andrewcellini Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm not exactly sure what you even mean by "pure" math. Sounds a bit esoteric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) For example, math is only capable of handling absolute values, so any answer determined by mathematics will always yield an absolute result. That could run contrary to reality. (...) Math itself can only simulate non-absolute values, and therefor can only simulate reality in absolute terms. Reality is not an absolute, so there is many different interpretations of the same problem. So, you don't even know what means "absolute value" in mathematics.... [math]|-100|=100[/math] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value Couple things that you should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_%28mathematics%29 Edited January 21, 2015 by Sensei 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreasjva Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Invented or discovered? 0 and 1 was more of discovery, if you'd like to call it that, but it's probably related more to an awareness than a discovery. 2, 3, 4, etc, were invented to understand 0 and 1, and 2,3.. are arbitrary in nature. We exist at >0 and <1 in reality, and that's why we had to invent 2, 3, 4, etc., because it is a lot easier to wrap our brains around. Although it was probably more a matter of commerce than anything else. You know, 3 seashells for 1 fish, and now you have 0 seashells to buy fish with. It is a pretty standard term. You could look it up in a dictionary, if you are really unsure. This is somewhat different from you constantly using words in non-standard ways. Just did. Thanks. this leaves out all of pure mathematics and doesn't really begin to describe what math is. The real challenge isn't the process, it's understanding the results. Pure math seems to lean towards speculation and generalization of those results. Looks pretty interesting. I tend to consider a very simple and consolidated view of all math and numeric values in relation to the universe. 0 = Potential for Nothing 1 = Potential for Something ∞ = Reality If math can show me how 1 = ∞, I would be thoroughly impressed. Math and science tends to approach it like this... 0 = Imaginary and sometimes ∞ 1 = Reality ∞ = Abstract Concept and sometimes a bunch of other stuff Edited January 21, 2015 by andreasjva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnocrat Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I used to look to the sky when a boy for no two skies were ever the same. Later I discovered the kaleidoscope with its endless symetrical patterns. Science seeks to tame , explain and link the uniqueness around us. Hence the struggle for a theory of everything. Yet we need sameness just imagine waking up to a different world each day. ' Let them be left oh let them be left Long live the weeds and wildness yet' Hopkins 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 I used to look to the sky when a boy for no two skies were ever the same. Later I discovered the kaleidoscope with its endless symetrical patterns. Science seeks to tame , explain and link the uniqueness around us. Hence the struggle for a theory of everything. Yet we need sameness just imagine waking up to a different world each day. ' Let them be left oh let them be left Long live the weeds and wildness yet' Hopkins Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 phi for all...I believe the variables are hidden in string theory, and the strings are composed of information, specifically mathematical information, as every possible (logical) form of information as expressed by PI. The logical component of the vast library of information as physical reality, the balance of illogical information as what can accessed only via sentience, hence an upper limit to free will... In string theory, the strings are a fundamental unit. They aren't made of anything else. Talking about their composition as information doesn't match with the theory (did you study it?). It also seems like you're trying to make the universe a big computer that crunches unimaginable amounts of data. Another common but misguided perspective. I have no idea what you mean by "The logical component of the vast library of information as physical reality...", but I suspect you're misusing the word "logic" (many people do). As for the rest, if you really want to believe this, you should design an experiment to test your ideas. You're trying to swim against the mainstream science but you only know a little mainstream science. There's nothing wrong with swimming against the mainstream, but if you don't learn it first, you'll make a LOT of fundamental mistakes that will waste a lot of your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Everything is Unique as far as the things considered are Physical Bodies and Entities whether Organic or Inorganic, Moving or Static [nothing is static anyway] , living or inanimate etc ! Where the Entity can be comprised of certain Mass, certain Dimension, certain Temperature, certain lattice of matter elements and particles etc and thereby can not escape detection. Undetectable differences between Equal Entities may be considered Identical !! But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! Only in abstract Entities like Numbers, Colors, Program Modules, Elements of TRUTH