Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: bettybop on 21/09/2007 11:31:52
-
The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean argues that mathematics and science have paradoxes at there very heart that collapse them into meaninglessness. Even though they work the explanations as to why they work end in meaninglessness ie contradiction-thus we have a mystery namely seeing they are logically not true how is it they work. Thus there explanations are just myths which will keep changing as time goes on ie from the Bohr atomic structure we have modified that myth to its current mythology
from his book
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf (http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf)
"The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views"
In the so called most rational of endeavors mathematics, absurdity or paradox and self-contradiction goes right to the heart of it. In 1930 the mathematician Hilbert began a program to prove that mathematics was consistent. With the discovery of such mathematical paradoxes as the Burli-Forti paradox, Russell’s paradox, Cantor’s paradox and Skolem’s paradox by early 1930’s as Bunch notes, Hilbert’s program did not succeed such that “disagreement about how to eliminate contradictions were replaced by discussions of how to live with contradictions in mathematics." Attempts to avoid the paradoxes led to other paradoxical notions but most mathematicians rejected these notions. Thus the present situation is that mathematics cannot be formulated, except in axiomatic theory, without contradictions without the loss of useful results. With regard to axiomatic theory, this cannot be proven to be consistent with the result that paradoxes can occur at any time. As Bunch states:
“None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].”
Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting.”
In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.”
Now even though quantum mechanics is paradoxical no experiment has contradicted quantum theory predictions and quantum theory is the most successful that has ever existed in science. Thus it is a mystery how our scientific and mathematical theories have the success they do seeing that in terms of Aristotelian logic they are absurd , or meaningless or in other words not ‘true’.
-
Depends what you think the point of science and maths are.
Pushing back the boundaries of understanding, sure, it's fun... but actually the reason people get paid to do it is that quantum theroy has lead to all manner of incredibly useful technology. Anything with a laser in it for starters (CD players etc), MRI scans, LEDs, and many, many more banal things that I can't think of because they're so obvious.
Don't know about maths, to be honest I think high end maths is rather dull (probably because I come nowhere near understanding it).
Bettybop, I'd be interested to know your take on this as at the moment all you're doing is quoting Dean (and I think quoting Dean quoting others). What Dean has to say may be interesting, tho' to look at that quote my knee-jerk response is that in terms of meaningless he wins hands down.
-
That Hilbert did not succeed does not prove anything, that Gödel proved he could not succeed is more the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are also of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science, but these claims are less generally accepted.
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, perhaps the single most celebrated result in mathematical logic, states that:
For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.1 That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows:
For any formal recursively enumerable (i.e. effectively generated) theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
-
This is a reply to both your recent posts
Paradoxes and a degree of uncertainty are part of the universe that clearly exists and functions in a largely understandable and predictable way. You seem to have some fixation that everything must must have a "meaning" could you please explain meaning in this sense because superficially to me it seems to be completely non essential.
-
quote
"That Hilbert did not succeed does not prove anything, that Gödel proved he could not succeed is more the issue."
dean shows in another thread that godel is wrong because he used flawed and invalid axioms-even godel ends in meaninglessness
-
Should this be in ' New Theories ' ?
-
quote
You seem to have some fixation that everything must must have a "meaning" could you please explain meaning in this sense because superficially to me it seems to be completely non essential.
in terms of what dean is getting at meaninglessness = contradiction paradox
if something is illogical then it = meaninglessness
-
in terms of what dean is getting at meaninglessness = contradiction paradox
if something is illogical then it = meaninglessness
Are you saying that you think that all systems or concepts that include some paradoxical component are meaningless, or are you simply saying that you are applying a very specific (and idiosyncratic) definition of meaningless to mean something which contains a paradox?
-
quote
"Are you saying that you think that all systems or concepts that include some paradoxical component are meaningless, or are you simply saying that you are applying a very specific (and idiosyncratic) definition of meaningless to mean something which contains a paradox?"
the two questions in your statement are really the same statement expressed in different words
axiomatic set theory contains the skolem paradox which reduces axiomatic set theory to meaninglessness
The banach-tarski paradox means that naive notions of space and time are meaninglessness ie paradoxical or contradctory
by meaninglessness i mean paradoxical or contradictory ie logical not semantic
i am saying all systems end in paradox or contradiction and thus are meaninglessness
-
i am saying all systems end in paradox or contradiction and thus are meaninglessness
Like a blackhole? Everything breaksdown into meaninglessness and contradicting, the closer you get to the center?
