"math is NEVER applicable to the real world" split from is current day math flawed

[imatfaal]

Humans are a part of nature.

 

Just checking where you would draw the line -- is Terry Pratchett's discworld "Natural"? It is the product of a human mind and the human is part of nature. If you say yes - what then is artificial, what more is specifically man-made, what canbe said to be of human artifice if all is natural that is contained in the universe. You seem to be abusing words again - it's all getting a bit Humpty-Dumpty for me

 

 

Scientific predictions are often accurate because equations can be applied properly and enough of the nature of something understood to apply those equations and quantify the variables. But it doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as rabbits and cliffs.

 

Never thought I would be using a crappy nonsense story from the Daily Mail to prove a point: "the fact that there's no such thing as rabbits and cliffs"

 

Scientific predictions are often accurate because equations can be applied properly and enough of the nature of something understood to apply those equations and quantify the variables. But it doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as rabbits and cliffs. It doesn't change the fact that modern science only works because reality acts as a check on experiment. Science works because reality works and humans are an aspect of reality.

 

This sort of gnomic nonsense ill-suits a science forum - very few scientists worthy of the name do not realise they are working within the constraints of reality - even those who deliberately work in toy universes

An argument can be made that it has nothing to do with math and science because reality is excluded from them but the fact is math nor science has any value at all except to the degree they can be applied to the real world.

 

Don't say that to a pure mathematician - for they are subtle and quick to anger.

[cladking]

Do you have try very hard to be this wrong?

 

 

 

Source: http://www.extension.org/pages/9695/topography-and-understanding-topographic-maps

 

The more probable reason is that the map they used was just wrong, or they landed in the wrong place. The USGS has been around since the 1870s. I'm pretty sure overhanging cliffs didn't suddenly spring into existence right before the Normady invasion.

 

Do you have try very hard to be this wrong?

 

 

 

Source: http://www.extension.org/pages/9695/topography-and-understanding-topographic-maps

 

The more probable reason is that the map they used was just wrong, or they landed in the wrong place. The USGS has been around since the 1870s. I'm pretty sure overhanging cliffs didn't suddenly spring into existence right before the Normady invasion.

 

The USGS maps the US.

 

But this is beside the point since even if there were a universally accepted means of depicting overhanging cliffs and it was strictly adhered to the fact would remain resolution of the map could easily cause misinterpretation. Rather thsan using red lines or some unambiguos means of depiction it's very easy to misread a map even if it's right. The same thing was a problem in the medical professsion for many years. Rather than printing xRays so they could fit only one way in a reader they were printed so they could be inserted upside down. Thousands of people have been maimed or killed by surgeons amputating the wrong limb or removing the wrong organ. This happens and is unseen because of the humans think. We misapply knowledge, science, and math and rarely if ever notice. Our economy hums along at about 5% efficiency because we throw away far more natural and human resources than we use. We throw away our future because it's easier than the alternative and because everyone with two brain cells to rub together has been trained as one damn specialist or another.

 

We can't see there are other ways. We can't see what we don't know.

[imatfaal]

 

An argument can be made that it has nothing to do with math and science because reality is excluded from them but the fact is math nor science has any value at all except to the degree they can be applied to the real world. We understand the world in terms of math and science (theory) and this is a misapplication unless we remember that no application is fully legitimate. Accidents and disasters are the result of these misapplications. Misapplications are misunderstandings. The best math in the world is meaningless if not applied properly. It's of no value if variables can't be quantified or if various relevant forces and processes are not understood.

 

Again as if you are declaiming previously hidden arcana - scientists understand that models are models and approximate reality - not through any hokum notions refusing to acknowledge the existence of rabbits - but because they created the models as mathematical representations.

 

Misapplication is neither a synonym nor an approximation to misunderstanding. One may cause the other - but to equate them shows a failure of comprehension of either.

 

"It's of no value if variables can't be quantified or if various relevant forces and processes are not understood." As a vast part of the technical and information revolution is based on mathematical models for which we have competing and unfalsifiable interpretations then I am pretty sure that your assertion is refuted

So you admit you make up all this drivel.

 

reQFT

[cladking]

Well, you need to check the definitions of a couple of words in the first line there.

In the second one, perhaps you can help me.

