The questions/answers page can be used for problems with things mentioned on the site and forums so, since I had no idea where I was going to post this, I figured here would be the best shot at staying within the rules.
In this discussion on the Relativity forum the aside that science requires mathematics to work was dicussed by Thigle, Jinydu, and PWrong. I felt it an interesting topic, important enough (and hopefully fruitful) to deserve its own thread.
My own take, as a mathematician and budding theoretical physicist, is that ideas can be created in the mind without the use of a single mathematical construct but true science, in the end (and I'm speaking from a physics viewpoint alone as I'm no chemist, biologist, or other variety of "-ist"), is built up from mathematical principles. A true scientist needs to learn the math, albeit sometimes simple arithmetic (but rarely), to be able to contribute quantitatively to his community. While authors like Kaku, Green, and Hawking are able to write nonmathematical books perfect for a layman, these contribute nothing to the advancement of scientific thought. For lack of a better term those books "spread the wealth" of scientists to their non-counterparts.
Modern physics, especially general relativity, quantum mechanics, and any of their more advanced offshoots (so pretty much everything), are described by advanced mathematical concepts which are completely unavoidable. While one may be able to dream up something that the theory has yet to predict, one cannot fully integrate it into the theory without the language of modern mathematics.
So then one has to wonder, does the "dream" above count as science? I propose no. At the very least it does not fit in as theoretical science because the mathematics have not been played with to verify that the dream is, in fact, part of the theory. By the same token it does not fit in as experimental science because clearly, in its initial phases, the dream hasn't been verified. Assuming it was a good dream and down the road it gets verified does it become science? This is when I would concede and say that the concept in the dream is science but not the dream itself. The dream is based on science to describe science but does not follow any principles of science. That's my take, anyway.
Even the experiment to verify a thought requires mathematics. Everything has to be measured and compared, measured and compared. The only way to measure something is to use numbers and the only way to compare it with something else would be to compare two numbers through the use of mathematics. Until the mathematics verifies the thought it cannot be considered science.
I could happily go in to discussions about why god(s) don't fit in as science off this note but I digress. I wonder who thinks I'm off my rocker or agrees wholeheartedly. I always love reading a good debate so here's my first real attempt (outside the 0/0 one with RQ from ages ago...which I miss).
*edited for spelling*
Science Requires Mathematics
35 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Science Requires Mathematics
by houserichichi » Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:50 pm
- houserichichi
- Tetronian
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Canada
by jinydu » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:49 pm
I agree with your main points, houserichichi. The "dream" you mention cannot be considered scientific until it has been formulated mathematically, then tested experimentally.
To emphasize my point that all physics theories are based on mathematics, here are the three postulates of classical mechanics:
In any inertial frame of reference-
1) If the net external force on a particle of constant mass is zero, the velocity of that particle remains constant [in fact, this postulate isn't really needed, since it is a special case of the second postulate].
2) The derivative of a particle's momentum with respect to time is equal to the net external force that the particle experiences.
3) If particle A exerts a force F on particle B, then particle B exerts a force -F on A.
[Keep in mind that force is a vector]
Here is Newton's Law of Gravitation:
F = -G(m1)(m2)/r^2 * n-hat
where F is the gravitational force of particle 1 on particle 2, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of particle 1 and particle 2 respectively, r is the distance between the particles and n-hat is the unit vector that points from particle 1 to particle 2
Here is Coulomb's Law:
F = (q1)(q2)/4pi(epsilon-nought)r^2 * n-hat
where F is the electrostatic force of particle 1 on particle 2, epsilon-nought is the permittivity of free space, q1 and q2 are the electric charges of particle 1 and particle 2 respectively, r is the distance between the particles and n-hat is the unit vector that points from particle 1 to particle 2
Here are the postulates of quantum mechanics:
1) The state of a quantum mechanical system is completely specified by its wavefunction Psi(x, t). The probability of finding a particle at time t0 in a spatial interval of width dx cenetered at x0 is Psi*(x0, t0)Psi(x0, t0)dx in the limit as dx approaches 0
where x is the spatial coordinate, t is the time coordinate and Psi* is the complex conjugate of Psi.
2) For every measureable property of a system in classical mechanics, there exists a corresponding operator in quantum mechanics.
3) The only values that will ever be measured for an operator are the eigenvalues of the operator. Information about the probabilities of the different values being measured are obtained by performing the operator on the wavefunction.
