What does physics describe?

[RuroumiKenshin]

My mom and I were debating what physics described. Here is my mom's argument:
"Everything is a result of physics".

My argument: "Mom, the semantics you're using is incorrect. Physics only describes the universe; it doesn't cause it. The correct semantics is as follows: the universe is the result of what physics describes."

Okay, she seems to surrender....but still holds on to hope. We agreed that I post it here, to get your comments.

Another thing: My mom says "We know only 1/8 of physics".

Me: "This paradoxical, mom!! In order to make an estimate, in this case a fractional estimate, we need to know the denominator. The denimonator is everything we know and everything we don't know. Therefore, since we can't know what we don't know, the statistics you present have no meaning."

Is my logic right?

Thank you!! [:D] [;)]

[newton1]

i dun think everything is result of physics
beside physics , we still have the other knowledge
even the physics also should consider the probability in sometime
my idea is physics describes why the result come out like that from universe[;)]

[schwarzchildradius]

The physics we have today, is only a model of nature, while nature is still mysterious. Take a falling ball, for example. Newtonian physics will describe the motion in a vacuum to nearly 10 decimal places. Add a small correction, air resistance, and Mechanics still works, but it is a more complicated differential equation. Adding relativistic corrections takes more work, but gives you the highest relavent accuracy (QM corrections for macroscopic objects are truly negligable).
Philosophically, physics is the language of nature, but in reality we just have a very good 'map.'

[LogicalAtheist]

Majin - If I were you I'd be proud your mom has the general logistical capability to say such a statement as:

"Everything is a result of physics."

Argueing the truth of that could sure be done, but dammit if your mom ain't making a statement that most people couldn't even understand.

The majority of this idiotic planet would say:

"Everything is a result of God."

I'd be proud. Is she single? Gimme her number!

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
My mom and I were debating what physics described. Here is my mom's argument:
"Everything is a result of physics".

My argument: "Mom, the semantics you're using is incorrect. Physics only describes the universe; it doesn't cause it. The correct semantics is as follows: the universe is the result of what physics describes."

If I had to choose only between those two statements, I'd definitely go for yours, Majin.

I would state it in yet another way: What we call physics seems able to describe everything we can measure.

or: The universe is a result of entities and interactions that we can measure and describe ("physics" is just the name of such description and the method by which we obtain it).

Another thing: My mom says "We know only 1/8 of physics".

Me: "This paradoxical, mom!! In order to make an estimate, in this case a fractional estimate, we need to know the denominator. The denimonator is everything we know and everything we don't know. Therefore, since we can't know what we don't know, the statistics you present have no meaning."

Is my logic right?

Absolutely.

Finally, allow me to say, you both should be really proud of each other. I don't think it is common for mother and daughter to have such kind of discussions.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
My mom and I were debating what physics described. Here is my mom's argument:
"Everything is a result of physics".

My argument: "Mom, the semantics you're using is incorrect. Physics only describes the universe; it doesn't cause it. The correct semantics is as follows: the universe is the result of what physics describes."

Okay, she seems to surrender....but still holds on to hope. We agreed that I post it here, to get your comments.

Another thing: My mom says "We know only 1/8 of physics".

Me: "This paradoxical, mom!! In order to make an estimate, in this case a fractional estimate, we need to know the denominator. The denimonator is everything we know and everything we don't know. Therefore, since we can't know what we don't know, the statistics you present have no meaning."

Is my logic right?

Thank you!! [:D] [;)]

Although to the causual listener your conversation might sound intelligible, it sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland to me. Saying everything is the result of physics can be interpreted as tongue in cheek humor. Its like saying "Everything is a result of Quantum Mechanics, which is random and has no cause." To then add that we only know 1/8th of physics is like saying, "We only know 1/8th of the unknowable, 1/8th of that which has no cause and is random."

[Alexander]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
My mom and I were debating what physics described. Here is my mom's argument:
"Everything is a result of physics".



Majin, she is partially correct (read the link below). Tell her that actually everything (including physics, of course) is the result of math (which is just logic).

This is so simply because both logic and universe have the same original presumptions.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

The majority of this idiotic planet would say:

"Everything is a result of God."


Hey, don't offend the whole planet. This is only true for uneducated nations. I've been in most of Europe and people there do not think this way, especialy in Eastern part of it.

What country have you made this observation from?

[Eh]

It's most of the west.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
It's most of the west.

Exactly, I would not call the US uneducated for example. The real issue seems to be how capitalistic a country is. The more capitalistic, the more religious. The more impoverished and capitalistic, the more fundamentalist and Catholic.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
My mom and I were debating what physics described.
Here is my mom's argument:
"Everything is a result of physics".
This statement implies a certain definition
of physics which equates it to all observation -
data input we have as well as things that
exist in some reasonable or unreasonable
for us manner and that may not be indicated
in any way by observation.