Can you please force tell me how to force this equation onto nature?

n= 0 where n is the number of people dying in poverty today.

 

 

I'm not certain of the question here.

 

Even if there were no people dying in (or of) poverty today there would still be people for whom poverty was a factor in their demise. If you have $1000 in your pocket you won't get hit by a bus when you go to borrow $10 from your cousin to eat at McDounall's.

 

Or were you trying to say that we use maths to model the world, and the models are generally imperfect?

Because that's true, but dull. And it's nothing like what you said.

 

 

Essentially yes, this is what I'm saying except I would add the problem is far more extensive, pervasive, and ubiquitous than this. It affects everything incliuding our understanding of theory.

Edited February 6, 2015 by cladking

[imatfaal]

And all taxinomies are constructs.

 

So are all taxonomies.

 

 

And all taxinomies are constructs. Even a river has no clearly defined beginning and end until you define the tributaries and end points which are forever changing. If the US Midwest became much drier would the Mississippi River begin in Pittburgh? Surely a river can't just move but what if the Ohio carried much more water than the Mississippi north of Cairo?

 

We simply come to mistake these taxinomies as reality instead of models. DNA evidence is showing plants and animals always thought to be very different or very similar often aren't. Similarities are apparent and not real. Even two "rabbits" have different DNA.

 

These silly examples show that you fail to grasp what is inherent in your first sentence. Taxonomies and classifications are rough and ready - but again you seem to be missing the point that we know this fact, we use this fact, and this strengthens our research. Embrace uncertainty

[cladking]

 

 

Don't say that to a pure mathematician - for they are subtle and quick to anger.

 

 

I was actually thinking of mathematicians when I said this.

 

Pure math can have value to a mathematician simply because it brings him joy. Few things in life want to order themselves and follow rules of logic. I would think most mathematicians think there might someday be a practical benefit to their work even if the only practical benefit is understanding or the feeling it gemnerates or the anticipation of that feeling.

[Strange]

It affects everything incliuding our understanding of theory.

Or, at least, you believe it does. But as you seem to understand approximately zero about the topics you talk about, I don't find that particularly surprising or interesting.

[swansont]

The USGS maps the US.

 

But this is beside the point since even if there were a universally accepted means of depicting overhanging cliffs and it was strictly adhered to the fact would remain resolution of the map could easily cause misinterpretation. Rather thsan using red lines or some unambiguos means of depiction it's very easy to misread a map even if it's right.

In order to misinterpret something it has to exist in the first place. You can't even keep your assertions consistent, they're so ludicrous. The math (and cliff) had to exist in the first place, in order for anyone to misread it. Thus math was applied to the real world, and your coproclaim is false.

[cladking]

Imagine two cliffs. Both have faces that form a plane. One is 80 degrees and the other is 100 degrees. Now imagine the topographic maps that depict these planes. Blow up both maps until only the cliff face itself is on the map. Even though the maps appear to be identical a man on the first cliff represented can climb but on the second cliff would fall. Cliffs exist because of the nature of all things. All of nature's forces and "laws" are brought to bear on everything that exists. Nothing can exist outside of nature. These forces and processes that formed these cliffs wouldn't have existed if reality didn't support both the cliffs and the math we use to describe them.

 

Similar arguments can be made about counting apples and rabbits. We use theory to describe the world and we see reality through theory but this is woefully inadequate to explain even a few of the forces and processes that affect a few of the things that exist. It can blind us because we simply don't see that all of nature affects all aspects of nature. We imagine an infinity that doesn't exist and don't see improbability that might be many orders of magnitude "greater" than infinity.

 

We count butterflies in China and pay them little more mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 7, 2015 by cladking

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The USGS maps the US.

 

But this is beside the point since even if there were a universally accepted means of depicting overhanging cliffs and it was strictly adhered to the fact would remain resolution of the map could easily cause misinterpretation. Rather thsan using red lines or some unambiguos means of depiction it's very easy to misread a map even if it's right. The same thing was a problem in the medical professsion for many years. Rather than printing xRays so they could fit only one way in a reader they were printed so they could be inserted upside down. Thousands of people have been maimed or killed by surgeons amputating the wrong limb or removing the wrong organ. This happens and is unseen because of the humans think. We misapply knowledge, science, and math and rarely if ever notice. Our economy hums along at about 5% efficiency because we throw away far more natural and human resources than we use. We throw away our future because it's easier than the alternative and because everyone with two brain cells to rub together has been trained as one damn specialist or another.