Ok, so thats a problem, what would the solution be? Is a solution possible? Does axiomatic set theory also breakdown into meaninglessness?
-
As someone who is not a specialist mathematician, I will try and give a laymean's interpretation of what I see Gödel as saying.
Mathematics is a language, like any other. It tries to remove some of the ambiguity of other languages, but essentially is just another language.
In any language that is sufficiently expressive, one can also express nonsensical ideas. If the language is not expressive enough to be able to express nonsensical ideas, then the language is clearly incomplete in some way. The fact that you can express nonsensical ideas in a language does not make the language meaningless, but merely proves that it is complete enough that it can even express ideas that are illogical or paradoxical in some way.
As for the Banach-Tarski paradox (which I had not come across before - but then that is what makes life interesting), it is an exploration of the use of the language of mathematics, but in no way does it pretend to be a description of the real world.
-
Most of the analysis techniques that we use to understand our universe are based on models, frequently mathematical models, that accurately predict behaviour (to the limits of practical prediction) within their range of validity. The fact that a particular model is not valid for parameters outside a particular range does not reduce its value as a model in any way and does not render it without meaning. for example. Newton used great insight to describe the inverse square law and motion under gravity. The fact that Einstein later showed this to be an approximation that was only valid as long as the velocity was small with respect to the velocity of light does not mean that Newtons laws of motion are not valid for most of the situations that we are likely to encounter every day.
It is always possible to take any idea to the limit where it will break down. to expect an idea or model to have total validity under all circumstances before it has any value is to insist that the universe is a simple totally mechanistic structure and not the vast complexity that we know it to be. Such thinking is naive in the extreme and not worthy of serious philosophical discussion
-
I have taken the trouble to have a look at some of the other work of Colin Leslie Dean and see that he seems to start where Nietzsche left off. OK it is valid to discuss and think of concepts of the ideal predator who destroys what it cannot consume but this has no place in a world where all the greatest achievements have been made by co-operation and not conquest. I would also go almost as far as to say he should consider the example of his predecessor Nietzsche bearing in mind that he eventually went insane.
Bettybop I am concered that you are being seduced by a mind that wishes to destroy science. Science has its failings and its weaknesses but like democracy (quote: a bad form of government until you consider the alternatives) you must first find something better before you replace it.
-
yes axiomatic theory breaks down into meaninglessness due to the skolem paradox
godel is a complete failure what he said is wrong due to using invalid and failed axioms-see the thread on godel
no dean is not destroying science he is regenerating it
because
by seeing it logically cant be true but it nevertheless still works we have a mystery
how/why does it work when it cant be logically true
-
no dean is not destroying science he is regenerating it
because
by seeing it logically cant be true but it nevertheless still works we have a mystery
how/why does it work when it cant be logically true
Do you not think it a paradox to suggest that something works and yet is not true.
That it is incomplete is without question - but this is not to say that it can per se be regarded as wholly untrue.
Clearly, there can different views of the truth, and you can certainly suggest different perceptions of the truth, if you are able to put forward theories that do better than the existing theory, but merely suggesting that existing theory is completely broken because it is imperfect is rather like saying a motor car is broken because it cannot fly - if you don't try and fly in a motor car, then it performs the functions required of it, and it is not broken. You want to fly, you design an aeroplane, but simply protesting that the motor car is broken because it does not fly is not particularly constructive.
-
quote
"Do you not think it a paradox to suggest that something works and yet is not true."
no
the Ptolemaic model of the universe worked for the ancient world but it was not true
the Bohr model of the atom worked but it was not true
read kuhns books "the structure of scientific revolutions" to see many models theories that worked but where not true
take calculus when newton presented it philosophers said it collapsed into contradiction ie it was logically not true
quote from deans book
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/irrationality.pdf
Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples
"
“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.” Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was “that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end.” These paradoxes where resolved by the time old expediency of mathematics by defining them away in the nineteenth century by Cauchy and Weierstrass. Up until then calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.” "
-
quote
no
the Ptolemaic model of the universe worked for the ancient world but it was not true
the Bohr model of the atom worked but it was not true
Maybe you and I have different notions of truth.