and FACTS such as Formulas, Legal Points, Acts , Policies, Physical Laws, Historical Facts and Events can be regarded , treated, replicated and accepted to be Same, Equal, Equally Applicable, Universally Constant and thereby Identical to each Replication ! Edited January 21, 2015 by Commander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreasjva Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! You seem to be changing the original parameters of the question. Everything does appear to be separated by a unique time and space. The only exception seems to be in quantum physics, where things can occupy the same space apparently. Although I am not qualified to explain it. Strange and Phi could probably explain it fairly well. By this I don't mean the Simple Proof that Every Point in our Universe is Uniquely Different from another in factors such as Latitude, Longitude or X,Y,Z Coordinates but in a more tangible way !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I tend to consider a very simple and consolidated view of all math and numeric values in relation to the universe. 0 = Potential for Nothing 1 = Potential for Something ∞ = Reality If math can show me how 1 = ∞, I would be thoroughly impressed. Math and science tends to approach it like this... 0 = Imaginary and sometimes ∞ 1 = Reality ∞ = Abstract Concept and sometimes a bunch of other stuff ! Moderator Note Your thread with that particular nonsense math was closed. You don't get to bring it up here. Everything is Unique as far as the things considered are Physical Bodies and Entities whether Organic or Inorganic, Moving or Static [nothing is static anyway] , living or inanimate etc ! Where the Entity can be comprised of certain Mass, certain Dimension, certain Temperature, certain lattice of matter elements and particles etc and thereby can not escape detection. Undetectable differences between Equal Entities may be considered IDENTICAL !! But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! Only in abstract Entities like Numbers, Colors, Program Modules, Elements of TRUTH and FACTS such as Formulas, Legal Points, Acts , Policies, Physical Laws, Historical Facts and Events can be regarded , treated, replicated and accepted to be SAME, EQUAL, Equally Applicable, Universally Constant and thereby IDENTICAL TO EACH REPLICATION !!!! Repeating this does not make it true. Identical bosons can occupy the same space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! Bosons!!!, for!!! example!!! photons!!!, can!!! not!!! only!!! occupy!!! the!!! same!!! spatial!!! position!!!, they!!! can!!! be!!! in!!! the!!! same!!! quantum!!! state!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Everything is Unique as far as the things considered are Physical Bodies and Entities whether Organic or Inorganic, Moving or Static [nothing is static anyway] , living or inanimate etc ! Where the Entity can be comprised of certain Mass, certain Dimension, certain Temperature, certain lattice of matter elements and particles etc and thereby can not escape detection. Undetectable differences between Equal Entities may be considered IDENTICAL !! But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! Only in abstract Entities like Numbers, Colors, Program Modules, Elements of TRUTH and FACTS such as Formulas, Legal Points, Acts , Policies, Physical Laws, Historical Facts and Events can be regarded , treated, replicated and accepted to be SAME, EQUAL, Equally Applicable, Universally Constant and thereby IDENTICAL TO EACH REPLICATION !!!! It's very hard to read your posts because you speak in nothing but assertions, which makes me want to poke holes in every single one of them. You generalize on assumptions. And despite being told multiple times that science doesn't work with truth and facts as much as evidence, you keep mentioning them, even capitalizing those words. You're speculating. You're trying to make your case for an idea, but you're assuming it's all true from the beginning. That's not how science works. At this point, you should be asking questions, see if your idea has merit, instead of telling us all how things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) You seem to be changing the original parameters of the question. Everything does appear to be separated by a unique time and space. The only exception seems to be in quantum physics, where things can occupy the same space apparently. Although I am not qualified to explain it. Strange and Phi could probably explain it fairly well. andreasiva : Hi, I had said : I can justifiably extend the same Logic to even to non-animate bodies and say that no Particle , atom, Molecule etc too can never be an exact duplicate of another !!! Though in many cases it does not matter to vary slightly and can be treated to be Identical !!!! ie I can justifiably extend the same Logic to .......... I do believe in my suggestion, but if someone proves to me [i am still to get that proof and I scientifically believe that such a proof is impossible - because any proof will be followed by my queries] that there is an Exact Duplicate I may not argue against it. Still when we consider Space-Time differences "Everything is Unique" holds good for Physical Entities and I agree with you it does appear to be taking a step back from Original Proposition. Because as a normal Human and Mortal I am not blessed with an ability