 

We can't see there are other ways. We can't see what we don't know.

Two things.

You can't easily distinguish an overhanging cliff from a near vertical one.

Who cares?

Both are stupid options as a path.

 

re the Xrays

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2051337.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.H0.Xxray+marker&_nkw=xray+marker&_sacat=12576

Problem solved.

[Strange]

But this is beside the point since even if there were a universally accepted means of depicting overhanging cliffs and it was strictly adhered to the fact would remain resolution of the map could easily cause misinterpretation. Rather thsan using red lines or some unambiguos means of depiction it's very easy to misread a map even if it's right. The same thing was a problem in the medical professsion for many years. Rather than printing xRays so they could fit only one way in a reader they were printed so they could be inserted upside down. Thousands of people have been maimed or killed by surgeons amputating the wrong limb or removing the wrong organ. This happens and is unseen because of the humans think. We misapply knowledge, science, and math and rarely if ever notice.

 

This drivel is about problems with technology and human failings. (They are also anecdotes you have made up, as far I can tell.)

 

They have nothing to do with mathematics.

 

And you can't say "thousands of people" if you are not able to apply mathematics to the real world. (And no doubt, according to you, "there are no people" or some such rot.)

 

 

Our economy hums along at about 5% efficiency

 

Oh, so you can apply mathematics to the real world after all. (Although I suspect, again, that you made up that number.)

If you have $1000 in your pocket you won't get hit by a bus when you go to borrow $10 from your cousin to eat at McDounall's.

 

You might do. After all, it is impossible to use maths in the real world so you have no idea if your $1000 will be enough to get you a (whatever it is they sell at "McDounall's").

 

And of course, you wouldn't know that you had $1,000 because it is impossible to use maths.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Strange

[MigL]

You keep repeating that Math is not applicable to the real world, but all the examples you present are problems of definition.

 

If you define the problem correctly, with the appropriate boundary conditions ( where model is applicable ), the Math fits and works perfectly.

[cladking]

You keep repeating that Math is not applicable to the real world, but all the examples you present are problems of definition.

 

If you define the problem correctly, with the appropriate boundary conditions ( where model is applicable ), the Math fits and works perfectly.

 

Yes. Certainly definitions are the primary problem in most practical applications. You can compute the number of rabbits you need to make enough pot pie to feed a certain number of people and usually nothing will go wrong. You can always add side dishes like apple sauce if too many are coming back for seconds. My point isn't that math and science don't work but rather that math and science are a perspective rather than the reality itself. Theory explains only small spectra of reality of unknown extents. Scientists percieve the world in terms of math and science despite the fact that most things remain unknown. This doesn't impede the ability to perform experiment but it does restrict their ability to form hypothesis, and often severely.

 

Most importantly this perspective of reality formed by theory leads to a severe misestimation of human knowledge and our proclivity to applying our knowledge illegitimately. We simply forget and are blind to what we don't know.

[Strange]

My point isn't that math and science don't work but rather that math and science are a perspective rather than the reality itself.

 

That isn't what you said. If you has said that, I imagine the general response would have been: "well, duh." Obvious and not very interesting.

 

Theory explains only small spectra of reality of unknown extents. Scientists percieve the world in terms of math and science despite the fact that most things remain unknown.

 

If the extent is unknown how can you say that "most things" remain unknown?

 

Also, the domain of applicability of most theories is pretty well understood. So, even if there is an unknown amount of stuff we don't know about, that doesn't invalidate the theories we do have.

 

Your argument sounds like the usual childish, "if we don't know everything, then we don't know anything".

 

 

Most importantly this perspective of reality formed by theory leads to a severe misestimation of human knowledge and our proclivity to applying our knowledge illegitimately. We simply forget and are blind to what we don't know.

 

You don't have any basis for that, do you.

[Greg H.]

Imagine two cliffs. Both have faces that form a plane. One is 80 degrees and the other is 100 degrees. Now imagine the topographic maps that depict these planes. Blow up both maps until only the cliff face itself is on the map. Even though the maps appear to be identical a man on the first cliff represented can climb but on the second cliff would fall. .