We cannot know absolute truths - it can be demonstrated that all knowledge must be based upon some assumptions that cannot be proven, and so we cannot say anything is true in absolute.
Given that, can we say that the Bohr model is any less true (in an absolute sense) than anything else we can suggest. Ofcourse, in a relative sense, modern notions of quantum physics is incrementally more accurate than the Bohr model, but it is wrong to judge either model as being either absolutely false or absolutely true; and I would challenge you to show there can ever be any theory that can ever be shown to be absolutely true. Thus, is it not rather unfair to label the Bohr model as untrue, as if we can draw a line between a true and untrue model?
-
quote
Thus, is it not rather unfair to label the Bohr model as untrue, as if we can draw a line between a true and untrue model?
so you are going to take a trip to mars based on the Ptolemaic model
-
so you are going to take a trip to mars based on the Ptolemaic model
That is not really the point.
As you say, the Ptolemaic model was sufficient for their time, but they were not taking trips to Mars. We have incrementally improved on the Ptolemaic model, but that does not make our current model in absolute sense a true model, merely an incremental improvement. It suffices for our immediate needs, as the Ptolemaic model sufficed for their immediate needs. In 2000 years time, no doubt they will look at our models with the same disdain that we look at the Ptolemaic model, but each model is merely an incremental improvement upon that which went before. There are no absolute truths, so to condemn a model and being 'false' merely because it is more primitive than the latest model does still seem somewhat arrogant.
-
If as i suspect that space itself is actually infinite, then anything based on mathematical principles is invalid other than as local phenomenon.
In so much as to measure anything and achieve a constant or datum would be impossible in a space that has no finite dimensions and since time itself is dependant on such a relationship between motion, velocity and distance time is truly relative as stated by Mr Einstein
-
Bravo Macrocosmos and welcome to NS
I also believe that space is infinite and that there was never a big bang, or a black hole for that matter. More a continuity of evolving planets and decaying old planets shedding their mass into space while radiating light to other planets as they gradually fade to the point where they cool down and begin to attract mass again while other virgin planets are formed as particles connect with each other in the same way magnets connect to each other.
Infinity does indeed pose many problems for our leading scientists
-
Thank you andrew
I enjoy debate that incorporates ontology as well as cosmology.
However my own personal view is that space is indeed infinite with infinite possibility built in.
That a Universe is formed from a mass that is pure matter that exists within space as all things must, yet does not have space as part of its composition, this means that its gravitational force is at its ultimate magnitude. this mass in turn is surrounded by a field of unified energy.
I also believe that Gravity fluctuates periodically although that period is billions of years on a local scale.
As to particular attraction there is a physicist called Helen Fraser who bangs rocks together at simulated zero "G" So far all that she has achieved is more smaller rocks and an increase in localised kinetic force.
-
quote
"As you say, the Ptolemaic model was sufficient for their time, but they were not taking trips to Mars. We have incrementally improved on the Ptolemaic model, but that does not make our current model in absolute sense a true model, merely an incremental improvement"
thus as dean says science maths are nothing but mythology
-
thus as dean says science maths are nothing but mythology
It depends on what you regard as a myth?
Most people would interpret the assertion that something is a myth to imply it has no truth, but if you are regarding a myth as merely an incomplete truth, then I suppose there may be a valid point to that, but it is a point that can be applied to all believed knowledge, since all knowledge is, and of necessity must be, an incomplete truth.