4) If an observable, a, has corresponding operator A, and the value of a is measured once each on many identically prepared systems, then as the number of such systems approaches infinity:
<a> = (Integral from -infinity to infinity of Psi*(x, t)APsi(x, t)dx) / (Integral from -infinity to infinity of Psi*(x, t)Psi(x, t)dx)
5) All wavefunctions must satisfy the (time-dependent) Schrodinger equation:
HPsi(x, t) = i h-bar (Partial Psi(x, t))/(Partial t)
where H = -((h-bar)^2)/2m (Partial^2 Psi(x, t))/(Partial x^2) + V(x) and V(x) is the potential energy at point x
To emphasize my point that all physics theories are based on mathematics, here are the three postulates of classical mechanics:
In any inertial frame of reference-
1) If the net external force on a particle of constant mass is zero, the velocity of that particle remains constant [in fact, this postulate isn't really needed, since it is a special case of the second postulate].
2) The derivative of a particle's momentum with respect to time is equal to the net external force that the particle experiences.
3) If particle A exerts a force F on particle B, then particle B exerts a force -F on A.
[Keep in mind that force is a vector]
Here is Newton's Law of Gravitation:
F = -G(m1)(m2)/r^2 * n-hat
where F is the gravitational force of particle 1 on particle 2, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of particle 1 and particle 2 respectively, r is the distance between the particles and n-hat is the unit vector that points from particle 1 to particle 2
Here is Coulomb's Law:
F = (q1)(q2)/4pi(epsilon-nought)r^2 * n-hat
where F is the electrostatic force of particle 1 on particle 2, epsilon-nought is the permittivity of free space, q1 and q2 are the electric charges of particle 1 and particle 2 respectively, r is the distance between the particles and n-hat is the unit vector that points from particle 1 to particle 2
Here are the postulates of quantum mechanics:
1) The state of a quantum mechanical system is completely specified by its wavefunction Psi(x, t). The probability of finding a particle at time t0 in a spatial interval of width dx cenetered at x0 is Psi*(x0, t0)Psi(x0, t0)dx in the limit as dx approaches 0
where x is the spatial coordinate, t is the time coordinate and Psi* is the complex conjugate of Psi.
2) For every measureable property of a system in classical mechanics, there exists a corresponding operator in quantum mechanics.
3) The only values that will ever be measured for an operator are the eigenvalues of the operator. Information about the probabilities of the different values being measured are obtained by performing the operator on the wavefunction.
4) If an observable, a, has corresponding operator A, and the value of a is measured once each on many identically prepared systems, then as the number of such systems approaches infinity:
<a> = (Integral from -infinity to infinity of Psi*(x, t)APsi(x, t)dx) / (Integral from -infinity to infinity of Psi*(x, t)Psi(x, t)dx)
5) All wavefunctions must satisfy the (time-dependent) Schrodinger equation:
HPsi(x, t) = i h-bar (Partial Psi(x, t))/(Partial t)
where H = -((h-bar)^2)/2m (Partial^2 Psi(x, t))/(Partial x^2) + V(x) and V(x) is the potential energy at point x
- jinydu
- Tetronian
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am
by thigle » Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:57 pm
houserichichi. good idea to start this thread. 
sorry if i spread my thoughts a bit this time, i feel like writing a few pages.
my take on this issue is in my view not contradicting yours. however, there are what i would consider imprecisions by over/under-estimations, or by overidentification. so i'll try to locate our questioning in vertical context, and consider some semantic questions first.
we can use a vertical hierarchy for sorting certain meanings of 'science'. let's put at zenith the archetypal absence - negative infinity, and on the nadir dwells ideal unity of presence - the positive infinity. as z varies from -infinite to +infinite, concept of 'science' is moving through different schematisation-levels.
archetypally - on the blackhole infinity pole of this epistemologically distinguished 'science' concept, is etymological (literally 'true',real' or 'actual') science - the broadest science. science roots in 'seeing' or 'perceiveing'. essence of which is not seeing. a mirror by having as its nature emptyness, can render/see any image. this would correspond to science at scale of pluriverse. more than universal scale, which lies under.
so science in broadest sense is true seeing of meta-universal - the pluriversal science. this can and does encompass any other sciences, by it's complete unavailability it fields the specific sciences.