So, that definition is incorrect I think.
Physics is defined as the basic axioms we conclude
solely from observation (at their lower level of
complexity behavior) first. Second, if we have not
yet included some of the observed in physics
then the everything part is again problematic.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
My argument: "Mom, the semantics you're using
is incorrect. Physics only describes the universe;
it doesn't cause it. The correct semantics is
as follows: the universe is the result of what
physics describes."
I'm not entirely certain what you meant
by that statement. It sounds like one and the
same as your mom's, except you changed "physics"
into "what physics discribes".

Again, the approach is actually reversed.
Physics is the result of the Universe.
Further more, only of what we can observe
of it. Physics is a human-made theory, not
a word meant to imply some all-inclusive
Universal stuff(though that's its eventual -
probably unprovable purpose).

I agree with you about the "1/8" stuff.
btw, did you ask your mom why she said that ?
Originally posted by Alexander
Majin, she is partially correct (read the link
below). Tell her that actually everything
(including physics, of course) is the result of math
...
and universe have the same original presumptions.
Indeed, but I think you should add - "probably"
(in this and any other case related to the Universe).

As for that "just logic" part, I'm not entirely
certain what you're talking about. There
are potentially infinite definitions possible for
that word, not to mention that it's original
assumptions in the more familiar to us cases
are also enitially based on observation.

It is probably pointless, and constitutes
absolute assumptions or at least unlikely - beliefs,
to postulate things that are not related to
observation - "closed loops" as I call them,
that have not originated from observation and
do not make conclusions solely regarding
observations.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
[B]Majin - If I were you I'd be proud your mom has the general logistical capability to say such a statement as:

"Everything is a result of physics."
...
The majority of this idiotic planet would say:

"Everything is a result of God."
...
LA makes good points...[:D]

Live long and prosper.

[newton1]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, I would not call the US uneducated for example. The real issue seems to be how capitalistic a country is. The more capitalistic, the more religious. The more impoverished and capitalistic, the more fundamentalist and Catholic.


yes...i agree[;)]

[drag]

Originally posted by newton1
Exactly, I would not call the US uneducated
for example. The real issue seems to be how
capitalistic a country is. The more capitalistic,
the more religious. The more impoverished and
capitalistic, the more fundamentalist and Catholic.
Yep, definitly sounds like total BS to me...[;)]

[Dissident Dan]

The problem is just semantics. It depends on what you define "physics" as. Is it "the study of", "rules formulated from the study of", or what you're actually studying? ...However you want to define it.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The problem is just semantics. It depends on what you define "physics" as. Is it "the study of", "rules formulated from the study of", or what you're actually studying? ...However you want to define it.

Physics is the useful study of motion. Some ways are more accurate than others, but require unnecessary mathematical precision and complexity for what people usually want to use them for. What matters is how useful they are to us as individuals and organizations. Needless to say, because we are ignorant we can find the answers.

[drag]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
[B]The problem is just semantics. It depends
on what you define "physics" as.
The definition of the science of physics is
indeed unclear - how can you define things
that you do not yet fully know, after all.
However, it's NOT THAT unclear as you imply.

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
My mom and I were debating what physics described. Here is my mom's argument:
"Everything is a result of physics".

My argument: "Mom, the semantics you're using is incorrect. Physics only describes the universe; it doesn't cause it. The correct semantics is as follows: the universe is the result of what physics describes."


I agree. You should probably ask her why physics is any more likely to be the "cause" of existence than other fields of study.


Okay, she seems to surrender....but still holds on to hope. We agreed that I post it here, to get your comments.

Another thing: My mom says "We know only 1/8 of physics".

Me: "This paradoxical, mom!! In order to make an estimate, in this case a fractional estimate, we need to know the denominator. The denimonator is everything we know and everything we don't know. Therefore, since we can't know what we don't know, the statistics you present have no meaning."

Is my logic right?

Thank you!! [:D] [;)]

Beautifully reasoned, if I may say so.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Majin, she is partially correct (read the link below). Tell her that actually everything (including physics, of course) is the result of math (which is just logic).

This is so simply because both logic and universe have the same original presumptions.

The Universe cannot be said to have "pre-assumptions". It's not a field of study. It's a collection of all things. Maths, on the other hand, is just one (of the many) ways that we have to describe the universe.

If you'd like, I can re-post my original "Hurdles" thread - though I thought the point had been made.

[RuroumiKenshin]

I'm not entirely certain what you meant
by that statement. It sounds like one and the
same as your mom's, except you changed "physics"
into "what physics discribes".


