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

[nobox]

Seeking proof is very wrong for science's sake, especially in the initial phase of formulating a theory. Science is all about designing test cases, not to prove, but to test. The test case building comprises the core of science, and the other part of science is about wild speculation.

'Prove' should be exorcized from the vocabulary of scientists.

I don't have any hard feeling about being locked. It is no surprise that people hate out of box thinkers. It would be surprising if they don't/

'prove' implies: absolute, ultimate, monopoly and indisputable. I suspect this word has some religious origin. If we are not certain if we are living in a giant matrix type of world, how can we prove anything??

Proof is only possible in man made logical system (like math), which means little for the real world. The real world does not condone any proof. We mistaken such proof as truth. It is very unfortunate, and many people are still in their dreams, wasting their lives on that type of stuff.

[Strange]

Science is all about designing test cases, not to prove, but to test.

 

That is what the word "prove" means.

 

As you have no way of testing your ideas, they are not worthy of discussion on a science forum.

 

I don't have any hard feeling about being locked. It is no surprise that people hate out of box thinkers.

 

Sadly, like most "out of the box thinkers" you rely on ignorance and imagination, rather than knowledge, evidence or thinking.

[Phi for All]

Refer to my thread: Are natural numbers sacred?

This topic resurfaces every 3 days here. Again, any proof or disproof is impossible. It is all about meta meta meta physics.

My view is that math is a human specific invention, but it has some limited utility. It is more like a game or toy than anything else.

I claim that I have found the profound truth about math, numbers and the universe!@

I found many people are almost like engineers, without a mind set to properly think out of box. Maybe they are.

 

!

Moderator Note

You were unable to show any supportive evidence for your claim, and the thread was closed. Please don't speculate about someone else's speculation. We're trying to maintain some rigor around here, you know, so our ideas might actually have merit.

 

We don't hate out of the box thinkers here. Most of us would prefer they familiarize themselves with what's in the box first, since it seems very rational to understand something before criticizing it.

[Bignose]

'Prove' should be exorcized from the vocabulary of scientists.

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.

[Wolfhnd]

"Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk." Is this what you are talking about cladking?

 

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

 

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

 

I have given this a little thought and the thing that came to mind was the cold fusion debacle. Good theory and good experiments kind of go hand in hand. The question really comes down to what is proof and when is a theory sufficiently supported.

 

Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg and Neil deGrasse Tyson are well know physicists that have recently publicly dismissed the importance of philosophy. What they are saying is that purely mathematical theories can trap you in the "fly bottle". Then again Hawking co-authored the "Top-Down Cosmology" paper which seems a lot like philosophy. Then we have Wolfram saying

 

"But what I suspect is that from the experimental results we have, we already know much more than enough to determine what the correct ultimate theory is—assuming that the theory is indeed simple. It won’t be the case that the theory will get the number of dimensions of space and the muon-electron mass ratio right, but will get the Higgs mass or some as-yet-undiscovered detail wrong.

Now of course it could be that something new will be discovered that makes it more obvious what the ultimate theory might look like. But my guess is that we don’t fundamentally need more experimental discoveries; we just need to spend more effort and be better at searching for the ultimate theory based on what we already know."

 

The debate about how much experimentation is needed will never end nor will the debate about ungrounded theories. A mathematical model however is just that a model and not the thing itself. I don't think that anyone confuses the model with "reality" whatever that is.

 

 

 

It's a trivial point to make that math is just a tool. Like all good tools the question will always be if it is being applied properly.

[cladking]

"Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk." Is this what you are talking about cladking?

 

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

 

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

 

 

 

 

No. Not exactly. I believe these authors are a little overconcerned about speculations becoming "established science". Science reflects reality solely because of the effect of reality on experiment and then technology is spawned by understanding the forces at play and the nature of that reality. If some falsehood is elevated to "science" it will simply cause science to stop "working". It will not be able to make predictions and it willnot generate technology. Students would be well advised to understand metaphysics before choosing their paths.

[Greg H.]