on the other pole is face(t) of nothing - the specific 'sciencing', the very fragmented monad of knowing - the spinning self-referential mindpixel. this is under the level of whats ordinarily or academically considered science in western hemisphere. that level lies between these two (ideal and archetypal / unitary and total) poles of schematic levels of understanding of concepts in our western indo-european scientific tradition.
the whole ontological hierarchy in logos would go something like:
pluriverse
universe
world
domain
meta-system
...
system
form
pattern
monad
facet
these are from Kent Palmer's work. i personally think both poles are at the same point - the horizon, as i see consider projective lines. but that's another story. and too much branched
for us is relevant that there are broader and narrower definitions of anything. so science can mean/be understood(as) different things. in generally specific way (at the point of contact of -infinity and +infinity), science is a knowledge of beings, over certain domain(s) of appearances, fixed by a discipline(domain)-specific formalism. usually it takes its formalisms as invariant (because of short time-attention-span), even though they are the evolving body of the science. science is a techne - a kind of skill. it is aquired, through time-binding activity of humans, delicately and rougly grown by tradition - a social consciousness clusters of knowledge-bound units: individuals. as plant evolving through ages, growing with many roots and often spreading the most bautiful flowers and giving tasty fruits.
but it is a plant of strange kind. it sprawls over whole earthtime and both inner and outer beyonds, and the facets of its leaf-pores are mirroring its roots. it bears fruit when it comes into contact with its pollen, that is brought by the visiting winds and life.
some fruits are eaten or fall off. often it takes time and it is not a priory to facticity of the domain, world, universe or pluriverse. so when the pollen-bearers race finds itself in situation is such that its physical manifestation is shattered, the science-tree dies. no one taking care, the tree disappears. the dream is science. the yggdrasil vehicle.
structure of languague is the structure of the unconscious - of the absence. so the earthtime specific science, that seems to be the topic of this thread, is the light kept on areas of interest by us, humans. after all, it's all one science - any science, total science, all-science.
but this general wholeness is embodied through individuals, concrete space-time manifestations dissipating entropy temporally. specific traditions use specific languagues. very specific. math is one of trunks of out worldtree, if it is multitrunked as mangrove.
one might think that only the explicit (unfolded) counts and that implicit (infolding) doesn't count, as explicit is all that apparently is. but then one should ask to who, how, where/when, and why such schematizationm occurs.
the broadest science... the most specific science...the optimal...the actual...the prevailing(temporally dominant) science... all these understandings of science will fuse one day. we need them all(maybe not the last one?). when enough critical value of us will realize the true value of true science, a spontaneous planetary phase-transition on social intention-field can take change. it doesn't happen so seldom. or dou you think it already happened ? it used to be when individuals were able to encompass knowledge of their age of all domains, it seemed to the polyhistoric sights spanning all the individual horizons - the world. do you think the way of our action, individual and planetary is satisfactory to our possibilities and abilities ? nowadays, integrality is not a hype, but specificity is losing grips by interdisciplinarity of so many scholars. TOEs will come more often.
and so i get to thinking math. what is it, ma-thema-tics? a formalism over implicit geometry of thought ? our schematizing via interpretation is of same essence as the objects of our schematizings. the math is implicit in both our experience as in structuring of our worlds. it is the meta-thematic, generalized knowledge. math is caring.
so (finally), does science require mathematics ? it depends on what science and where. math surely is one of most refined formalisms we have today as humankind. though there are richer ones possible. imagine when people learn to read colors and shapes of others thoughts. when languague regains its visuality, science will shift.
god(s) can fit some science. not exclusively math required to verify a thought.
i completely disagree on this one(because of everything):
and i think the dream and the theories are the science, while the praxis are the applications. the dream is the field of theories, and the world the field of praxis.
houserichichi_
thigle_
sorry if i spread my thoughts a bit this time, i feel like writing a few pages.
my take on this issue is in my view not contradicting yours. however, there are what i would consider imprecisions by over/under-estimations, or by overidentification. so i'll try to locate our questioning in vertical context, and consider some semantic questions first.
we can use a vertical hierarchy for sorting certain meanings of 'science'. let's put at zenith the archetypal absence - negative infinity, and on the nadir dwells ideal unity of presence - the positive infinity. as z varies from -infinite to +infinite, concept of 'science' is moving through different schematisation-levels.