What physics describes is the universe. Physics is a study of, whereas in my mom's point of view, the universe was a result of physics. This doesn't make sense because the universe can't be a result of physics because physics describes the universe.
My analogy I presented to her: 'Think of it this way: you're describing a mountain range, and you're writing your observations down. The mountain range is not a result of the observations you wrote down. But the observations are the result of the mountain range, so to speak. Note that's only partially true...'

That was the point I was trying to make, drag.

Could we say that mathematics is only an approximation of the universe as we see it?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
The Universe cannot be said to have "pre-assumptions". It's not a field of study. It's a collection of all things.



That is the presumption whivh makes logic and math to work - that something exists.



Maths, on the other hand, is just one (of the many) ways that we have to describe the universe.


Nope. Description never PREDICTS how things will work. Math does. Math is not a description - it is the way things work. (And the only way, because it is just the way of logic).

[drag]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That was the point I was trying to make, drag.

If you reread your original message you'll see that
you wrote "The Universe is a result of what physics
discribes." and not "What physics discribes is the
result of the Universe.". Maybe you just wrote it
incorrectly ?

Peace and long life.

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex Said:

"Nope. Description never PREDICTS how things will work. Math does. Math is not a description - it is the way things work. (And the only way, because it is just the way of logic)."

Yes, math is a description of the universe.
If we had a 1000 page book of all the priniciple equations which govern the universe (as many that could fit on 1000 pages at least) these equation to describe as they do define the universe.

We could take this book to another universe, and compare the defining properties.

They do describe our universe.

In fact, math is the ONLY UNIVERSAL and thus proper way, to descrive the universe.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What physics describes is the universe. Physics is a study of, whereas in my mom's point of view, the universe was a result of physics. This doesn't make sense because the universe can't be a result of physics because physics describes the universe.



Universe comes from physics, physics comes from math, math -from logic. Logic comes from just fact of existense.

So, universe obeys math simply because objects in universe exist.

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex - Here is an example of my claim.

Let's pretend I have a beach ball in front of me.

linguistic description - It's round, spherical, transparent, 4 colors each in the same shape, which is a slice of the sphere.

mathematic description - list such values as radius, volume, all dimensions, list the parameters of the light striking the ball, and the light bouncing off, list the dimensions of each area of color.

See? both describe it, but not only are you wrong on that math isn't descriptive. it's the only way to properly descrive something fully.

Saying the ball is red won't make sense to the chinese, let alone alines from another entire universe.

But if I tell them the light wave content hitting and bouncing off it, it makes sense.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by drag
If you reread your original message you'll see that
you wrote "The Universe is a result of what physics
discribes." and not "What physics discribes is the
result of the Universe.". Maybe you just wrote it
incorrectly ?

Peace and long life.

Okay, I need to work on my simantics. [t)]

"What physics describes is the result fo the universe" implies that comes from the universe, it is a result of the universe; "the universe is a result of what physics describes" implies that the universe came from what physics describes.

We (well, at least I can't) can't get definite answer as to which one's right. I think the second one I described is right. But I can't say...

[drag]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
We (well, at least I can't) can't get definite
answer as to which one's right. I think the
second one I described is right.
In that case you are a supporter of
the Mind hypothesys. Also, in that case
you are making an unnecessary - not supported
by the data, assumption. Whereas, the first
statement just matches the data - we observed
the Universe and created physics as a THEORY
to explain it.

Live long and prosper.

[Alexander]

Simple example of how math creates NEW object.

Say, take a proton and trow it in 1/r potential hole. What happens? Well, electron being a wave starts sloshing back and forth in it, right? Right. Boundary conditions (U=1/r) mathematically results in only certain harmonics to exist (because they shall coincide with themselves upon reflection from boundary). Lets' call first harmonic (n=1 solution) as K state, second harmonic (n=2 solution of wave equation) as L state and so on.

Voila - we created primitive H atom. We who? No one. It arises from allowed by math solution. It (atom) simply is the allowed by math solution itself.

[It is tempting to say that H atom comes from electron, or from 1/r central potential (=proton) - but recall that there is NO atom in electron, nor in proton].

Same with all other objects and phenomena in uviverse - they are created by solutions given certain constrains (1/r potentials, symmetries, etc).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is the presumption whivh makes logic and math to work - that something exists.


Yes, these fields of description are based on that assumption.


Nope. Description never PREDICTS how things will work.


Dead wrong! To predict is merely to describe that which will happen.


Math does. Math is not a description - it is the way things work.


It is a description of the way things work, yes, but it is not what causes them to work that way. If it were, then it would be used to describe itself, and would thus be self-referntial (paradoxical).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Simple example of how math creates NEW object.

