[madgoat]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

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.

[270KIDZ]

Originally Posted by madgoat

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.

Originally Posted by madgoat

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 ?

[nflvikings]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

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.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

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.

[Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman

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.

[markcheb]

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.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

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.

[270KIDZ]

Originally Posted by madgoat

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.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw

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...

[270KIDZ]

Originally Posted by Umami

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...

[warbeak2099]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

So many big words... head hurts...

Most important part:

Originally Posted by Umami

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...

[270KIDZ]

sorry. forgot to throw the dodgy in there... fixed

[nflvikings]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

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.

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by 270KIDZ

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.

[Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)]

Originally Posted by madgoat

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

[Flying_Dutchman]

Originally Posted by madgoat

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?

[nflvikings]

Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman

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.

[MVPaintballer]

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.

[Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

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.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman

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...

[Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

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