archetypally - on the blackhole infinity pole of this epistemologically distinguished 'science' concept, is etymological (literally 'true',real' or 'actual') science - the broadest science. science roots in 'seeing' or 'perceiveing'. essence of which is not seeing. a mirror by having as its nature emptyness, can render/see any image. this would correspond to science at scale of pluriverse. more than universal scale, which lies under.
so science in broadest sense is true seeing of meta-universal - the pluriversal science. this can and does encompass any other sciences, by it's complete unavailability it fields the specific sciences.
on the other pole is face(t) of nothing - the specific 'sciencing', the very fragmented monad of knowing - the spinning self-referential mindpixel. this is under the level of whats ordinarily or academically considered science in western hemisphere. that level lies between these two (ideal and archetypal / unitary and total) poles of schematic levels of understanding of concepts in our western indo-european scientific tradition.
the whole ontological hierarchy in logos would go something like:
pluriverse
universe
world
domain
meta-system
...
system
form
pattern
monad
facet
these are from Kent Palmer's work. i personally think both poles are at the same point - the horizon, as i see consider projective lines. but that's another story. and too much branched
for us is relevant that there are broader and narrower definitions of anything. so science can mean/be understood(as) different things. in generally specific way (at the point of contact of -infinity and +infinity), science is a knowledge of beings, over certain domain(s) of appearances, fixed by a discipline(domain)-specific formalism. usually it takes its formalisms as invariant (because of short time-attention-span), even though they are the evolving body of the science. science is a techne - a kind of skill. it is aquired, through time-binding activity of humans, delicately and rougly grown by tradition - a social consciousness clusters of knowledge-bound units: individuals. as plant evolving through ages, growing with many roots and often spreading the most bautiful flowers and giving tasty fruits.
but it is a plant of strange kind. it sprawls over whole earthtime and both inner and outer beyonds, and the facets of its leaf-pores are mirroring its roots. it bears fruit when it comes into contact with its pollen, that is brought by the visiting winds and life.
some fruits are eaten or fall off. often it takes time and it is not a priory to facticity of the domain, world, universe or pluriverse. so when the pollen-bearers race finds itself in situation is such that its physical manifestation is shattered, the science-tree dies. no one taking care, the tree disappears. the dream is science. the yggdrasil vehicle.
structure of languague is the structure of the unconscious - of the absence. so the earthtime specific science, that seems to be the topic of this thread, is the light kept on areas of interest by us, humans. after all, it's all one science - any science, total science, all-science.
but this general wholeness is embodied through individuals, concrete space-time manifestations dissipating entropy temporally. specific traditions use specific languagues. very specific. math is one of trunks of out worldtree, if it is multitrunked as mangrove.
one might think that only the explicit (unfolded) counts and that implicit (infolding) doesn't count, as explicit is all that apparently is. but then one should ask to who, how, where/when, and why such schematizationm occurs.
the broadest science... the most specific science...the optimal...the actual...the prevailing(temporally dominant) science... all these understandings of science will fuse one day. we need them all(maybe not the last one?). when enough critical value of us will realize the true value of true science, a spontaneous planetary phase-transition on social intention-field can take change. it doesn't happen so seldom. or dou you think it already happened ? it used to be when individuals were able to encompass knowledge of their age of all domains, it seemed to the polyhistoric sights spanning all the individual horizons - the world. do you think the way of our action, individual and planetary is satisfactory to our possibilities and abilities ? nowadays, integrality is not a hype, but specificity is losing grips by interdisciplinarity of so many scholars. TOEs will come more often.
and so i get to thinking math. what is it, ma-thema-tics? a formalism over implicit geometry of thought ? our schematizing via interpretation is of same essence as the objects of our schematizings. the math is implicit in both our experience as in structuring of our worlds. it is the meta-thematic, generalized knowledge. math is caring.
so (finally), does science require mathematics ? it depends on what science and where. math surely is one of most refined formalisms we have today as humankind. though there are richer ones possible. imagine when people learn to read colors and shapes of others thoughts. when languague regains its visuality, science will shift.
god(s) can fit some science. not exclusively math required to verify a thought.
i completely disagree on this one(because of everything):
everything has to be measured and compared, measured and compared
and i think the dream and the theories are the science, while the praxis are the applications. the dream is the field of theories, and the world the field of praxis.
houserichichi_
The dream is based on science to describe science but does not follow any principles of science. That's my take, anyway.
thigle_
that's my take_1.dream allows the science based on dream to order/organize knowledge & use of principles of both (science & dream).