I found many people are almost like engineers, without a mind set to properly think out of box. Maybe they are.

Disparaging your audience is an amazing way to get them to come 'round to your way of thinking.

[cladking]

 

 

 

 

It's a trivial point to make that math is just a tool. Like all good tools the question will always be if it is being applied properly.

 

Perhaps you're right here and my point seems to be getting lost anyway.

 

I've come to think of science as the tool and math as its handmaiden. Obviously math is used properly often enough to give us rockets and biotech so misapplications can be seen as inconsequential. Even when things go horribly wrong they tend to isolated incidences. We don't notice that things go wrong on the smaller scale very frequently and it's only when everything comes together that failures and catastrophies are not the norm.

 

These smaller scale failures are in aggregate more serious than collapsing bridges and poorly made telescope mirrors. Some of them could be eliminated by simply seeing the world from a different perspective. More could be eliminated by looking at the bigger picture and many would never arise if metaphysics recieved more emphasis in school.

[Strange]

I found many people are almost like engineers, without a mind set to properly think out of box. Maybe they are.

 

In my experience, good engineers are very creative people who often come up with novel and innovative ideas ("thinking out of the box") in order to solve problems.

I've come to think of science as the tool and math as its handmaiden. Obviously math is used properly often enough to give us rockets and biotech so misapplications can be seen as inconsequential. Even when things go horribly wrong they tend to isolated incidences. We don't notice that things go wrong on the smaller scale very frequently and it's only when everything comes together that failures and catastrophies are not the norm.

 

This is almost reasonable (apart from the fact it has nothing to do with applicability of mathematics to the real world).

 

 

Some of them could be eliminated by simply seeing the world from a different perspective. More could be eliminated by looking at the bigger picture and many would never arise if metaphysics recieved more emphasis in school.

 

Yet more assertions with no supporting evidence. As you are never able to support these wild claims, I see no reason why anyone should give them any consideration.

 

Some of them could be eliminated by eating more fish. More could be eliminated by painting your face blue and many would never arise if poetry received more emphasis in schools.

[Bignose]

and many would never arise if metaphysics recieved more emphasis in school.

I'm with Strange here. Overall, I think that the post is finally moving in the right direction. But is there any evidence that you can cite that improved knowledge of metaphysics leads to reduction in errors? Or is this just your opinion? Just being your opinion is fine, it just shouldn't be presented as fact.

[Strange]

While I can see a good argument for teaching the disciplines of philosophy (analytical thinking, logic, etc) I can't see any value at all in metaphysics. It may be a fun exercise (for those who like that sort of thing) but has no practical use.

 

So it would be good to see some argument in favour of it, rather than just an assertion.

[Wolfhnd]

Let me start by saying this has all been endlessly debated before and I can add very little to that debate. Here are two examples of opposite opinions from people that can add to the debate.

 

Steven Weinberg: “Against Philosophy”

 

"Physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague aesthetic judgments that it might be expected that we would be helped also by philosophy, out of which after all our science evolved. Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory?

The value today of philosophy to physics seems to me to be something like the value of early nation-states to their peoples. It is only a small exaggeration to say that, until the introduction of the post office, the chief service of nation-states was to protect their peoples from other nation-states. The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers."

 

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/phys216/Weinberg_Against_philosophy.doc

 

 

Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy

 

"The last few years have seen a number of prominent scientists step up to microphones and belittle the value of philosophy. Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Neil deGrasse Tyson are well-known examples. To redress the balance a bit, philosopher of physics Wayne Myrvold has asked some physicists to explain why talking to philosophers has actually been useful to them. I was one of the respondents, and you can read my entry at the Rotman Institute blog. I was going to cross-post my response here, but instead let me try to say the same thing in different words.

Roughly speaking, physicists tend to have three different kinds of lazy critiques of philosophy: one that is totally dopey, one that is frustratingly annoying, and one that is deeply depressing."

 

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/

 

 

So we know what the physicists and philosophers have to say to each other but how about the other sciences such as biology?

