Bignose

1) Earlier you told us to remove the word "prove" from our vocabularies. 2) and you're back to just stating things instead of supporting them. This is soapboxing. This isn't science. I'm pretty much done here, because you refuse to discuss science.

Not really. Apart from a trivial redefinition of "3" and "4", if we allow this into mathematics, then basically you let any two numbers sum to any other two. Math loses its predictive ability, and thusly its usefulness. But, again, I'll listen. Explain to me a "world" where 2 + 2 = 3 and not just a trivial redefinition would "work well". Just saying "civilization in a computer" isn't good enough. You need to dive deeper and show us. Show me all the implications of it, and show me how it would be fine. Otherwise, it isn't science, it is just story telling.

Then you need to do so. I think you'll find people here are willing to listen. But, if you want more than just a cursory glance, you need to provide supporting evidence. I can write "I have an invisible dinosaur in my basement." and you can read that as well as anyone else. But do you believe it? Wouldn't you ask for more supporting evidence? You're not just going to take me at my word, are you? Well, it is the same thing with your attempts to "educate". You can write things, and we will read them. But, we're going to point out where your ideas are in conflict with known results. You don't get the just wave those away. You have to show us how your idea works with them. If you keep insisting that you know better, we're going to turn away and ignore you, just like you would me if I stood on the corner yelling about my invisible dinosaur. So, want to start over? Want to try to actually explain why you think math would be different in a 1-D or 2-D world? Want to try to explain how the mathematics of many dimensions we've invented would be different? Or are you just going to keep writing haphazard musings as they come to you? The main thing science is interested in is supporting evidence. In science, not all ideas are equal. It is very much a meritocracy. And merit is earned by supporting evidence, mostly in the form of predictions that agree with measurement.

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, just to be a total smart alec, just what is forcing you to be here, then?

yes! ability to use same comment in same thread: what does randomness have to do with perception of 2-D, 3-D, or any-D? have you really gone off topic in your own off topic? and, i think you are going for the record for most off topic posts in one go, aren't ya?

what does orderliness have to do with perception of 2-D, 3-D, or any-D? have you really gone off topic in your own off topic? going for the record? if you are looking for a place to just post random musings, there are plenty of webpages that will give you your own blog...

well, there are obvious discontinuities in the function, so you have to account for that. It doesn't let you use the standard definition of the derivative. The integral can be done in parts.

Well, you were the first one to bring it up... Anyway, whatever you want to call it, proof, evidence, support, prediction, etc. you didn't really provide any of it. Just vainglorious claims about new truths. Simply put, and it's been the main point in this thread, too, that math as a tool is able to be used to successfully make very accurate predictions about phenomena measured in the real world. Arguing against this is insanity. I am a very practical person -- quite simply mathematics works. I don't understand how someone could claim it isn't applicable or "means little for the real world" when it so very obviously does. Deliberately ignoring things in front of you doesn't make for a cogent argument.

How many dimensions do you want? We, as 3-D creatures, have invented the notion of infinite dimensional spaces: see https://people.math.osu.edu/gerlach.1/math/BVtypset/node4.html as just one of many examples. So, the question is, how many dimensions do you want?

Ummm, we've developed mathematics applicable to all sorts of dimensions. Above and beyond just "our" 3-D. I think that your idea above is refuted by what has actually happened.

Citation needed. Especially since it has been over 4 days between your reply and the previous replay in this thread. :/ So, you claim something. But it can't be proved. Guess what. That isn't science. You need to be able to back up claims, otherwise, they are summarily dismissed. This is what lead to your last thread being closed. Remember?

Again, you keep saying this (and much more after it). Citation needed. Please demonstrate some of it. Heck, any of it. I'm not just taking your word for it (something that has come directly from modern science, thank you very much). It all sounds good in words, but if you can't actually show any of it actually, you know, doing what you say here, then it's all just a big story. Just show me some of it actually doing something.

