some imaginary entity. It's a lot more logical and conrete than any spoken language. The good thing about math is that it can be used to describe nearly everything, and it is the closest thing to infallible that exists.
__________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it on the internet.

Last edited by MVPaintballer : 12-22-2009 at 01:23 AM.
MVPaintballer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 01:38 AM #40
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPaintballer View Post
Looks like somebody finished their 200-level physics course this week, lol.
Indeed. physics 201 I think (here anyways) modern physics.

special relativity, bohr atom, matter waves, hisenberg, up to an introduction to (about 2 weeks of) schrodinger and working with wave function equations. ( odds of a particle being at any given location within a box with infinitely high sides ) didnt deal with tunneling or 3 dimentions.


fun but not quite as fun (surprisingly) as a proofs and mathmatical structures class.

easier than proofs, but less creativity involved.

math counts as a religion.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 02:01 AM #41
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Problem: if we're calling math into question, we're essentially calling logic into question, correct? And if we're calling logic into question, then on what grounds are we doing so? Do you get what I'm saying?
Well... if math is derived from logic, then I guess logic would be derived from probability within nature. Though, IF our existence proves over time to be fully unpredictable, you would then render "logic" as a useless tool, thus leaving math valueless, given that consistent patterns at that point would serve as nothing more than a human fallacy.

I don't believe that, but I suppose in philosophy anything is really possible...
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 12-22-2009 at 02:05 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 02:10 AM #42
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Well... if math is derived from logic, then I guess logic would be derived from probability. Though, IF our existence proves over time to be fully unpredictable, you would then render "logic" as a useless tool, thus leaving math valueless, given that consistent patterns at that point would serve as nothing more than a human fallacy.

I don't believe that, but I suppose in philosophy anything is really possible...
if everything was proven to be fully unpredictable then life wouldent exist. it would only take 20 seconds of "unpredictable gravity" to shoot all life off the planet or send earth tumbling towards the sun etc.

unpredictable within a margin of error has basically been proven.

when logic is ignored then the validity of any argument is void.

if we ignore logic then me saying "the earth orbits the sun" is just as valid as me saying "I spontaneously time travel like in the time travellers wife" or "ever had a hamburger take a bite out of you?"

ignoring logic means that a relevant agument could be made that there is a planet somewhere that is EXACTLY the same as earth (same people doing the exact same things) except hot snow falls up and people wear shoes on their hands and hats on their feet.

its akin to building a castle in the clouds. if rocks wont fall then why not?

but I am not a philosopher... I am employed.

edit: just saw a jumping off point in your post, I understand that you do not believe this
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump