Lingusitics What is the Nature of Mathematics?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Royce - This place isn't here so you can convert people to your mythology, or bring us down with your antics. Try the yahoo chats for religious mythology.

If you would have people listen to your reasoning, LogicalAtheist, than you must be open to listening to someone else's - not just dismiss them as mere "antics", used to "convert" you to some mythology.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Now all you need do is define truth, then you can enlighten us all.

As Marx said, truth is what complies with facts (observations).

Look up the definition of truth (dictionary may help in that).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
You are dead wrong - either because you don't know origin of math, or you can't see a forest because of trees under nose.

Math originates from logic (it is logic). Logic originates because "stuff" exists...

Exactly! You have just proven yourself wrong. "Logic originates because stuff exists, not the other way around (not "stuff exists because of Logic").

ANYTHING EXISTING no matter how complex it is thus by DEFINITION of logic obeys logic - and thus obeys math no matter how complex math is.

First of all, you are using self-referential logic here (in saying that logic obeys logic). You are just provoking any of the members here to bring up Godel's theorem, which shows that no system can be used to describe itself without running into paradox.

We call this obedience "natural laws" (of conservation, of relativities, etc) and "natural objects" (raibow, atom, electron, galaxy, etc) and "natural forces" (actually just conservation interactions).

If you would stop preaching that the natural laws and objects are "obeying logic", you'd realize that that's all you are doing, preaching.

Boy, how nearsighted can people be!

Yeah, but we still love ya.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
As Marx said, truth is what complies with facts (observations).

Look up the definition of truth (dictionary may help in that).

Truth is what complies with observation? Bull. Heard of Quantum Mechanics?

 

[Alexander]

Again you MISUNDERSTAND. Logic originates NOT because stuff exists, but because something exists. Sorry for poor english.

Logic originates not from objects but from an EXISTENCE itself. Anything which has the property "to exist" shall obey logic - simply because logic is derived from labeling an existence as "1", "+", "true", "yes", etc.

Thus, any object/subject/phenomenon which exists SHALL comply with logic (math). It shall interact with other objects only as logic (=math) allows.

This is exactly what we see in universe. Only allowed by math phenomena and objects can exist.

Say, math allows a wave to slosh in 3-dimensional 1/r potential hole only very certain way (called spherical harmonics, by the way). This is exactly what we see. We call such standing wave by label "atom" and label harmonics by a word "orbitals" . First allowed by math harmonics (n=1) is labeled by us as "s orbital",second allowed by math (n=2) harmonics - as "p orbital", etc. Shape, size, appearance, etc - all properties of these harmonics are governed by math.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Again you MISUNDERSTAND. Logic originates NOT because stuff exists, but because something exists. Sorry for poor english.

Logic originates not from objects but from an EXISTENCE itself. Anything which has the property "to exist" shall obey logic - simply because logic is derived from labeling an existence as "1", "+", "true", "yes", etc.

Thus, any object/subject/phenomenon which exists SHALL comply with logic (math). It shall interact with other objects only as logic (=math) allows.

This is exactly what we see in universe. Only allowed by math phenomena and objects can exist.

Say, math allows a wave to slosh in 3-dimensional 1/r potential hole only very certain way (called spherical harmonics, by the way). This is exactly what we see. We call such standing wave by label "atom" and label harmonics by a word "orbitals" . First allowed by math harmonics (n=1) is labeled by us as "s orbital",second allowed by math (n=2) harmonics - as "p orbital", etc. Shape, size, appearance, etc - all properties of these harmonics are governed by math.

Are you still preaching, Alexander? No offence, but I don't have any time for being preached at. It is just as logical to say that math is just an accurate description of reality, as to say that reality obeys math. In fact, the Hurdles that I have presented show some serious flaws in assuming the latter.

 

[Alexander]

Mentat, did you take atomic physics? Do you understand atom?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mentat, did you take atomic physics? Do you understand atom?

Why are you side-stepping my rebuttals? Don't you believe in your hypothesis enough to combat my counter-arguments directly?

I haven't gone to college yet, but I have a healthy understanding of physics for my age (15), I think.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mentat, did you take atomic physics? Do you understand atom?

Perhaps not, but I have and I say he is doing fine. Just answer his rebuttals, if you can.

 

[ahrkron]

You're doing great, Mentat.

I am a High Energy Physicist, and I think Alexander is not keeping up with your rebuttals to his faith.

 

[Mentat]

Thank you, Tom and Ahrkron. It didn't feel quite right for me to be debating with Alexander on my own.

 

[plus]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why are you side-stepping my rebuttals? Don't you believe in your hypothesis enough to combat my counter-arguments directly?

I haven't gone to college yet, but I have a healthy understanding of physics for my age (15), I think.

Age should not come into question with this pure debate, although it does not seem necessary to have too high a level of understanding of physics for this argument.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Purhaps at this partially "critical" stage
of the discussion it may be worth noting
that despite the apparent fact that math
is the best discriptive language we appear
to have so far for the type of observation
data we have - it's not that good at it's job !

Starting from the "simplest" problems of Newtonian
Mechanics and up to the most difficult problems of
modern physics, math is certainly not perfect.
The simplest example is the 3+ body problem that
appears to be unsolvable by mathematics. Also, every
time you use integrals, for example, you're making
approximations and these are often your only way
of adressing what you observe. I'm not even beginning
to discuss stuff like the Chaos theory according to
which we can only get multi-level approximations.