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by thigle » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:01 am
looking now at the lenght of the above, i surely want and will to learn to condensate expressing. a formalism with math-like elegance would be helpful indeed.
also what relationship do anyone consider geometry & math to have?
also what relationship do anyone consider geometry & math to have?
Last edited by thigle on Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by jinydu » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:35 am
thigle wrote:looking now at the lenght of the above, i surely want and will to learn to condensate expressing. a formalism with math-like elegance would be helpful indeed.
also what relationship do anyone consider geometry & math to have?
Geometry (or at at least the rigorous kind that relies on proofs) is a particular area inside mathematics.
Once again, your writing is painful to read, in that it uses a lot of words (such as "schematizings; I guarantee that if you mention it to 99.9% of the population, you'll only get a strange look) that are seldom used by anyone except the most abstract philosophers. Can you see the value of brief, concise, plainspoken statements, such as:
Science is the study of natural phenonema using natural explanations verified by repeatable experiments.
However, I will say from a brief scan of your post that you haven't mentioned the main features of science:
1) Scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable by observation and experiments
2) Scientific theories should use as few assumptions as possible
3) Scientific observation and experimentation must be repeatable
- jinydu
- Tetronian
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am
by wendy » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:47 am
Here is Newton's Law of Gravitation:
F = -G(m1)(m2)/r^2 * n-hat
where F is the gravitational force of particle 1 on particle 2, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of particle 1 and particle 2 respectively, r is the distance between the particles and n-hat is the unit vector that points from particle 1 to particle 2
Here is Coulomb's Law:
F = (q1)(q2)/4pi(epsilon-nought)r^2 * n-hat
The form i use for coulomb's law is F = c.q1.q2/4pi.r^n
In general, the formula is F = c.q1.q2 / S(n) r^(n-1), where S(n) is the surface of the sphere in terms of r^n.
If n is 3, and the tegmic scale is used, F = c.q1.q2/8 pi r^n.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
-
wendy - Pentonian
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
by PWrong » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:18 pm
maybe this is just immature university rivalry, but I think any science that doesn't use maths is a pseudoscience. I particularly can't stand chemists, but that's because I had a chemistry exam yesterday, and probably failed. Most scientists (apart from physicists) use as little maths as possible, either because they can't do it or they don't like it. They also tend to do things like putting all the numbers in at the start, which hides all the useful information. 
For instance, there's something called the "sixty nine rule", for working out a half life given the rate of growth, without having to learn about logs. The half life is 69 divided by the percentage rate of growth (because ln(2) = 0.69...). I admit it's funny, but are logs really that hard for people?
But maybe I'm being too harsh on other scientists. All of us should work together to fight our real enemies... engineers.
How much of Kent Palmer's work have you quoted on this forum? It's often not a good idea to use other people's ideas like that, even when you give them credit for it. It's not always relevent to the conversation. I don't know who Kent Palmer is, but just from reading your post, I can tell you that either his work is incomprehensible, or you've misinterpreted it.
For instance, there's something called the "sixty nine rule", for working out a half life given the rate of growth, without having to learn about logs. The half life is 69 divided by the percentage rate of growth (because ln(2) = 0.69...). I admit it's funny, but are logs really that hard for people?
But maybe I'm being too harsh on other scientists. All of us should work together to fight our real enemies... engineers.
these are from Kent Palmer's work. i personally think both poles are at the same point - the horizon, as i see consider projective lines. but that's another story. and too much branched
How much of Kent Palmer's work have you quoted on this forum? It's often not a good idea to use other people's ideas like that, even when you give them credit for it. It's not always relevent to the conversation. I don't know who Kent Palmer is, but just from reading your post, I can tell you that either his work is incomprehensible, or you've misinterpreted it.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by Batman3 » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:49 pm
Regarding Jinydu's definition of science, I would submit that both economic science and political science are "science":
Jinydu's criteria were:(1)Sci. theories must be testable and falsifiable by experiment.
(2)Sci. theories should use as few assumptions as possible.
(3) sci. observation and experimentation must be repeatable.
(1)An economic prediction can be confirmed or denied observationally.
(2)An economic prediction only has a small number of concepts.(of course they, like all maths, have many consequences.) Each true or false.
(3)An economic prediction can be repeatable because given (Roughly, though all science is blind to all the details) given similar circumstances, if (say) the Federal Res. Bank raises interest rates, what will happen? This surely has happened more than once. The Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 could have been "repeats" of the disaster of the Great Dust Bowl of the U.S.A. 'What happens if...?'
(1) The fall of the Communist Soviet Union was predicted by at least 3 people( me, Ronald Reagan and my history professor, on different reasonings). This was confirmed.
(2)The theories assumed the past(as does any Sci. theory) and Pol.Sci., Bible and/or Econ. concepts. (How many is as few as possible, apart from the past? Any reasonable theory works like this.)
(3) Red China has a similar structure to the Soviet Union and may break up in a similar way. So this question is repeatable.
Both physical, economic, and political assumption assume the organic nature of reality, which must by essence be very complicated.
Jinydu's criteria were:(1)Sci. theories must be testable and falsifiable by experiment.
(2)Sci. theories should use as few assumptions as possible.
(3) sci. observation and experimentation must be repeatable.
(1)An economic prediction can be confirmed or denied observationally.
(2)An economic prediction only has a small number of concepts.(of course they, like all maths, have many consequences.) Each true or false.
(3)An economic prediction can be repeatable because given (Roughly, though all science is blind to all the details) given similar circumstances, if (say) the Federal Res. Bank raises interest rates, what will happen? This surely has happened more than once. The Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 could have been "repeats" of the disaster of the Great Dust Bowl of the U.S.A. 'What happens if...?'
(1) The fall of the Communist Soviet Union was predicted by at least 3 people( me, Ronald Reagan and my history professor, on different reasonings). This was confirmed.
(2)The theories assumed the past(as does any Sci. theory) and Pol.Sci., Bible and/or Econ. concepts. (How many is as few as possible, apart from the past? Any reasonable theory works like this.)
(3) Red China has a similar structure to the Soviet Union and may break up in a similar way. So this question is repeatable.
Both physical, economic, and political assumption assume the organic nature of reality, which must by essence be very complicated.
- Batman3
- Trionian
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm
by Batman3 » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:33 pm
Regarding Jinydu's definition, it sounds awfully close to the Old Testament criteria for determining if a prophet(i.e. a predictor and claimor to repesent God's Truth) is honest or not. If he is a true prophet his prediction will come true, if not then he is not from the One True Most High God.
But then even so, if he suggests to follow a false or wicked god(or God) he must be rejected.
All this is Biblical.
Both evolution and creation-by-design are somewhat "science".
(1) Creation-by-design has evidence as does evolution.
(2) Both assume some kind of relationship between observation and theory which is not tight. Evolution claims steps that can not be justified by experiment or unbiased reason. Evolutionists' bias is that God does not exist and claim the opposite for creationists. This(or these) bias(s) constitute a very large assumption, also prejudicing the mind. Very hot. Perhaps too hot for consciousness.
(3) C-b-d can have more than one observation(proteins, eyes of various kinds) and evolution has more than one appearant sequence of physical phenomena in the bio. record(I assume.)
All this would be well but Evolutionists(In general?) tolerate no alternative views in the school classroom and so are no better than the Totalitarian States which allow no alternative political parties.
But then even so, if he suggests to follow a false or wicked god(or God) he must be rejected.
All this is Biblical.
Both evolution and creation-by-design are somewhat "science".
(1) Creation-by-design has evidence as does evolution.
(2) Both assume some kind of relationship between observation and theory which is not tight. Evolution claims steps that can not be justified by experiment or unbiased reason. Evolutionists' bias is that God does not exist and claim the opposite for creationists. This(or these) bias(s) constitute a very large assumption, also prejudicing the mind. Very hot. Perhaps too hot for consciousness.
(3) C-b-d can have more than one observation(proteins, eyes of various kinds) and evolution has more than one appearant sequence of physical phenomena in the bio. record(I assume.)
All this would be well but Evolutionists(In general?) tolerate no alternative views in the school classroom and so are no better than the Totalitarian States which allow no alternative political parties.
- Batman3
- Trionian
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:43 pm
by jinydu » Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:58 am
Batman3 wrote:Regarding Jinydu's definition, it sounds awfully close to the Old Testament criteria for determining if a prophet(i.e. a predictor and claimor to repesent God's Truth) is honest or not. If he is a true prophet his prediction will come true, if not then he is not from the One True Most High God.
But then even so, if he suggests to follow a false or wicked god(or God) he must be rejected.