Except they wouldn't appear identical. One (the overhanging cliff) would have intersecting countour lines. The other would not. This isn't rocket science. It's not even science. Do these lines cross each other? A first grader could answer the question, even if they didn't understand the context.

 

Guess which type of cliff this is?

 

Edited February 7, 2015 by Greg H.

[swansont]

Imagine two cliffs. Both have faces that form a plane. One is 80 degrees and the other is 100 degrees. Now imagine the topographic maps that depict these planes. Blow up both maps until only the cliff face itself is on the map. Even though the maps appear to be identical a man on the first cliff represented can climb but on the second cliff would fall. Cliffs exist because of the nature of all things. All of nature's forces and "laws" are brought to bear on everything that exists. Nothing can exist outside of nature. These forces and processes that formed these cliffs wouldn't have existed if reality didn't support both the cliffs and the math we use to describe them.

 

Greg H has already shown this to be utter tripe, but I just wanted to point out that if "math is NEVER applicable to the real world" then topological maps don't even exist.

[cladking]

I hardly know where to start here. As usual people just aren't following my arguments. Please bear with me as I try to address everything.

 

Except they wouldn't appear identical. One (the overhanging cliff) would have intersecting countour lines. The other would not. This isn't rocket science. It's not even science. Do these lines cross each other? A first grader could answer the question, even if they didn't understand the context.

 

 

 

If the two cliffs are a perfect plane and the topographic depiction is enlarged until only the cliff faces themselves are shown then the overhanging cliff depiction and the steep cliff are identical. Indeed, without a scale for height and distance you can't even determine the steepness of the cliff face.

[imatfaal]

I hardly know where to start here. As usual people just aren't following my arguments. Please bear with me as I try to address everything.

 

No we are following them - we just think they are arrant nonsense

 

If the two cliffs are a perfect plane and the topographic depiction is enlarged until only the cliff faces themselves are shown then the overhanging cliff depiction and the steep cliff are identical. Indeed, without a scale for height and distance you can't even determine the steepness of the cliff face.

 

So if you take a piece of a map so far out of context that it is essentially meaningless it becomes hard to interpret correctly? Well yes. But the answer is don't do that. It is your actions that have lead to the map being deceptive - and bad use of tools will render most models and systems imperfect

[cladking]

 

Again as if you are declaiming previously hidden arcana - scientists understand that models are models and approximate reality - not through any hokum notions refusing to acknowledge the existence of rabbits - but because they created the models as mathematical representations.

 

Of course scientists understand such things. Non-scientists understand some aspects of nature. Even Elmer Fudd knows where to go look for the most rabbits in areas he's already traveled extensively. I'm simply saying that a hunter doesn't need to differentiate one rabbit in order to make pot pie any more than a scientist needs to in order to predict daisy populations. We have a perspective that sees "rabbits" despite the fact no such thing exists. We see our entire world from this perspective. It's not only rabbits that don't really exist but everything from cars to people. Even our constructs including theory are real only within theire definitions and metaphysics. This doesn't mean scientists are dumber than Elmer Fudd merely that we share a perspective and our perspective allows us all to misapply knowledge. We don't even think of the misapplication of knowledge as a misapplication but rather as a special case. This perspective not only affects chaotic forces but harmonic ones as well. Even though almost all natural processes involve both harmonic and chaotic forces we are nearly blind to the latter. They tend to be a sort of "rounding error" in many cases outside the lab.

 

It's not the math errors that are the problem; it's the perspective.

 

Misapplication is neither a synonym nor an approximation to misunderstanding. One may cause the other - but to equate them shows a failure of comprehension of either.

 

 

Of course scientists know it's a complicated world. We know it much better than most. Of course scientists know that things outside the lab can only only be approximated. But what isn't being seen is the nature of science and its metaphysics. "Metaphysical implications" should be included in the experiment conclusions. This doesn't change the nature of science or theory; it merely changes the perspective of science and theory.