The point I'm trying to make, if that's not clear
enough yet, is that if math had a direct connection
to the Universe you'd expect it to be able to explain
it better, wouldn't you ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Truth is what complies with observation? Bull. Heard of Quantum Mechanics?

A little. What about it?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why are you side-stepping my rebuttals? Don't you believe in your hypothesis enough to combat my counter-arguments directly?

Which rebuttals? I don't see any. Please, 1)state clearly what you want to claim. 2) provide logical or factual substantiation.

I haven't gone to college yet, but I have a healthy understanding of physics for my age (15), I think.

Good. Tell me then wnat happens if you throw a wave into 1/r potential hole?

 

[ahrkron]

Tell me then wnat happens if you throw a wave into 1/r potential hole?

Do you mean a physical, real wave? or when you write down the equation for it?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom
Perhaps not, but I have and I say he is doing fine.

That is interesting. So, one does not have to understand physics to judge what is correct in it and what is not?

Why do we have schools and colleges then, if anyone can just say that he does not need to know relativity theory simply because he has "healthy understanding" that relativity is wrong.

I radically disagree that ignorance is a proof.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Do you mean a physical, real wave? or when you write down the equation for it?

Mathematical wave. Energy conservation law for a wave is called Shred equation.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is interesting. So, one does not have to understand physics to judge what is correct in it and what is not?

His arguments attack the logic of your claims. IMO, he is doing much better than you are in that department.

Why do we have schools and colleges then, if anyone can just say that he does not need to know relativity theory simply because he has "healthy understanding" that relativity is wrong.

This does not correctly capture the logic structure of what he said.

I radically disagree that ignorance is a proof.

Again, nobody is saying that "ignorance is a proof". You either need to read posts better, or be more careful with your logic.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mathematical wave.

OK, how do you produce a "mathematical wave", how do you "throw" such an object?

Energy conservation law for a wave is called Shred equation.

And that is relevant because... ?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i believe mathematics is human discovered but is the language of the universe, geometry especially in my opinion is extremely descriptive of our universe...

I agree with Kerrie. Mathematics is a language that describes the universe, but none the less is man made. We can't think outside of our number sense because its very natural for us to see relationships between physical objects. When you think about it(that is, when you think about the temporal lobe structures involved), it is a very fascinating sense.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Alexander, how come you're not responding to
what I said. I mean, if math rules the Universe
it's just a tiny little bit strange that it
can't even precisely and directly discribe
a system of 3(or more, of course) bodies circling
each other ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Alexander
That is interesting. So, one does not have to understand physics to judge what is correct in it and what is not?

What are you talking about? No one is saying that. Mentat is talking about something far more fundamental than the Schrodinger equation or atomic physics.

You aren't even paying attention, and meanwhile everyone is running circles around you. Get in the game, man!

 

[jammieg]

I can still blow my nose without knowing calculus, but would I want to?

With sureness of communication, the more atypical a view and the more relevance that view has on things, the less people will listen to it sometimes even repel from it. If you want people to listen to your views, don't be so sure Alexander- leave a bit of room for being wrong and a bit for letting others fill in the blanks with their unique views and above all be honest. In less you are quite sure, but then you had better gives some good evidence or reasoning for it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
A little. What about it?

Well, if you accept the Uncertainty Principle, then you know that the exact state of a particle-wave is never exactly defined. So, while I (a being composed of wave-particles) appear to be sitting at my computer (this would be an "observation"), it is not entirely so.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why are you side-stepping my rebuttals? Don't you believe in your hypothesis enough to combat my counter-arguments directly?

Which counter-argument(s)? You have not stated anyone yet. At least I can't find it in your recent posts.

If you did then I probably ovelooked it (or you have deleted it before I look at it), so please state it again and in clear and logical way, ok?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, if you accept the Uncertainty Principle, then you know that the exact state of a particle-wave is never exactly defined. So, while I (a being composed of wave-particles) appear to be sitting at my computer (this would be an "observation"), it is not entirely so.

You are wrong. You are soooooooo big (at least 50 kg, I assume), that you wave function spreads soooooooo negligibly even during maaaaaaaaany ages of our universe. You will be sitting practically there way after yior computer and everything around long decompose due to non-related to spread of wave function reason.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which counter-argument(s)? You have not stated anyone yet. At least I can't find it in your recent posts.

If you did then I probably ovelooked it (or you have deleted it before I look at it), so please state it again and in clear and logical way, ok?

Well, first of all, if you look - in the "Hurdles" thread and this one - for my posts which contain a quote from you, you will find my "rebuttals" that I speak of.

In fact, I see no reason to restate all of the hurdles to your idea, just read them here: Hurdles thread.

Note: Also be sure to read the add-ons of Tom and wuliheron (and possibly others, those are just the two that I remember).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
You are wrong. You are soooooooo big (at least 50 kg, I assume), that you wave function spreads soooooooo negligibly even during maaaaaaaaany ages of our universe. You will be sitting practically there way after yior computer and everything around long decompose due to non-related to spread of wave function reason.

You still have to defer to probability, no matter how negligible. Besides, my point is that not all is as it seems (or how it is "observed"). There may be a fourth spatial dimension. We may never actually "observe" it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[Mentat]

Just keeping the post up in the first page, and awaiting Alexander's response...