All this is Biblical.
Well, a major difference here is that a scientific prediction must be clear, unambiguous and falsifiable. A prediction like "You will attain great happiness" is not precise and falsifiable; a prediction like "You will win the lottery tomorrow" is.
Batman3 wrote:Both evolution and creation-by-design are somewhat "science".
(1) Creation-by-design has evidence as does evolution.
No, there is no significant evidence for creation by design, unless you count hand-waving arguments like "But everything looks so complex! It must have been designed!".
Batman3 wrote:(2) Both assume some kind of relationship between observation and theory which is not tight. Evolution claims steps that can not be justified by experiment or unbiased reason. Evolutionists' bias is that God does not exist and claim the opposite for creationists. This(or these) bias(s) constitute a very large assumption, also prejudicing the mind. Very hot. Perhaps too hot for consciousness.
Creationism cannot work without the assumption of a God; evolution can work with or without a God (although it would have to be a "clockwork" God, one that creates the universe then leaves it to its own devices). Furthermore, basically every major step in evolutionary has been confirmed experimentally, from the formulation of nucleic acids from a chemical "soup", to genetic recombination and mutation to systematic changes in the genotype of populations (such as through artificial selection. Creationist claims, such as the claim that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old, have, on the other hand, been rejected by many studies in many scientific studies such as microbiology, geology, therodynamics and astronomy.
Batman3 wrote:(3) C-b-d can have more than one observation(proteins, eyes of various kinds) and evolution has more than one appearant sequence of physical phenomena in the bio. record(I assume.)
I don't really understand your argument here. However, it can be said biologists have managed to construct a consistent account of the evolution of life on Earth over a period of billions of years. For instance, according to today's theory, multicellular organisms didn't evolve until roughly 600 million years ago (if my memory is correct). Sure enough, no matter where you look in the world, you don't find any fossils of multicellular organisms from say 2 billion years ago. On the other hand, creationist claims have been definitely refuted by observational evidence. For instance, contrary to what some people claim, the eye is not irreducibly complex; it is made of simpler systems that can function independently.
Batman3 wrote:All this would be well but Evolutionists(In general?) tolerate no alternative views in the school classroom and so are no better than the Totalitarian States which allow no alternative political parties.
The problem here is that science is not politics where, more often than not, there is no definitive right or wrong answer. Why should unequal ideas be given equal time in the classroom? Creationism is not a legitimate scientific theory; it is an attempt by a mostly religious fundamentalist group to win over a public that is quite ignorant about how science really works. In science, you can't have any opinion you want; your opinion must be consistent with the scientific method and observational evidence. If it is ok to admit creationism into the classroom, what's to stop FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spa ... Monsterism) from being admitted into the classroom as well?
- jinydu
- Tetronian
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am
by PWrong » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:53 am
Regarding Jinydu's definition of science, I would submit that both economic science and political science are "science":
Yes, of course they are. They're not very good sciences, although that's mostly my personal taste. I'd say they're about on the same level as psychology. They're not too good at making predictions when compared to physics, which can be extremely accurate, or maths, which is essentially perfect. But that's because they deal with human beings, which tend to be pretty complicated.
Not that that implies anything special about human beings of course. 6 billion of anything can get a little complicated, especially when each one is controlled by a separate program developed by an evolutionary algorithm.
All this would be well but Evolutionists(In general?) tolerate no alternative views in the school classroom and so are no better than the Totalitarian States which allow no alternative political parties.
That's odd. Can you give me another example of an idea or world view, that isn't tolerated in the classroom? I've never had a teacher who I would describe as "intolerant". Most are very open to alternative ideas. They've never expressed any hatred of muslims, christians, atheists, e.t.c. I don't think I've heard a teacher insult gays, make racist/sexist comments(more than I can say for many christians), or even have a problem with my being vegetarian (which is something that nearly everyone is personally offended by).
I think what you have to realise is that intelligent design isn't a new idea. It's just an old, dead assumption, like geocentrism, centrifugal force, or the flat earth. It was proven wrong by a new theory that revolutionised biology. Creationists hate evolution for the same reason I hate chemistry. They don't understand it and it annoys them. Whether it's true or not is beside the point. Do I deserve equal time in chemistry classes to talk about why chemists suck and they can't do maths? Yes, but that's not the point.