Edited March 6, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[cladking]

I'm with Strange here. Overall, I think that the post is finally moving in the right direction. But is there any evidence that you can cite that improved knowledge of metaphysics leads to reduction in errors? Or is this just your opinion? Just being your opinion is fine, it just shouldn't be presented as fact.

 

It is merely an opinion based on logic and my own (limited) experience.

 

 

 

 

We see what we believe and in the case of educated scientists we see what we know as derived from models of experiments. If we better understand the nature of these experiments and how our models are constructed we should simply see this as well. We'll better observe the reality if we understand we can't really look at reality directly.

 

We need to recognize that we aren't so much seeking reality but rather its effects on experiment. This is all metaphysics so better understanding of metaphysics should directly translate to a better understanding of the nature of models and of reality itself.

 

This is why I believe metaphysics should be taught from infancy and drilled into them by six or seven. Scientific observation should begin about this time as well. History of science should be taught from 6th grade on and a 7th step should be added to the scientific method; Metaphysical Implications.

 

Perhaps even more importantly we need to better define words and language and create a special language for philosophy where words have but a single meaning. This would be a scientific language at least to the degree it's "repeatable".

 

Everyone won't agree but we also need to train some in generalism as a sort of specialty.

 

We are each a product of our beliefs but we are open to input in these beliefs through education (especially at a young age). We are also a product of language and unfortunately that language is confused. We don't exist because we think but rather we think because we exist. I believe with greater attention to the nature of science most of the world's problems will begin correcting themselves in a few generations.

[swansont]

It is merely an opinion based on logic and my own (limited) experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We see what we believe and in the case of educated scientists we see what we know as derived from models of experiments. If we better understand the nature of these experiments and how our models are constructed we should simply see this as well. We'll better observe the reality if we understand we can't really look at reality directly.

 

We need to recognize that we aren't so much seeking reality but rather its effects on experiment. This is all metaphysics so better understanding of metaphysics should directly translate to a better understanding of the nature of models and of reality itself.

 

This is why I believe metaphysics should be taught from infancy and drilled into them by six or seven. Scientific observation should begin about this time as well. History of science should be taught from 6th grade on and a 7th step should be added to the scientific method; Metaphysical Implications.

 

Perhaps even more importantly we need to better define words and language and create a special language for philosophy where words have but a single meaning. This would be a scientific language at least to the degree it's "repeatable".

 

Everyone won't agree but we also need to train some in generalism as a sort of specialty.

 

We are each a product of our beliefs but we are open to input in these beliefs through education (especially at a young age). We are also a product of language and unfortunately that language is confused. We don't exist because we think but rather we think because we exist. I believe with greater attention to the nature of science most of the world's problems will begin correcting themselves in a few generations.

What does this have to do with the topic, the ludicrous claim that math is never applicable to the real world? (which you have never admitted is wrong, much less ridiculous)

[Strange]

We need to recognize that we aren't so much seeking reality but rather its effects on experiment.

 

There is a 10 page thread where assorted scientists and engineers have been attempting to explain this point to some who has studied (or claims to have studied) philosophy. So I think the point is pretty well understood.

 

This is all metaphysics so better understanding of metaphysics should directly translate to a better understanding of the nature of models and of reality itself.

 

The nature of reality is unknowable. Which is why metaphysics is pointless. You can just make up anything.

 

Perhaps even more importantly we need to better define words and language and create a special language for philosophy where words have but a single meaning. This would be a scientific language at least to the degree it's "repeatable".

 

Many people have tried to do this. Including one George Boole, hence boolean logic. It doesn't work. It can't be done. It is a ridiculous idea.

 

(But this all seems terribly off topic.)

Take the concept of "infinity" for example. In the real world the odds against of every event makes the concept of "infinity" seem like a fraction rather than being infinite.

 

Only if you don't know what infinity is. (In other words, are ignorant of mathematics.)

 

In the real world infinity doesn't even exist.