*sigh*. Then how can you be so sure that we're not doing it right, or that the "ancient" ways are better? This is what ruffles so many feathers here. You write things like "math is not applicable to the real world". You tell us there is a new improved math derived from nature. And so on. Here's the really great thing about science: just demonstrate that these things are true. Just demonstrate some ancient math. Just demonstrate math derived from nature. If it just as good as what we have now, it will be accepted. Because science doesn't really care where is comes from, just that it works. But, we get to the end, and it turns out that you don't even know it yourself. It is this overconfidence of telling us that we're all wrong, but not actually being able to show us something that is more right that is really quite grating. All you want to do is tear down our house because you don't like it, but you don't know how to rebuild something you do like. Well, I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a house with flaws in it than no house at all! Once you can demonstrate you know how to rebuild the house, then come back and we can talk again, but don't come into my yard with a bulldozer ready to destroy without being ready to rebuild, too.

It should also be noted that the order of operations is merely a convention. 2 + 4 * 6 = 26 by the convention most of us know. However, it is only a convention, one that everyone agreed to so as to reduce ambiguity. 2 + 4 * 6 = 36 isn't wrong so much as the operations weren't done in the order of convention. So, not only does it not matter what side of the equation terms are on, indeed a great many solution techniques are based on the fact that we have rules about how to move terms from one side to the other, but also that the order of operations in how equations are written is merely a convention. We could have easily settled on another one. As swansont above noted, the apparent relation to nature is probably due to how successfully mathematics have been applied to describe nature.

You keep claiming this, many times now. You never seem to be able to provide it, however. So, should I even ask you to back this up? Or would that just prompt another reply about ancient peoples, our language hampering our abilities, foolish Egyptologists, and how math isn't applicable? Well, I'm just a sucker, so I guess I'll ask. Please define how math can be "derived from an understanding of nature" rather than "being the basis of an understanding of nature", in particular how these two very similar phrases are actually different. Then please demonstrate that this new math is at least as effect as our old math. Several examples, please. From first principles, please.

So then you need to look at the references cited in that paper and go backwards in time. Then use something like Web of Science to see what papers cited this paper after it was published. Then look at the references of those papers. Then use Web of Science to look up what else cites those papers, and so on. If you are trying to undertake serious research, you should learn to use tools like this well. If you don't know of these tools, then I suggest you become good friends with the workers at your institute's library and ask them to help you out. Learn their interlibrary loan policies. Because your library won't have all the papers, but they will be able to get access to a very large number of them. I am sorry, but the average forum member here isn't going to be able to help you do this. You're going to have to do it yourself. Developing your own good library and information searching skills will pay off many thousand fold.

The same stories about the earth being flat and the moon being made of green cheese and heat being a fluid called phlogiston and the French having discovered N-Rays used to be "all over" too. "All over" is a pretty low hurdle for believability. Ultimately, it is your choice, but if that is your bar to be hurdled, it ain't science. Not sure why you're on a science forum, then.

But it does bring its assumptions and suppositions into question. If they are not rigorous enough to reject creationism as anti-scientific, then expecting their other works to be solid scientific works isn't likely. Nevertheless, this comes down to exactly the same thing as the rest of this thread, solid scientific evidence. In the end, it doesn't matter if the solid scientific evidence comes from a creationist website, a flat-earther website, Nature.com, or my dog's website. What does matter is the evidence itself. And I'm sorry, but that webpage is just story telling, no actual science. I mean, my goodness, the author at the end even admits he didn't even know where he was! He may feel that he's "a hairsbreadth away from locating and filming a specimen of Mokele-mbembe", but that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee and that's it. It isn't evidence. Science has progressed past the dark ages of strong beliefs counting for anything. Actual evidence or get out. We're just pointing out that a site that is pushing a creationist agenda isn't going to be well known for being scientifically rigorous, and that that immediately brings any claims it brings into suspicion. To wit, even if they posted tonight supposed pictures or films of the creature, it would take quite a lot of analysis be verify that they aren't fakes. That website has shown it can't be trusted to perform science on the issue of creationism, it can't really be trusted to perform other high quality science.