-
quote
"Most people would interpret the assertion that something is a myth to imply it has no truth, but if you are regarding a myth as merely an incomplete truth, then I suppose there may be a valid point to that, but it is a point that can be applied to all believed knowledge, since all knowledge is, and of necessity must be, an incomplete truth."
dean is saying what you take for truth is a myth
science maths has no truth it is all mythology in 100years what you think is truth or partial truth will be just discarded theories of no truth value like the theories of 100 years ago -all myth
take astronomy
up till this year there where 9 planets now there are only 8 -because pluto is now not a planet-so now the nine planet solar system is a myth
truths are built upon definitions we once had truths built upon the ether theory now all them are just myths
the thing is a present generation cannot see that its truths are myths
-
science maths has no truth it is all mythology in 100years what you think is truth or partial truth will be just discarded theories of no truth value like the theories of 100 years ago -all myth
That is naive and wrong. It is wrong simply to suggest that the theories of 100 years ago are discarded - we still use those theories as the basis of most of what we do. We have extended those theories, but for most everyday problems, we often still use theories that are 400 years old, and often even older. These theories clearly have their limitations, as our current theories have their limitations, but to say that they are categorically untrue would then suggest that no civil engineer is capable of building a bridge, because the equations he uses are simply wrong - and yet we do build bridges, and mostly they are sturdy constructions that perform the functions required of them.
-
to say
quote
These theories clearly have their limitations, as our current theories have their limitations,
limitations indicate they are not true -thus they are myths
a theory is either true or not true it cant be half true
-
Like a blackhole? Everything breaksdown into meaninglessness and contradicting, the closer you get to the center?
Only because at present our understanding is insufficent for us to understand.
-
limitations indicate they are not true -thus they are myths
a theory is either true or not true it cant be half true
As I have said, limitation implies they are not 100% true, but neither are they 100% false.
If it is your assertion that we should never use any theory that cannot be shown to be 100% true, then I would suggest such a theory is an impossibility, thus leaving us in a situation of scientific paralysis.
Certainly, if you believe you have a theory that is demonstrably 100% true, and without limitation, I am sure we would all be willing to listen to what it is, but I am rather sceptical that such a theory can now, or ever, be created by the human mind. So what do you suggest we do in the absence of such a theory?
-
quote
If it is your assertion that we should never use any theory that cannot be shown to be 100% true,
thus as a whole the theory is myth
-
thus as a whole the theory is myth
You can stick whatever labels you wish on it, but you have avoided answering the question - what do you think we should do?
If you wish to label it as a myth - that is just a word, you can apply the word as you choose; but if the application of the word makes no functional difference, then it is arbitrary as to whether you apply the word or not.
-
quote
You can stick whatever labels you wish on it, but you have avoided answering the question - what do you think we should do?
answer
nothing -there is nothing you can do
as all views end in meaninglessness or mythology
science maths will always be nothing but mythical thinking -whose explanations will always end in meaninglessness-even though they get things to work-that is the mystery how do they work when the explanations are just myths
-
nothing -there is nothing you can do
as all views end in meaninglessness or mythology
science maths will always be nothing but mythical thinking -whose explanations will always end in meaninglessness-even though they get things to work-that is the mystery how do they work when the explanations are just myths
This is analogous with the solipsist view of the universe - to say nothing can be known with certainty, yet we must start by believing something, so we make leaps of faith to believe that which we believe our senses to tell us.
-
quote
This is analogous with the solipsist view of the universe
solipsism ends in meaninglessness -as wittgenstein showed
-
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact is forgotten in the science now.
1.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
Minkowski, trying to understand SRT, used 4D space.
Poor young Einstein , reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
" You are right, it is difficult to understand SRT, using 4D
space.
But using my 5D space it is possible" - said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was checked up and recognized insufficient.
" Well, - said another mathematicians, - maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D
spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still stay.
"OK,- they say, - we have only one way to solve this problem,
we must create more complex D spaces " .
And they do it, they use all their power, all their
super intellectuals to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one nuance. To create new D space, mathematicians
must take a new parameter. It is impossible to
create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to his opinion not objective rules ).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way :
“ Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With
four
I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add :
“ with one more parameter the elephant will fly. “
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please, remember, many D spaces were born as a whish
to understand SRT ( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
But if someone wants to understand, for example,
a bird ( photon / electron) itself and for this he
studies only surroundings will he reach success ?
=====================================
I read what string theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we dont know what 1+1=2
how can we know what 5+4=9 ?
And if we dont know what is 4-D space (+ Mincovski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
=====================
If I am a king , I will publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher - to award with a medal
" To the winner of a common sense ".
Why?
Because they have won us, using absurd ideas
of Minkowski and Kaluza.
=======..
P.S.