 

Unsupported assertion. Unless you can prove that the universe is finite?

 

In the real world even numbers don't exist because you have to have two things to count.

 

You may not have noticed, but there are more than two things out there. (Apart from the fact that your claim is bogus.)

Edited October 5, 2015 by Strange

[cladking]

 

 

 

The nature of reality is unknowable. Which is why metaphysics is pointless. You can just make up anything.

 

 

This statement looks absurd tome but that's just because we don't share the same perspective. You care about modelling the laws of nature and I don't believe there are any laws of nature and that models are confusing. You think metaphysics is magic and I think it's the rules of both ancient and modern science.

 

Reality is the object of all science because understanding reality is how predictions are made.

 

Only if you don't know what infinity is. (In other words, are ignorant of mathematics.)

 

 

Infinity is a mathematical construct just like the number "2". Neither exist though "2" does have real world referents. "Infinity" does not.

 

Unsupported assertion. Unless you can prove that the universe is finite?

 

 

Imagine a rocket that can accelerate to infinite speed. The pilot can withstand only a couple g's on a cointinuing basis so trying to reach the ends of the universe and report back is going to take a long time. Replace the pilot with instrumentation that can withstand 100 g's but again if the universe is immense there's no way of predicting how long is required to return with the data. Now imagine the rocket can by some means accelerate to infinite speed instantaneously. If it instantaneously returns with data from the edge of the universe then you know that the universe is finite. If it doesn't return immediately then what have you learned? Are we to believe its still traveling at infinite speed seeking the edge but just can't find it? How can infinite distance trump infinte speed. By definition it must go "all the way" immediately.

 

I repeat, for all real world applications there is no such thing as infinity. Reality creates staggeringly large numbers that dwarf "infinity" for all practical purposes anyway.

 

Mathematics is a construct that works only because it reflects the logic of nature.

 

You may not have noticed, but there are more than two things out there. (Apart from the fact that your claim is bogus.)

You may not have noticed, but there are more than two things out there. (Apart from the fact that your claim is bogus.)

 

 

But there may be no two identical things. Even if there were two identical thing time exists to keep them from occupying the same place and hence they can't be completely identical.

[Wolfhnd]

I understand what he is saying and it is in fact true that mathematical models do not reflect reality in an obscure philosophical sense.

 

When Plato says everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form he captured the idea perfectly. Abstract ideas to Plato existed outside the mind and for many people it is a hard concept to grasp.

 

To illustrate the point think of things that are not real in the sense that they have no physical existence such as money, home runs, equality or mathematics. These things everyone would agree are real but are some how more perfect because they are not physical. When we think of a chair or a table we call them real objects but we also recognize that our senses do not give us a perfect estimation of the thing itself. In a similar way our mathematical model, and other thinking tools in sciences are more perfect than the image they provide of the thing being studied. Ideas can be perfect because they are abstract and not bound by physical laws. Everything else is an estimation of reality.

 

I'm afraid though that I fall in the camp of those who think metaphysics has done more harm than good. Once you accept that abstractions are more real than reality it is easy to start believing that this simply truth is meaningful. Lack of a stimulating environment for example leave "feral" children brain damaged. We are the product of our senses in a very fundamental way and while once our minds are developed we can escape into them and find their internal logic, logic itself is empty and meaningless without experience.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[Strange]

This statement looks absurd tome but that's just because we don't share the same perspective. You care about modelling the laws of nature and I don't believe there are any laws of nature and that models are confusing.

 

There may not be any rules. But nature behaves in predictable ways as if there were such rules. As I say, we can't know what nature is "really" like, only what we observe. And what we observe appears to follow rules we can model.

 

If you find the models confusing, that is your problem. It doesn't stop them being useful.

 

You think metaphysics is magic and I think it's the rules of both ancient and modern science.

 

Then you are redefining what metaphysics means, which is not a useful way of carrying on a discussion. Especially from one who thinks words should have a single meaning - that should be the meaning everyone understands, not one you have invented.