to weigh, measure and equate particles, tiny waves or strings ! Here only the Reputation and Scientific Standing matters and those who are not among, Galileo, Kepler,Newton, Einstein etc are not taken seriously !! Therefore I said now : Undetectable differences between Equal Entities may be considered Identical !! But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! I really don't know whether I have stayed on the same spot or taken a step forward or taken a step backwards ! Yes, I can be assumed to keep reevaluating as the Time goes on ........... Best Regards Thomas Edited January 21, 2015 by Commander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreasjva Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Moderator Note Your thread with that particular nonsense math was closed. You don't get to bring it up here. I was trying very hard not to Swansoot, but the thread took a turn towards the origin of numbers and mathematics. It seemed appropriate to consider where they came from in light of the questions being asked. How did 1 become 2, if 1/1=1? Seems like a logical question to me, mathematically speaking. Edited January 21, 2015 by andreasjva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Bosons!!!, for!!! example!!! photons!!!, can!!! not!!! only!!! occupy!!! the!!! same!!! spatial!!! position!!!, they!!! can!!! be!!! in!!! the!!! same!!! quantum!!! state!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate Strange : Are these two different or same. If they are different Spatially each one is unique as we defined. If they are both on the same spatial point : I get your point that you claim they can be on the exact point and piggybacking or superimposing on each other and you are unable to separate them. I understand your consternation. You don't have to separate them. If you can not distinguish them at all they must be treated as a different particle [double particle] or entity as they have doubled their Mass and other properties. Best regards Thomas It's very hard to read your posts because you speak in nothing but assertions, which makes me want to poke holes in every single one of them. You generalize on assumptions. And despite being told multiple times that science doesn't work with truth and facts as much as evidence, you keep mentioning them, even capitalizing those words. You're speculating. You're trying to make your case for an idea, but you're assuming it's all true from the beginning. That's not how science works. At this point, you should be asking questions, see if your idea has merit, instead of telling us all how things are. Phi for All : Hi, Thank you for your views and points. I don't mind getting contradicted / corrected if the ideas are untenable. Best Regards Thomas Edited January 21, 2015 by Commander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 andreasiva : Hi, I had said : I can justifiably extend the same Logic to even to non-animate bodies and say that no Particle , atom, Molecule etc too can never be an exact duplicate of another !!! Though in many cases it does not matter to vary slightly and can be treated to be IDENTICAL !!!! ie I can justifiably extend the same Logic to .......... Nature disagrees, your logic notwithstanding. Nature is not wrong. Because as a normal Human and Mortal I am not blessed with an ability to weigh, measure and equate particles, tiny waves or strings ! Here only the Reputation and Scientific Standing matters and those who are not among, Galileo, Kepler,Newton, Einstein etc are not taken seriously !! Therefore I said now : Undetectable differences between Equal Entities may be considered Identical !! But every Entity [such physical] needs to be different - at least in the Spatial Position !!! The thing is, other people have done these experiments. You can go read about them and cite them. These experiments indicate that you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 I would say that what you are describing is that perspective of form is always different, which would make more sense. Yes, I agree with your point too ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Here only the Reputation and Scientific Standing matters and those who are not among, Galileo, Kepler,Newton, Einstein etc are not taken seriously !! Reputation and scientific standing should not matter at all: the only thing that matters is the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Here only the Reputation and Scientific Standing matters and those who are not among, Galileo, Kepler,Newton, Einstein etc are not taken seriously !! None of those people posts here, but plenty of people get taken seriously here. I would suggest you're wrong about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Reputation and scientific standing should not matter at all: the only thing that matters is the evidence. Funny thing about evidence is that it is all interpreted based on one's model of reality. It is based on one's model of the science or on other principles unrelated to science. Those who interpret the evidence in terms of current scientific understanding are simply assumed by most to be more correct than others. The merits of an argument always matter less to most listeners than their ability to see it in terms of the current paradigm. This is simply the reality that people miss. It's why new ideas are always rejected and always have been. It applies to every individual lidstener to a greater or lesser extent. Some will say "God doesn't allow this" and others will say "It is inconsistent with known science" but in both cases it might just mean that the new idea doesn't fit with their personal construct of understanding. Maybe that eight apple will spawn an apple orchard. Maybe it's the one that hit Newton on the head. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Funny thing about evidence is that it is all interpreted based on one's model of reality. That describes science, so how is it a "funny thing"? It is based on one's model of the science or on other principles unrelated to science. Those who interpret the evidence in terms of current scientific understanding are simply assumed by most to be more correct than others. The merits of an argument always matter less to most listeners than their ability to see it in terms of the current paradigm. This is simply the reality that people miss. Again, all you've done here is describe science. You always interpret data according to the best understanding you have. Any other model has either been discredited or has not accumulated enough evidence to garner confidence. Why should you interpret evidence according to a bad model? It's why new ideas are always rejected and always have been. Which is not true, so that's a bit of a problem for your argument. (If facts matter, that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 It's why new ideas are always rejected and always have been. Right. That's why there have never been any advances or paradigm shifts. Einstein's theory never replaced Newton's, quantum mechanics never replaced the old model of the atom, plate tectonics was never accepted and no scientist has ever won a Nobel Prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 That describes science, so how is it a "funny thing"? Again, all you've done here is describe science. You always interpret data according to the best understanding you have. Any other model has either been discredited or has not accumulated enough evidence to garner confidence. Why should you interpret evidence according to a bad model? Which is not true, so that's a bit of a problem for your argument. (If facts matter, that is) Models have no more reality than numbers. They are mere constructs. More importantly and more relevantly though models involve a great deal of extrapolation and interpolation. There are large gaps in experimental data and a problem with experiment not being necessarily relevant to a specific instance, event, process, etc. Still the model created by understanding of experiment will be applied to everything. Everything is seen in terms of the model even though the model has gaps. This isn't to say we should jettison models because thought and understanding tend to be too complex without the models. But rather that we should ascertain in every instance whether the model even applies. There are numerous reasons that it might not apply even in the hard sciences (the real sciences) but typically it is caused by misapplication. Something that exists outside the model has the model applied to it anyway. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The merits of an argument always matter less to most listeners than their ability to see it in terms of the current paradigm. This is simply the reality that people miss. It's why new ideas are always rejected and always have been. Your misunderstandings about science run deep. You call it "the current paradigm", when it's the best explanation we have to date. That's what theory is, the best we've got for now. You gripe that people can't see past the best theory, but offer nothing else. I try to avoid arguments from incredulity, but I can't believe you could seriously say, "New ideas are always rejected and always have been". What a unique way to be completely wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What a unique way to be completely wrong! Sadly, it isn't unique. There seem to be quite a number of people who think science is incapable of making progress (usually because it won't listen to their drivel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Your misunderstandings about science run deep. You call it "the current paradigm", when it's the best explanation we have to date. That's what theory is, the best we've got for now. You gripe that people can't see past the best theory, but offer nothing else. I try to avoid arguments from incredulity, but I can't believe you could seriously say, "New ideas are always rejected and always have been". What a unique way to be completely wrong! There's nothing wrong with the "state of the art" and I didn't mean to imply there was. This is what experiment and logic have created so far, it's the sum total of scientific knowledge at the current time and it's what's taught to students everywhere. That it is taught as a model is only natural since this is the way people understand things now days. I have no problem with science and no problem with its progress. I'm merely saying that the model is the means by which people understand reality and that this understanding is often unjustified by the actual experimental results that comprise the model. The model is applied even where it doesn't apply. Edited January 21, 2015 by cladking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now