Say, take a proton and trow it in 1/r potential hole. What happens? Well, electron being a wave starts sloshing back and forth in it, right? Right. Boundary conditions (U=1/r) mathematically results in only certain harmonics to exist (because they shall coincide with themselves upon reflection from boundary). Lets' call first harmonic (n=1 solution) as K state, second harmonic (n=2 solution of wave equation) as L state and so on.

Voila - we created primitive H atom. We who? No one. It arises from allowed by math solution. It (atom) simply is the allowed by math solution itself.

[It is tempting to say that H atom comes from electron, or from 1/r central potential (=proton) - but recall that there is NO atom in electron, nor in proton].

Same with all other objects and phenomena in uviverse - they are created by solutions given certain constrains (1/r potentials, symmetries, etc).

Don't you see that all you just did was describe a physical phenomenon? If you had described it in plain English, could one then assume that English is the producer of all reality?

[LogicalAtheist]

Like Mentat said, Alex just used language to say something. And thus assumed if that language could say it, it must be occuring in nature.

"100 is the same as 90" I say. So I said it, so it must be true.

Alex, how about this in math terms...

100 = 90

Math says it, so it must be true? I mean, who says 100 doesn't equal 90, they're just numbers created in a language.

Furthermore, math can say all sorts of things that are impossible.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Like Mentat said, Alex just used language to say something. And thus assumed if that language could say it, it must be occuring in nature.

"100 is the same as 90" I say. So I said it, so it must be true.

Alex, how about this in math terms...

100 = 90

Math says it, so it must be true? I mean, who says 100 doesn't equal 90, they're just numbers created in a language.

Furthermore, math can say all sorts of things that are impossible.

These and other points were discussed in the old Forums (in my original "Hurdles" thread), and I thought the issue was resolved (as no one - Alexander included - could present a good enough argument for the Causal Mathematics idea, against the arguments of myself and a few other members).

I could look for that thread in the PF Archive, and re-post it here, if you'd like.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat

Dead wrong! To predict is merely to describe that which will happen.



Excuse me? How can you DESCRIBE what have not happened yet?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Don't you see that all you just did was describe a physical phenomenon?

No. What is PHYSICAL here? Nothing. Just math: take an equation of a wave and place a constrains 1/r on it.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist


Alex, how about this in math terms...

100 = 90

Math says it, so it must be true?



No, math does NOT say so. You do. You are NOT math.



I mean, who says 100 doesn't equal 90, they're just numbers created in a language.



Numbers are NOT language.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
These and other points were discussed in the old Forums (in my original "Hurdles" thread), and I thought the issue was resolved (as no one - Alexander included - could present a good enough argument for the Causal Mathematics idea, against the arguments of myself and a few other members).


Beg you to differ presenting arguments (as I did many times over in favor of causal origin of logic) and understanding them. Two different things.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Alexander
Excuse me? How can you DESCRIBE what have not happened yet?

probability helps.

[Alexander]

See - you use math (probabbilities).

(And if you use math correctly and did not forget to include anything important, then you get corresponding to reality result).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Excuse me? How can you DESCRIBE what have not happened yet?

By making predictions. I formulate a theory, that is capable of making predictions, then I should be able to describe how phenomena will be, if my theory holds true.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
No. What is PHYSICAL here? Nothing. Just math: take an equation of a wave and place a constrains 1/r on it.

But the equation of the wave just describes the actual physical phenomenon. Don't you believe in an objective reality at all? If you do, then you cannot believe that something that can only be understood within the minds of sentient beings (like mathematics), and is therefore subjective, can have any control over physical phenomena.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
No, math does NOT say so. You do. You are NOT math.



Numbers are NOT language.

Says who? The things that the numbers are describing are not language, but the numbers themselves are.

Think of this (to help illustrate the subjective nature of numbers): If I say "6", I have not described anything. I could just as easily be talking about an amount as a degree. I could just as easily be describing someone's age, as someone's height. I could just as easily be describing the result of a certain mathematical equation as another mathematical equation (such as 3+3 and 12/2). It is purely subjective, and useless, unless some actual attribute is assigned to it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
"Everything is a result of physics".


That two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen can form a molecule of water, ain't physics, but is chemistry. Even if the property of the atoms involved, can be derived from physcial properties of the atoms.

"Everything is a result of physcics" therefore is a notion of reality, which can be called "physicalism".

In reality we deal with other levels of describing reality.

It would be pretty absurd to explain the economic crisis in terms of physical behaviour of matter. Economy is better to describe this level of reality.

etc.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Says who?



Logic.