 

Reality is the object of all science because understanding reality is how predictions are made.

 

Oh no, not again. Take it to the other thread. Reality cannot be known. Science is about what we observe. Whether that is "reality" is a philosophical argument and therefore undecidable and meaningless.

 

Infinity is a mathematical construct just like the number "2". Neither exist though "2" does have real world referents. "Infinity" does not.

 

Real world referents of infinity exist if the universe is infinite. As you cannot prove it is not infinite, this is a baseless assertion.

 

(Argument from incredulity/ignorance ignored.)

 

I repeat, for all real world applications there is no such thing as infinity.

 

It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, it is unsupported. It may be your belief, but that's all.

 

Reality creates staggeringly large numbers that dwarf "infinity" for all practical purposes anyway.

 

However large a number is, it cannot "dwarf infinity". By definition.

 

Mathematics is a construct that works only because it reflects the logic of nature.

 

So there is a logic to nature? I thought there were no rules. Make your mind up.

 

But there may be no two identical things. Even if there were two identical thing time exists to keep them from occupying the same place and hence they can't be completely identical.

 

You are moving the goalposts.

 

But it is another argument from ignorance. All fundamental articles (of a given type) are identical. Bosons can occupy the same location. Therefore you are wrong.

I understand what he is saying and it is in fact true that mathematical models do not reflect reality in an obscure philosophical sense.

 

They don't have to reflect reality. Just what we observe.

[Reg Prescott]

I'd just like to add a word of support for Cladking: I'm enjoying reading your thoughts. And a word of sympathy too: I see you're struggling against the same jawdropping silliness that I've been dealing with myself in another thread.

Take, for example, one of your critics' remark above that, "Science is about what we observe."

This claim, and others like it that have been hurled in my direction too, is so... so... preposterously, outrageously, in-your-face FALSE that it takes a few moments to recover one's equanimity before weighing the pros and cons of whether to debunk it, or else simply ensconce oneself in the darkest recesses of a cave somewhere.

If the claim was about carpentry, say, or stamp collecting, or mud-wrestling... who could possibly demur? But when the claim pertains to science - and her ontology chock-a-block with quarks, Higgs bosons, fields, forces, and a thousand other unobservable spooks -- who could possibly NOT demur?

Argghh!

Cladking, you strike me as an intelligent and fiercely autonomous thinker. Don't let yourself be bullied by the herd. Good luck!

[Wolfhnd]

 

They don't have to reflect reality. Just what we observe.

Sorry poorly worded statement.

[Strange]

 

... quarks, Higgs bosons, fields, forces, and a thousand other unobservable spooks ...

 

These are models, based on what we observe.

 

As as been painfully explained to you dozens of times: science builds models of what we observe.

[swansont]

 

But there may be no two identical things. Even if there were two identical thing time exists to keep them from occupying the same place and hence they can't be completely identical.

 

Bose-Einstein statistics (ooh, math being applied to nature) relies on the particles being identical, which can occupy the same space. (Fermi-Diract statistics also relies on them being identical, in why those particles cannot)

I understand what he is saying and it is in fact true that mathematical models do not reflect reality in an obscure philosophical sense.

 

But that's not the same as claiming math is never applicable to the real world.

Infinity is a mathematical construct just like the number "2". Neither exist though "2" does have real world referents. "Infinity" does not.

 

How can that be, if math is never applicable to the real world?

I'd just like to add a word of support for Cladking: I'm enjoying reading your thoughts. And a word of sympathy too: I see you're struggling against the same jawdropping silliness that I've been dealing with myself in another thread.

 

Does that mean you agree that math is never applicable to the real world?

[Wolfhnd]

But that's not the same as claiming math is never applicable to the real world.

 

 

I was just assuming that he didn't carefully consider his words

[swansont]

 

I was just assuming that he didn't carefully consider his words

 

 

We're 120 posts in and rather than say that, he's just dug the hole deeper, so I don't think that's it.

[Wolfhnd]

I'm too old and tired to give this any more thought.