andrewcellini

i agree if this can be taken as "certain models aren't applicable to certain physical situations (or any) and would produce erroneous results" my point in bringing up reification fallacy (the first definition you presented is closer to what i'm talking about) is that earlier in the thread you mentioned: which is an oxymoron if by real you mean "physically exists," but you could be referring to some sort of "platonic" existence. and you never answered my question: keep in mind the clarifications over "useful" and "accuracy" etc explain non-logical axioms (think about euclids axioms and how not accepting the parallel postulate leads to non euclidean geometry).

so is your actual claim that only certain mathematical entities are fundamental (the ones that are perfectly accurate and relevant for physics models)?

i thought we established its accuracy has limits. also take newtons theory of universal gravitation for example. the model can only be used accurately for certain situations, such as small massive objects near larger planet sized massive objects, or orbits of planets in the solar system (without mercurys precession).

the one thing that isn't clear (for me at least) is how something (an abstraction) that is useful to describing and predicting phenomena must be fundamental? your earlier posts seem to boil down to a reification fallacy.

certainly not, but it's always good to have clearer questions.

the premise seems to be contentious. are they "perfectly accurate," and what do you mean by that exactly? are you sure they're not accurate within some bounds?

that is simply not true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory as well as carl roger's theory of self i already acknowledged that language is not going to produce as good of predictions as a mathematical model. this could be do to numerous reasons, lack of clear agreed upon definitions for example. which is an approximation that is suitable for us for now. obviously the earth is not going to be suitable for life when the sun engulfs it in about 7 billion years (and earth may be uninhabitable before then, i'm not totally sure on that). or when the universe is inhabitable after that.

you're confusing the mathematical model with the actual phenomenon. maths doesn't have to be fundamental to be useful. for example, language is not a fundamental part of the natural world but it can and has also been used to describe and predict phenomena (though not as precisely as maths). i'm not sure what you mean when you say "the universe is constant;" what about the universe is constant?

i'm not sure what you're asking

an old howard stern bit with two guys both claiming to be the second coming of jesus

we certainly do. for example, we know of a little thing called "conservation of momentum" which would have hampered survival of pretty much every living thing when god stopped the earth in the old testament. i don't think you know what improbable means. again this doesn't really help your case. you can discuss the double slit experiment in a classical way, at least for a laser (this is actually the way it was introduced to me in Physics III). it all depends on how deep you want to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment this doesn't really help your case because, in the above, you're still doing physics even though there is a sort of perspective (and scale) change, and physics is in part guided by evidence. what you're suggesting is to somehow reconcile the evidence with a collection of stories which can't be corroborated by external sources and are not self consistent. this is not comparable to switching from classical to quantum descriptions; it's more like the idea of presenting creationism and evolution side by side, treating them as equals.

how many do you already know of?

add a driving force

objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force why would the object stop? it's already begun to move in some direction at some speed, and it's assumed there are no external forces acting on it. an external force would result in an acceleration.

why would i look at the bible as a history book? there are numerous inconsistencies in the life of jesus according to the bible, and a large gap of his life is unrecorded. when you mention einstein coming to an incomplete conclusion, it doesn't strengthen your case. he was "being logical" when he examined the theoretical consequences of QM and noticed the peculiar phenomena of entanglement. he was being reasonably skeptical in rejecting it because he couldn't reconcile it with local realism, and thought there were hidden variables. this was, however, demonstrated by experiment to not be the case, but i'm not sure that einstein was alive when there was experimental confirmation (bell's theorem is from the early 60s), so his conclusion had the possibility of being correct at the time. had he known, he probably would have conceded. the point is, the consequences of theories are important (that's how we get out predictions), but ultimately their fate is at the hands of experiment. we know that it's improbable for the "miracles" in the bible to have occurred; we know more than the authors of the bible who conceived of such events.

thank you for clarifying. that's essentially why i asked; it seemed as though uncool's interpretation could be used for something like a classical wave.

what is meant by "natural logic?"

that's precisely why i thought about it. CS being related to maths, especially discrete mathematics, it seems necessary to include.

i would think you'd also need to show the relationship between logic and computer science (as well as CS's relationship to the others).

that all depends on what exactly niels bohr was referring to when he said "everything," doesn't it? also the claim that "we know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles" is contentious because the biblical story of jesus is not consistent with the supposed "historical" jesus. and depending on your religious beliefs you may claim to "know" jesus didn't perform miracles, or performed different miracles than christians claim. einstein showed that so called "spooky action at a distance" was a theoretical consequence of QM in the first place. that's why he rejected that interpretation of QM (he wanted a theory consistent with local realism). too bad entanglement is a measurable phenomena.

sure do. i've definitely had sillier "scientific" ideas lol

yes that is quite irritating. i should clarify that is not what i mean lol this is actually what i was thinking about last night after posting, and i agree. for example, depending on how you define philosophy (or what "philosophies" you include) you could have mathematics falling under it. also as ydoa pointed out you could have logic falling under maths and philosophy. can't have a philosophy thread without clarification of meaning lol

there are a few posts i've seen by members here which are along the lines of "logic is branch of mathematics." is "logic" considered indistinct from "mathematical logic?" if so that seems to be a narrow generalization of what logic is(at least in comparison to the descriptions i can find elsewhere such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic),but i could be wrong and that's why i wanted to ask.

infrared has a lower frequency than red (in the visible spectrum).

science is essentially guided by observation and theory. you're gonna need evidence of your predictions. and the prediction is going to come from some preexisting mathematical model or one you make. just because you can think it up doesn't mean it's logically consistent, or physically meaningful. it could very well be impossible (or highly unlikely) given the current theories.