The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Science and mathematics end in meaninglessness-nothing but mythology  (Read 18373 times)

another_someone

  • Guest
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.
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
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
 
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Quote
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.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
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?
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
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
 

another_someone

  • Guest
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.
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
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
 

another_someone

  • Guest
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.
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
quote
This is analogous with the solipsist view of the universe

solipsism ends in meaninglessness -as wittgenstein showed
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
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."
===========================
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 29/12/2007 17:56:00 by JOLLY »
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2008 12:16:28 by angst »
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Quote
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
« Last Edit: 02/01/2008 13:00:40 by bettybop »
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile


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.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
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.
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
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.
========…
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Quote
"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
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Quote
"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.
« Last Edit: 26/01/2008 11:47:30 by angst »
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Quote
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


Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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
« Last Edit: 27/01/2008 07:05:24 by bettybop »
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
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...
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Quote
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
« Last Edit: 28/01/2008 15:57:41 by bettybop »
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline bettybop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
 
Quote
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
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length