I asked some mathematician :
There are many different D spaces in the math/ physicist’s
works.
Are there limits of these D spaces?
Maybe is 123 D space the last and final space ?
He answered:
I think there are as many opinions on this as there
are people giving thought to the issue.
My own opinion is that since the more immediately
obvious 123D option (either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic)
did not allow, despite all efforts, reconciling the various
theories, then there is need to try something else.
Maybe has this time
“then there is need to try something else” come ?
3.
And what is mathematical opinion about photon itself ?
Here is one example how mathematician tries
to solve the problem.
Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created "toro
model "
of light quanta. According to this model the light quanta is
a
constant volume ring ( like bublik) . The speed of it
is different and this fact gives possibility to understand
all light natural phenomenones, overcome through all
contradictions in the physics and to offer a new technology.
So it is written in the book.
/ Book “The secrets of Universe” 1998.
V.D. Demin. Page 377./
Short explanation is given on 4 pages.
Glory to this scientist .!!!!
Glory to this professor !!!!
But….
But I have only one question .
Can this "toro volume ring model "
( like bublik) have volume in Vacuum ?
The answer is “ NO “
According to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume
disappears and particles become "flat figures ".
The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
So, according to Charles law
the "toro volume ring model " is only
mathematic illusion .
There are many different models of photon.
To choose the correct one we needs to ask
a question: “ Which geometrical form can
photon have in vacuum ? “
4.
Some scientists say:
" The darkest subject in the science is light quanta."
Maybe now some my readers will understand
better the way on which we must go.
5.
Now mathematics goes ahead science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters " Forward to abstract”,
" Forward to absurd” and we all follow them.
We go bravely on dinosaur’s path.
=============.
The SRT is a real theory.
The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what " 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: " You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space."
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
In another words, if we don't know what " 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn't over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to " 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its
essence.
====== =========
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
・・..or to " the God "........... ......... ..
Then ............ ...
The atheist will say : " There isn't any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all "D- spaces" and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his " D- home" and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don't know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
for example, an electron I will get ・a positron, ・
・.quark,・aryon,・boson,・.meson,・muon,・.tau, ....
....D- spaces ・ and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."
===========================
-
Thankyou socratus, Dont the many D-spaces also break down regardless of how many you use?
quote
This is analogous with the solipsist view of the universe
solipsism ends in meaninglessness -as wittgenstein showed
It's true that we may or could never really know to 100% why things work as they do, all the more reason, why we should tread carefully when experimenting. What we all believe is so arbitrary it hurts.
Hume did argue this very point though, 'the scales' to believe in that which the evidence pointed towards above that which the evidence did not or was less towards, but even he excepted that the evidence itself can never be taken to be 100% correct.
Sometimes the evidence for two apposing theories is 'equal', it then becomes an arbitrary leap of faith to agree with one or the other. Of course those that think up the theories are biased towards their idea, some prefer one theory to another for various reasons, individual to themselves generally.
So Hume's answer is to keep the scales and never really jump, to always keep an open mind as it were; even if you do agree with one theory more than another, you must always except it could well be wrong.
I think people have forgotten how radical Hume's' views were, things breaking down into meaninglessness is an extencion of the same thing Hume was getting at.
This is of course my opinion, which is all I or anyone can really ever express, well you could express someone else's I suppose but even then you'll have your take on it.
I think that the vastness of possibility just makes life more fun really.
-
quote
You can stick whatever labels you wish on it, but you have avoided answering the question - what do you think we should do?
answer
nothing -there is nothing you can do
as all views end in meaninglessness or mythology
science maths will always be nothing but mythical thinking -whose explanations will always end in meaninglessness-even though they get things to work-that is the mystery how do they work when the explanations are just myths
But surely the 'mystery' only exists if you operate the word "myth" through duality. If you argue that something is a "myth" because it is always incomplete, not 100% true, then only by reverting to "myth" meaning that it is untrue (100%) afterwards can it be seen to be a mystery. That we get things to work is a facet of having enough truth within our understanding in order to get those things to work - as has been pointed out.
Indeed, that we get things to work, and that progressively we get more and more to work, shows that within our maths there is a greater and increasing degree of truth, so the idea that it is 'untruthful' is flawed - which returns us to the duality of the use of the term 'myth'. I'm surprised that naybody who manages to dissimulate such nonsense from what is, after all, merely a simple conceit, is taken terribly seriously at all.