You know what is really neat? Math handles this, too. Because it tells that the ideal gas law is most accurate at high temperatures, low pressures, and monatomic gases. Math as we apply it to make predictions about the real world always comes with domains of validity and accuracy bounds. As mentioned above, if we choose to ignore those and misapply the math, we do indeed get back answers. But it is not a failing of math itself to misapply a formula. It isn't mathematics' fault that I can't use Newton's Laws to figure out how much money to leave in my bank account to pay this month's rent. Nor can I use the time value of money equations to know if my bridge is going to stand or not. You still have to use the right tool for the right job. And it can be demonstrated -- quite simply by the fact that you are using some kind of computer to read this and post your own comments -- that mathematics have been supremely successful when used correctly. I really think that cladking has no idea what life would really be like if mankind weren't able to apply mathematics to the real world.

So, you're saying that you don't want to take the time to learn the current best descriptions of the universe, but you also aren't going to believe the people who have taken the time to learn the current best descriptions? Kind of painted yourself into a corner, then, haven't you? I don't have much more to say than I did several years ago. Science marches on regardless of your personal opinions about its results. Real science, that is, wherein predictions are made and compared with what is actually measured and those ideas that lead to the most accurate predictions are considered best. How logical, or tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing, or complicated, or mathematical, or acceptable to an person or people really doesn't enter into it. If it is extremely complicated but makes accurate predictions, then it is accepted as the current best description we have. People will always look to make it simpler, but the universe is under no obligation to be simple or easy to understand to us. So, in short, your ideas still conflict with what is known. For example "I believe ... that the neutrino makes no sense at all as a player in a designed universe." Yeah, ok, but nonetheless neutrinos have been experimentally confirmed many, many times over. You don't get to just disbelieve them. If you want to change the situation, then you need to present a model that will result in the same measured values occurring. Same thing all the way back to be beginning of this thread with quarks. There have been a lot of experiments that confirm them -- you need to actually read the literature to see this. You don't get to just disbelieve them. There is something inside a proton that scatters bombarded electrons, and there is something that reacts with chlorine gas that makes excess argon. The models we have today call these quarks and neutrinos, and the predictions based on these models keep turning out to be correct. If you want to change that, just start using your model to make even better predictions. It really is as simple as that. But, if you aren't going to do that, and persist on telling us stories, then I am sorry, but I am going to put my belief in the group that is actually making predictions that agree with measurements. We are past the dark ages of believing in flat earths and moons made of cheese. Science is now about making predictions that agree with measurement.

That is not what you said in your first post. You said you wanted anything. If you needed something else, why didn't you say? You even specifically said that you were looking for pdfs! And, again not to be too much of a smart ass, the very first link in the Google search gives you exactly what you claim to be looking for. The abstract even gave you the best fit regression the authors found, you didn't even have to download the paper.

ummm, not to be a total smartass, but I don't believe you actually tried: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=temperature+dependence+of+blood+surface+tension

Besides, just because the representation of a number in decimal has infinite non-repeating non-patterned digits, doesn't mean they all do. Instead of decimal (base 10), if we use base [math]\pi[/math], [math]\pi_{10} = 10_{\pi}[/math] (pi in base 10, is represented by 10 in base pi). And [math]1_{10}[/math] has an infinite non-repeating non-patterned representation in base [math]\pi[/math].

Again, without defining what you mean here, this is pretty much meaningless. How can something be governed by a number? unless you clarify -- much, much more than just spelling (because your edit didn't fix anything in the OP)-- define what you mean by these words, please -- the answer isn't, yes, no, or anything. Your question has no meaning.

Your questions are essentially meaningless without defining some terms. How can a theorem be conforming to pi? How do you think 6 is geometrically related to pi? What are pi equations? Apart from both being transcendental, I am not sure how you think pi resembles the golden ratio. Please clarify exactly what you mean by all these terms, and maybe your questions can be answered. But right now, I have no idea what you're asking.