Think of this (to help illustrate the subjective nature of numbers): If I say "6", I have not described anything. I could just as easily be talking about an amount as a degree. I could just as easily be describing someone's age, as someone's height. I could just as easily be describing the result of a certain mathematical equation as another mathematical equation (such as 3+3 and 12/2).

It is purely subjective, and useless, unless some actual attribute is assigned to it.


You have just proven the contary - that a math (in your case the number 6) is objective (=independent from human or alien existence), and that a math abstract concept (= not directly related to concrete objects). In you example 6 is still 6 in ALL of you cases, but the objects you tried to tie it to are VERY different and have nothing in common by themselves.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
That two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen can form a molecule of water, ain't physics, but is chemistry.



Chemistry is just quantum mechanics of electromagnetic interaction of bunches of electrons and protons.



"Everything is a result of physcics" therefore is a notion of reality, which can be called "physicalism".

Everything is indeed the result of physics, physics is the result of math, math is the result of logic, logic is the result of existence.

So everything is just a result of existence.



It would be pretty absurd to explain the economic crisis in terms of physical behaviour of matter. Economy is better to describe this level of reality.

etc.

No, it would not. Just too complex (bulky) to derive from the first principles, so as always in such situations - the statistical approach (called economics) is quickier and far less labor consuming, (although not very accurate).

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
But the equation of the wave just describes the actual physical phenomenon.



No, equation of wave does not. It (equation) is just a trigonometric identity.



Don't you believe in an objective reality at all?


Yes. Objective reality is what math allows to do to mathematical objects (like a rainbow, a crystal, an atom, an eclipse, a star, a planet, a planet orbit, etc).



If you do, then you cannot believe that something that can only be understood within the minds of sentient beings (like mathematics), and is therefore subjective, can have any control over physical phenomena.

This is exactly where you error (or misunderstanding) lies - that math is a subjective invention of homo sapience during last couple millenia here on Earth. It is not. It (math) is just a logic of existence, so it is same for all existing objects. Pithagorean threorem sin2+cos2=1 was valid before Pithagorah too.

All civilisations on Earth have the SAME math regardless notations they use (and notations are constantly changing).

Math is just a logic of existence itself.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Math is just a logic of existence itself.

Almost right.

Logic is also tied to the behavior we call "thinking". This introduces a lot more to talk about.

Regarding to your idea of "existence itself", all we can do is describe the result of what we call "experiments", but also, and more important, your very post is making a clear distiction between "existence itself" and its "logic".

So, yes, Math is the logic (=the structure of thoughts) we have developed from our interaction with "existence itself".

i.e., you also needed to refer to "existence itself" and its structure. Math is the representation of the structure of physical interactions. It has no independent existence, much in te way you cannot claim the height, width and length of a cube to give it existence. You can have the full set of equations and boundary conditions for all particles and waves that build a house, and yet there is no house.

Equations by themselves create nothing.
"Math" is structure,... yes, but in order to talk about reality, you always need to ask "structure of what?".

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
By making predictions. I formulate a theory, that is capable of making predictions, then I should be able to describe how phenomena will be, if my theory holds true.

Stop right here! Description can not "formulate a theory" not to say of one "capable of making prediction". It takes at least logic (and usually in advanced form we call math) to formulate a theory. Not a description anymore.

So, you can not DESCRIBE what WILL happen. By definition of description. There is NOTHING to DESCRIBE yet.

(Imagine a policeman taking witness testimony: "Describe what WILL happen").

[Alexander]

Originally posted by ahrkron


You can have the full set of equations and boundary conditions for all particles and waves that build a house, and yet there is no house.



Actually you don't (have all equations). If you were, there obviousely was a house.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Actually you don't (have all equations). If you were, there obviousely was a house.

I wonder how you can honestly believe that.

What about the following:

Let S(u) denote the points that satisfy x2+y2+z2=1 cm2

Where:
u is any PF's member
x is measured along the x axis of u's monitor
y along the y axis
z is the direction from the center of the screen to the point between u's eyes.

And (0,0,0) is the middle point of the line that joins u's eyes and the center of u's monitor.

Then, the set of equations

Z = Union of all points that satisfy S(u) for all u's logged on right now,

Is the set of perfect spheres, each 1 cm radius, floating in between all users of PF logged on right now and their monitors.

I have the equations... and see no sphere.

Does anybody see his or her sphere?

[Hurkyl]

Maybe if I squint really hard...

[Alexander]

Originally posted by ahrkron
I wonder how you can honestly believe that.



I don't believe anything (accept on faith).This simply follows from logic.

What about the following:...

...Is the set of perfect spheres, each 1 cm radius, floating in between all users of PF logged on right now and their monitors.