As a philosophical argument it seems utterly redundant.
-
Indeed, that we get things to work, and that progressively we get more and more to work shows that within our maths there is a greater and increasing degree of truth, so the idea that it is 'untruthful' is flawed
take the Bohr model of the atom a complete myth no shred of truth in it now -yet at the time they made the A bomb based on a complete myth
take the Ptolemaic model of the universe complete myth but they got things to work using it ie the could predict-no shred of truth in it
take the newtonian universe since relativity newtons universe is only an approximation and as such it is all myth no shred of truth in it no absolute time no absolute frame of reference -yet it works
-
take the Bohr model of the atom a complete myth no shred of truth in it now -yet at the time they made the A bomb based on a complete myth
take the Ptolemaic model of the universe complete myth but they got things to work using it ie the could predict-no shred of truth in it
take the newtonian universe since relativity newtons universe is only an approximation and as such it is all myth no shred of truth in it no absolute time no absolute frame of reference -yet it works
I think that you are highlighting the misuse of the word 'myth'. To say that there was not a shred of truth to any of those models is to completely miss the point. While they were not complete models, they were approximate enough for what was required - so there was, in other words, a shred of truth, just not as fullsome as we later understand.
-
In ancient times a myth was a story that held insight into human and sometimes divine nature. This was expressed in terms of life and human interections with each other and the forces of nature (gods) and as such your suggestion that modern science is a myth (ie the best model we have to date) and may be supersceded with a better myth (new or more detailed theory) seems to me to be entirely satisfactory.
I note however that no one has come back on any explanation of what this great "meaning" has to be. From my personal observations we live in a complex universe that subject to reliable physical laws and change. Most things (including ourselves and life on this planet) have a limited tenure. I find this a quite adequate meaning.
-
To go back to the initial argument as outlined, I think the best argument to lay against this are these words;
"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
Albert Einstein.
-
I resaved massage from " pure " mathematician.
==============..
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
To answer your question directly,
Mathematicians are NOT physicists.
Therefore, you can't expect a mathematician to understand everything
a physicist knows and vice versa.
Usually the two fields are closely intertwined however,
so there is a lot of shared knowledge. It is just as much of a mistake
to say that mathematicians understand everything about physics
as it is to say mathematicians understand nothing about physics.
Mathematics is an abstract representation of the real world
which is applicable in just about every profession which makes
it a fundamental skill. By using it, you can model the real world
to make accurate predictions. However, math is worthless if you
can't effectively use it in the real world.
Physics uses a lot of math to model the real world.
You can't be a good physicist if you don't have math ability and reasoning skills.
To respond to the original post, I'll ask this: Should we believe a physicist
who doesn't understand mathematics?
==========..
My comment.
I think the " pure " mathematicians are 100% correct.
The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
All guilt lies on physicists .
They cannot use abstract models ( point, line …etc).
They must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, particle. And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point",
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. ( ?? !! ).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point" fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. ( ?? !! ).
6.
The power in physics is also a " mathematical point".
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another a " mathematical point" / power/
the physicists say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
Don’t we need psychoanalyst to understand this situation?
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
========..
Best wishes.
========…
-
"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
Albert Einstein.
and Einstein was a myth maker
and sciences reality is just a mythical construction just like any so called primitive cultures reality
-
"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
Albert Einstein.
and Einstein was a myth maker
and sciences reality is just a mythical construction just like any so called primitive cultures reality
Except science is re-assessed as a part of the very culture and nature of science. Scepticism abounds. Myths are the result of belief without any corroborating evidence. Science is the constant re-evaluation of evidence.
As I said before, at the heart of this whole premise seems to be the simple process of the use of a word in such a form that is dualistic, and presenting the conclusion as if it is not. One has to understand myth to mean not entirely true and then conclude with it meaning not at all true. It is a cheap and flaccid contortion. It is a nothing argument, because in reality it is not an argument at all. It is word trickery, dull minded sophistry dressed up as philosophical thought.
I don't know of his other work, but by this ill-considered banality I'm amazed that he would have any reputation at all.