 

 

 

So if you take a piece of a map so far out of context that it is essentially meaningless it becomes hard to interpret correctly? Well yes. But the answer is don't do that. It is your actions that have lead to the map being deceptive - and bad use of tools will render most models and systems imperfect

 

 

I disagree. Just like having some 80 time zones and no defined midnight is a fundamental flaw so too is having no standard means of depicting overhanging cliffs. What's so difficult about recognizing and correcting simple problems? Why not just draw overhanging cliffs in red or in dotted lines?

 

It is our perspective preventing such things. We pay the UN billions of dollars yet they haven't done the simple things that would help bring the world together.

 

These silly examples show that you fail to grasp what is inherent in your first sentence. Taxonomies and classifications are rough and ready - but again you seem to be missing the point that we know this fact, we use this fact, and this strengthens our research. Embrace uncertainty

 

I fail to see how grouping dissimilar things is advantageous except in communication. It's much easier to say take the Mississippi to the Ohio than to describe the "river" and its tributaries. It's probably even easier to speak of "mammals with the exception of the platypus and the echidna bear live young" than it is to list every animal with the other attributes of mammals but this doesn't mean that a platypus falls into any natural grouping called "mammals" or even that platypuses actually exist. It's not the nomenclature nor the taxinomies that are problematical, it's the perspective that leads us to believe we know about nature because we've defined "mammal". The problem is each individual sees what he knows and can't see what he doesn't know. The problem is that we see the trees and miss the forest. And yet we don't see that each tree is an individual rather than an oak or a maple.

[Phi for All]

 

So if you take a piece of a map so far out of context that it is essentially meaningless it becomes hard to interpret correctly? Well yes. But the answer is don't do that. It is your actions that have lead to the map being deceptive - and bad use of tools will render most models and systems imperfect

 

I had a similar problem with hammers. Worthless, useless, stupid tool that doesn't work no matter how I grip the handle with my teeth....

[cladking]

 

If the extent is unknown how can you say that "most things" remain unknown?

 

 

Because for every answer there are a million questions.

 

We don't see the questions so much as we see what we already know.

[Strange]

Because for every answer there are a million questions.

 

Sorry, you can't say that because it would require mathematics, which is NEVER applicable to the real world.

[cladking]

 

Sorry, you can't say that because it would require mathematics, which is NEVER applicable to the real world.

 

...And I expected to be accused of hyperbole again.

 

The exact percentage of everything known that is known would seem to be irrelevant when we can round it off to about 0%.

 

It might seem strange when we have so much technology to say it's a rounding error but this is consistent with our lack of ability to make predictions and to explain events. We can predict what will happen when we turn the key in the ignition or put strontium to a spectrograph but predicting things outside of our direct control is far more iffy. Even explaining events outside our control tends to produce a lot of divergence of opinion.

 

 

[swansont]

What's so difficult about recognizing and correcting simple problems? Why not just draw overhanging cliffs in red or in dotted lines?

 

If math is never applicable to the real world, then how can there be a solution to the problem?

We can predict what will happen when we turn the key in the ignition or put strontium to a spectrograph

 

How can we make these predictions without math, which is never applicable to the real world?

[Greg H.]

I hardly know where to start here. As usual people just aren't following my arguments. Please bear with me as I try to address everything.

 

 

If the two cliffs are a perfect plane and the topographic depiction is enlarged until only the cliff faces themselves are shown then the overhanging cliff depiction and the steep cliff are identical. Indeed, without a scale for height and distance you can't even determine the steepness of the cliff face.

 

So basically, what you're saying is, "If I reduce the map to a single line, it's useless."

 

Well, no shit. Why on earth would you ever try and use a map that only has one line on it?

I disagree. Just like having some 80 time zones and no defined midnight is a fundamental flaw so too is having no standard means of depicting overhanging cliffs. What's so difficult about recognizing and correcting simple problems? Why not just draw overhanging cliffs in red or in dotted lines?

 

80 timezones - um. No. There are only half that many recognized UTC offsets. I get hyperbole, but you're being a tad excessive.

 

As for overhanging cliffs, we already have a standard way of depicting them, and it's not even complex. If you don't like it, or agree with it, that's really your problem, not everyone else's.

 

I had a similar problem with hammers. Worthless, useless, stupid tool that doesn't work no matter how I grip the handle with my teeth....

 

Oddly, I found that a screwdriver makes an effective hammer though, if you hold the wrong end, and the board is reasonably soft.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Greg H.