I have the equations... and see no sphere.

Does anybody see his or her sphere?



This is dumb, because your sphere does not make photons yet. How can you "see" without any light?

To SEE something, your eye shall absorb 2-3 eV photons (this is DEFINITION of seeing).

(I told you already that you have to have equations which you don't).

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Maybe if I squint really hard...

What you see is just your imagination. There is no light in the system yet.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Logic.


Logic says that numbers are not language?


You have just proven the contary - that a math (in your case the number 6) is objective (=independent from human or alien existence), and that a math abstract concept (= not directly related to concrete objects). In you example 6 is still 6 in ALL of you cases, but the objects you tried to tie it to are VERY different and have nothing in common by themselves.

Exactly, 6 is not a solid concept, because it can be used for many (entirely unrelated) things.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
No, equation of wave does not. It (equation) is just a trigonometric identity.


Yes, that's all that it is. Nothing more. And of what use is it, if you can't use it to describe anything that really exists? LogicalAtheists brougth up the equation 100=99. This is an equation, and is thus mathematical. It is not logical, but it still exists within the realm of the language of mathematics. It has no use, because it cannot describe any real physical phenomena.


Yes. Objective reality is what math allows to do to mathematical objects (like a rainbow, a crystal, an atom, an eclipse, a star, a planet, a planet orbit, etc).


You're preaching again. You haven't substantiated anything you've said.

Your reasoning is exactly the same as those who, when asked what proof there is of a Creator, say "just look at all of the creation".


All civilisations on Earth have the SAME math regardless notations they use (and notations are constantly changing).


So what?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
I don't believe anything (accept on faith).This simply follows from logic.


You've just contradicted yourself. You said you didn't believe in anything, and then you used logic as a final source, taking for granted that it must be right, because it's logical.


This is dumb, because your sphere does not make photons yet. How can you "see" without any light?


Yes, even if the equations for seeing with light existed - if there is no (physical) light, there is no vision.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Actually you don't (have all equations). If you were, there obviousely was a house.

Why's that? If I have all of the equations that govern the construction of a house, that doesn't mean that there was a house. It means that I have all of the equations that govern the construction of a house. You make it appear as though one could pull money out of thin air, merely by "telling" the atoms what they are mathematically "supposed" to do.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Stop right here! Description can not "formulate a theory" not to say of one "capable of making prediction". It takes at least logic (and usually in advanced form we call math) to formulate a theory.


Yes, it takes logic to formulate a theory, but a theory is a description of some phenomenon.


So, you can not DESCRIBE what WILL happen. By definition of description. There is NOTHING to DESCRIBE yet.


Yes, and there is nothing to predict yet, but there will be. A prediction doesn't describe what exists now, does it?


(Imagine a policeman taking witness testimony: "Describe what WILL happen").


That policeman would be asking the witness to make an accurate prediction.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why's that? If I have all of the equations that govern the construction of a house, that doesn't mean that there was a house.

It does. If you have them.

If you don't have a house yet, then obviousely you don't have all equations yet.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat

Yes, and there is nothing to predict yet, but there will be. A prediction doesn't describe what exists now, does it?




Beg you to differ a description from a prediction. Different animals.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. If you have them.

If you don't have a house yet, then obviousely you don't have all equations yet.

Originally posted by Me
You make it appear as though one could pull money out of thin air, merely by "telling" the atoms what they are mathematically "supposed" to do.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat

LogicalAtheists brougth up the equation 100=99. This is an equation, and is thus mathematical.



Incorrect. This is NOT an equation. To qualify for an equation it shall have EQUAL sides - which it does not have. So, this is not an equation. Sorry for correction.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Beg you to differ a description from a prediction. Different animals.

Yes they are different. A description can be about the past (=History), the present, or the future. Only when it is about the future is it a prediction.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat


You're preaching again. You haven't substantiated anything you've said.


I can. But it also takes understanding of the subject of discussion on your side.

Do you understand optics, for instance? Then I can explain you creation of such simple object as a rainbow, for example.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
I can. But it also takes understanding of the subject of discussion on your side.

Do you understand optics, for instance? Then I can explain you creation of such simple object as a rainbow, for example.

You must be really used to saying the same thing many times over, and it's blinding you from what I'm saying: You...Are...Preaching...Your...Own...Belief...But. ..It's...Not...Necessarily...True. In...fact...the...Hurdles...to...your...belief...m ake...it...very...unlikely.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
You must be really used to saying the same thing many times over, and it's blinding you from what I'm saying: You...Are...Preaching...Your...Own...Belief...But. ..It's...Not...Necessarily...True. In...fact...the...Hurdles...to...your...belief...m ake...it...very...unlikely.