Oh, and in what way was Einstein a myth maker? read his words that I posted here. He does not claim to understand the universe, he does not claim that science does. Others make the myths, and then others seek to 'debunk' what was never intended. Where Einstein left us a legacy from which our understanding can grow (as did Newton, and so many others). What does our friend here leave us with? I'll tell you what. Your own reply shines a light upon this. He leaves us with the idea that sceptically examined, evidential practices offer no greater insight than any untested 'spiritual' practice.
I would suggest, as a counter to this drivel, that you read 'The Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan. That might get you thinking on the dangers of such nonsense. And if you really want to think about the nature of science and it's potential failings then might I suggest 'Science, Order and Creativity' by Dr David Bohm.
-
One has to understand myth to mean not entirely true and then conclude with it meaning not at all true.It is a cheap and flaccid contortion. It is a nothing argument, because in reality it is not an argument at all. It is word trickery, dull minded sophistry dressed up as philosophical thought.
fact is the bhor model of the atom is a myth so is newtonian reality no contortion no trickery no sophistry
the bhor model is a myth
for more myths
go read
t khuns "the structure of the scientific revolution
Except science is re-assessed as a part of the very culture and nature of science
and that reassessment shows what came before was myth -as will the reassessment turn out to be nothing but myth
Oh, and in what way was Einstein a myth maker? read his words that I posted here. He does not claim to understand the universe, he does not claim that science does. Others make the myths, and then others seek to 'debunk' what was never intended
science only creates myths which are debunked by the next myth
ie the bhor model of the atom was shown to be myth -just as what precceeded it will be shown to be myth
newtown model was shown to be myth by enstien just as einstien will be shown to be myth
I would suggest, as a counter to this drivel, that you read 'The Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan.I suggest 'Science, Order and Creativity' by Dr David Bohm.
just a bunch of myth perpetuators propgandists for a science trying to get prestige as the only valid knowledge creator and interpreter of reality-all myth
i suggest you go read some histories of science like
khun "the structure of the scientific revolution"
before you read these idiot myth makers
-
You might like to define "myth" before accusing people of being "idiot myth makers". What do you mean? Are you suggesting that there is no truth in Newton's laws? That would be strange claim to make considering that they are still used, within a context, and still, within those contexts, keep foretelling truthfully.
You still haven't answered, what is it that you propose as an alternative to gaining insight into the nature of our universe? I have a feeling I know the answer already, but surprise me, please...
-
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that there is no truth in Newton's laws? That would be strange claim to make considering that they are still used, within a context, and still, within those contexts, keep foretelling truthfully.
You still haven't answered, what is it that you propose as an alternative to gaining insight into the nature of our universe? I have a feeling I know the answer already, but surprise me, please...
i propose nothing -as anything i could propose would be a myth
you must find your own relationship to your reality
dont ask me
F=ma
m= mass
mass = quantity of matter
no one knows what matter is
your pc runs on electric current
current is charge
no one knows what charge is
your whole internet is mythical
-
i propose nothing -as anything i could propose would be a myth
you must find your own relationship to your reality
dont ask me
Let me quote you a couple of lines, and see if you can guess who said these words.
"A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising, an explanation based on will rather than knowledge.There is no truth, in either the moral or the scientific sense."
F=ma
m= mass
mass = quantity of matter
no one knows what matter is
your pc runs on electric current
current is charge
no one knows what charge is
your whole internet is mythical
Just my whole internet? Who are you responding to then? What about your whole internet? Are you, too, a myth?
That we clearly do have an internet, and that it is, therefore, no myth is evidence that science is not a myth. No-one knows what a charge is?? Well, okay, you might not like the answer that it is a property that particles have. But. that we don't know exactly what it is does not alter the fact that it is there, does it? Clearly we have electricity (just as clearly as we have the internet). Your 'argument' is beginning to crumble under it's own weight. That you must argue that something that clearly is isn't in order to defend the article at issue, really ought to be setting alarm bells off in a mind of any reason.
-
that science is not a myth.
you seem to think that because science works it must not be a myth
you are falling for the idiots fallacy in thinking that because it works the explanation why it works must be true
facts is science works but its explanations as to why it works are just myths