Science math and logic

[thethinkertank]

In my view, the secret to understanding science is through variables, math and the logic that governs language. 

For example, if you consider the statement "The ball fell down"

You get a scientific scenario, whoely provable by exact science that

There was a ball existing in t1

And t2 through t3 it executed the scientific process of falling down, obeying the laws of gravity.

But the statement 'Fall the ball' doesnt make sense

So language and variables it incorporates makes perfect scientific sense and indeed the groundwork for further scientific research. I contend scientific laws are parallel to the variable logic inherent in language. Now this means the underlying force behind each action in the universe amounts to a series of variables. 

t1=the ball + point A 

t2=ball +point B

And the concept of falling is the the natural result of the universe observing the interraction as

interraction = IF t1 THEN t2

I.E if

ball + point A

THEN 

ball + point B

So there you observe the connection between science, logic language math and variables. 

 

 

 

 

[MigL]

I fail to see any science, logic or even proper language in any of this babbling.

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

I contend scientific laws are parallel to the variable logic inherent in language.

When I use scientific definitions to assign meaning to the above sentence, I'm met with tragic failure. "Parallel", "variable", and "inherent" all have specific meanings in science that aren't present in context. For instance, how can "logic" be both variable AND inherent wrt language? What does it mean for laws to be "parallel" to logic? And why are you using "logic" outside of maths and philosophy? Science has no interest in formal logic. Are you using logic to mean "reasoned" or "critically thought out" or "this makes sense to me"?

Again, you aren't doing yourself any favors making this stuff up. I know it feels like you're some kind of intuitive da Vinci genius who can throw ideas at those who can crunch the numbers to turn your ideas to gold, but it really doesn't work that way. 

 

[Sensei]

Quote

Science math and logic

The first rule of scientific equation is that it must have correct units, either on the left and right side of equation.

If units mismatch, equation is invalid.

Therefore:

12 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

t1=the ball + point A  

...you cannot add point position (which is in meters), to time (which is in seconds)..

Before you reply, read Wikipedia article about dimensional analysis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

16 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

In my view, the secret to understanding science...

How would you know?

It's not as if you understand science, so what possible qualification do you consider yourself to have?

[thethinkertank]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

How would you know?

It's not as if you understand science, so what possible qualification do you consider yourself to have?

Erroneous logic there. One can understand the approach to enlightenment without necessarily having to first be enlightened. 

Science is the understanding of various things. But the art of mastering the science of science is different that mastering science itself. It's a trivial point but worth mentioning.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Science is the understanding of various things. 

No. It is not. It’s an approach to testing our ideas in a way that minimizes our biases and maximizes the possibility that we’re accurately modeling the cosmos. 

This often leads to enhanced understanding, but it’s the approach that matters. 

8 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

the art of mastering the science of science is different that mastering science itself.

Meaningless drivel. Word salad, at best. 

In science, as with so many things in life, precision matters.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

But the art of mastering the science of science is different that mastering science itself. I

How would you know  (see above).