Anything to say about the subject (origin of rainbow)? If not, I can safely assume that you don't know it (or don't understand it).

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes they are different. A description can be about the past (=History), the present, or the future. Only when it is about the future is it a prediction.

Good, we making progress (although slow, but it is ok, I am quite patient).

So, past and present can be described, but future can not. Simply because there is nothing to describe yet.

That is why math is NOT a mere description. It goes one step beyond - it predicts.

That is why engineers use math instead of just plain english to predict how much load can a bridge stand.

That is why math is so successful - without having the actual bridge it can accurately predict if the FUTURE bridge will hold certain load, or it needs to be reidesigned or reinforced.

No language can do that (predict capacity).

See the predictive power of math?

That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language). Don't mix them anymore, ok?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Anything to say about the subject (origin of rainbow)? If not, I can safely assume that you don't know it (or don't understand it).

I didn't respond about the rainbow, because you have already "explained" it's origin (as it is held in your religion) and I don't think I'll get anywhere by telling you that you are using mathematics to desribe a physical phenomenon (as I've already told you this, but you ignored me).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Good, we making progress (although slow, but it is ok, I am quite patient).


That's commendable.


So, past and present can be described, but future can not. Simply because there is nothing to describe yet.


Not exactly. The future can be described, it's called a prediction. But, if science is wrong (and I'm not saying it is), then the Universe may be perfectly random, and thus unpredictable.


That is why math is NOT a mere description. It goes one step beyond - it predicts.


It describes the future.


That is why engineers use math instead of just plain english to predict how much load can a bridge stand.

That is why math is so successful - without having the actual bridge it can accurately predict if the FUTURE bridge will hold certain load, or it needs to be reidesigned or reinforced.

No language can do that (predict capacity).

See the predictive power of math?


Yes, I see the predictive power of math. I've always known it. However, if science is wrong (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just being open-minded), then mathematics doesn't actually have any "predictive power", and it is only chance that has allowed it to be "right" so many times.

Also (and this is important), if something is a tool of description (whether it be description of the present, past, or the future (prediction)), it is not causing anything, but merely describing it.


That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language). Don't mix them anymore, ok?

No, not ok. We have your opinion, and that's all it is. Remember, typical language, logical (deductive) reasoning, can predict things also, without the use of mathematics. They are not, necessarily, as different as you think.

[drag]

Language can predict, sure it can. [;)]
I mean if there's a large fresh hot pizza in front
of me and I'm hungry, well, it's not that difficult
to predict what will happen...[:D]
Of course, I can't quantify the chances of this
most likely outcome - whatever it may be, but you can
bet they're pretty high... [:D]

[Mentat]

Waiting for Alexander's response (and trying to keep this thread on the first page [;)])...

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Blah blah blah...
Remember, typical language, logical (deductive) reasoning, can predict things also, without the use of mathematics. They are not, necessarily, as different as you think. [/B]

To show you on a simple undertandable to you example how wrong are your long posts just try to predict what might be the result of tripling of a few coins you have in your pocket. Plain english is fine to make a valuable prediction. Feel free NOT to use any math (say, numbers).

[FZ+]

Prediction: If I punch myself, it would hurt.

No maths involved.

[Hurkyl]

That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language).

You do realize that the very first thing in the formal presentation of mathematics is a specification of the grammar for the language of propositional logic, right?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't respond about the rainbow, because you have already "explained" it's origin (as it is held in your religion) and I don't think I'll get anywhere by telling you that you are using mathematics to desribe a physical phenomenon (as I've already told you this, but you ignored me).

Which physical phenomenon? There is nothing physical in rainbow (contrary to your faith). I believe that you lack of understanding of physical phenomenon comes simply from you ignorance (=lack of knowledga about origin of "physical" objects and phenomena).

When you ACTUALLY start studying physics, you will be surprised little of "physical" is there in physics. Moreover, the more you study it, the LESS "physical objects" and "physical phenomena" remains. The rest will be math, math and only math.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which physical phenomenon? There is nothing physical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).


Which mathematical phenomenon? There is nothing mathematical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).

See how easily that is turned around? Also, the reverse case I presented has more merit, because you can actually see the rainbow (which, in my book, makes it physical).


I believe that you lack of understanding of physical phenomenon comes simply from you ignorance (=lack of knowledga about origin of "physical" objects and phenomena).


This is just plain dumb. Most people who know physics agree with Mentat's reasoning, and he will probably still hold to it after he starts studying physics.


When you ACTUALLY start studying physics, you will be surprised little of "physical" is there in physics. Moreover, the more you study it, the LESS "physical objects" and "physical phenomena" remains. The rest will be math, math and only math.

Why, oh why, don't you start addressing Mentat's logic? You keep parroting this mantra over and over again, and you consistently avoid addressing the hurdles that Mentat and I have presented.

Why do you refuse to see how weak your argument is? It really is totally devoid of any kind of logic. In fact, what you are preaching here is none other than idealism. You are confusing ideal Platonic forms with real, material objects.

I am surprised that someone who was educated in the USSR, with its strong emphasis on dialectical materialism, would cling to such nonsense.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom
Which mathematical phenomenon? There is nothing mathematical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).




Oh, my god. Nothing mathematical, huh?

Tom, did you study optics? Dispersion of light? Atomic physics? There is PLENTY of mathematics in explaining why the electrons in glass respond to e/m field of different frequency differently.

Rainbow, contrary to your claim, is not a physical phenomenon. There is no rainbow per se (=by itself). It is the mathematical result of interaction of several more basic objects/phenomena.

Now, let's honestly ask ourselves: does rainbow bow originate from light itself? Nope. There is no rainbow in sunlight. Indeed, look at the Sun - do you see the rainbow? Nor there is a rainbow in a droplet of H20. Again one can take a droplet and attempt to get rainbow out of it (without adding sunlight or other light). But adding them together (droplet AND sunlight) and looking at their interaction at certain angle - voila - we observe a rainbow circle. And the dispersion of electron's respond to e/m wave is key factor in creating rainbow out of light and water. The shape of rainbow, the location and the order of colors are dictated by dispersion function of respond of outer electron in O atom in a water molecule to passing e/m wave.

So, we need several ingridients to cook a rainbow: mix of photons (sunlight), spherical droplets, and dispersion of electron interaction. Then a rainbow with all its "physical" properties follows as a mathematical consequence.

Each of "appear to be physical" ingridients (say, sunlight, or electron) can be analysed futher (as another object) and similarly found to be a mathematical consequence of more fundamental "parts". And so on.

So, there is not as much "physics" in a rainbow as you think. But much more math resulting in all its observable properies: angular radius of rainbow, location, colors order, colors angular separation, overlapping of wavelengths (due to angular size of Sun), spread of individual colors (due to diffraction on droplet), angular size of second reflection created rainbow, inverse order of colors in that rainbow, etc etc - all these properties are mathematical consequence of interaction of light with distribution of droplets PLUS the location of observer (system of reference). What can be seen by one observer (in one system of reference) can not be seen by another one (say, in shifted reference system) despite that both observer look at the SAME water droplets illuminated by SAME light.

It is plenty of math, dude.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom


Also, the reverse case I presented has more merit, because you can actually see the rainbow (which, in my book, makes it physical).



Seeing something and understanding its origin are two different things.


See how easily that is turned around?



What turned around? Facts don't depend on your opinion.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom
Why, oh why, don't you start addressing Mentat's logic? You keep parroting this mantra over and over again, and you consistently avoid addressing the hurdles that Mentat and I have presented.



There is no logic in his statements (your statements lose logic too when you parrot his statements, by the way. You were more argumentative at times). There is simply layman view (shall I rather say, misunderstanding?) of math (as being just an artificial human construct similar to languages, which math is different from).

Logic is NOT just a human language. Logic is inherent property of existence. That is why logic (and thus math), unlike a language is much more useful in making PREDICTIONS of how existing objects can and how they can not behave. Is this hard to grasp - the origin of logic?

That is why math is used to indeed make correct predictions, and a language is not.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
To show you on a simple undertandable to you example how wrong are your long posts just try to predict what might be the result of tripling of a few coins you have in your pocket. Plain english is fine to make a valuable prediction. Feel free NOT to use any math (say, numbers).

First off, your question involves numbers, and so cannot be answered without them. Duh!

Anyway, if you actually took the time to read my posts, you might see why I make the conclusions I do. But why would you do that? It's not like YOU could actually learn something from me. [:((]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
There is no logic in his statements



If I approached your posts with this attitude, I would probably behave just as you do (and continue to PREACH my opinion at you). The difference is, I actually read your entire post, think about what you posted, and then supply a response. This is the logical course of debate.


Logic is NOT just a human language. Logic is inherent property of existence.


Why do you keep changing your sermon? Sometimes you say "logic is a property of existence", sometimes you say "logic is the origin of existence", sometimes you say "there is no 'physical' existence, just maths". When are you going to decide what to believe?


That is why logic (and thus math), unlike a language is much more useful in making PREDICTIONS of how existing objects can and how they can not behave.


In your opinion.


Is this hard to grasp - the origin of logic?


Wait a minute...there's an "origin of logic"? Isn't this contradictory to your previous proposition: that logic is the origin of all existence?