Intelligent design apparently claims that "life is too complicated to have developed by chance". The implication is that anything complex has to have come from something even more complex. I have three problems with this, based more on aesthetics and logic than on evidence. I would point out some scientific evidence, but I'm not a biologist, and any biologist will be happy to show you some proof.
First of all, it contradicts everything we see. In every aspect of life, complex phenomena often result from simple rules. Ants building mounds and birds flocking are examples. It's easy to write simple computer programs to simulate these. To suggest that God would create birds and ants without some kind of evolutionary algorithm is like comparing Him with an amatuer computer programmer.
The simple equation z'=z^2 + c, produces an infinitely complex picture, that just happens to look like Buddha. It's cool.
http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/buddhabrot/
The second problem is, the idea contradicts the idea of a god anyway. God is an incredibly simple concept, much easier to understand than evolution or the big bang. Every civilisation on Earth has had the idea. What could be more simple than an all powerful being, with nothing to control it?
Finally, the idea contradicts with itself. If evolution didn't happen, there's no complexity, it just looks complex. There's just God's rules, which all animals follow. Even our values and ethics are just rules that God felt like making up. It's such a boring and arbitrary world-view. I think making such a pointless universe would be below God. Surely the world is more than just a bunch of made up animals.
It makes much more sense to believe that God created the universe to see what would would happen. I think the universe looks like it wasn't designed to be interesting, but to have the potential to be interesting. Maybe he was even surprised when he saw the first cells self-reproducing, or when humans first evolved.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by houserichichi » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:37 pm
Sorry for going all over the board here...I figured it's easier to catch up in a single post. My own responses are in chronological order.
I'll have to side with Jinydu on this one. A geometry, in its purest form, is an abstraction involving mathematical entities (metrics, for one) and the properties that exist in a particular space. We're used to solid geometry and its ilk as that is how the world appears to us and is the least difficult to wrap our minds around (we've all seen three dimensional solid shapes so it's not hard to imagine more exotic forms).
I'll assume you're including biology, chemistry, psychology, and a plethora of other -ologies? I can't speak for many of the unlisted, but all three of those subjects rely on quite a bit of mathematics, albeit far less complex (relatively speaking, of course) than, say, high energy phenomenology. Psychology relies (from what I've seen, anyway) almost exclusively on statistics to model and predict, the same can be said for biology (though since I've never really climbed that ladder before I can't say for certain how much. I do know that mathematical biology exists but I've never taken a look to see what it's about). Chemistry is awash with higher math...I'm assuming you're still taking lower level courses? I'm curious what level of math you feel is necessary for something to jump out of being a pseudoscience. Arithmetic is math. Statistics is math. Group theory is math. Gauge theory is math. Chemistry is macroscopic quantum mechanics...so it relies entirely on the maths of QM (which I assume you consider a branch of physics, a "true" science).
There, that rant's over. :wink:
I would also submit that. Now, one could argue whether they are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science"]"hard"[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science"]"soft"[/url] sciences.
Evolution is a branch of biology which is a science. It gathers information, analyzes, and produces results without prior judgement (bias). It does not propose to know where things came from, it only attempts to predict where things will go. CBD, ID, whatever name you choose to give it is based on prior judgement and works its way forward from there. It proposes we came to be from someone/something through some master plan, be it a deity, alien, of FSM-like wonder. I completely believe that a creationist (whether it be by deity or alien) can follow the path of evolution (that is, "believe in it," for which they really have no choice but seem to think otherwise) and still hold strong to their fantastic creation stories.
Why evolution and creation are even pitted against one another is beyond me...creationism should be fighting the physicists on how we came about (big bang, etc VS god/alien/FSM's will), not the evolutionists on where we are going.
The only crazies that have any change of fighting evolution would be the young earth creationists (who forget FSM and aliens and use their Christian deity and bible as argument). They've got the least compelling argument of the lot, IMHO.
thigle wrote:also what relationship do anyone consider geometry & math to have?
I'll have to side with Jinydu on this one. A geometry, in its purest form, is an abstraction involving mathematical entities (metrics, for one) and the properties that exist in a particular space. We're used to solid geometry and its ilk as that is how the world appears to us and is the least difficult to wrap our minds around (we've all seen three dimensional solid shapes so it's not hard to imagine more exotic forms).
PWrong wrote:I think any science that doesn't use maths is a pseudoscience. I particularly can't stand chemists
I'll assume you're including biology, chemistry, psychology, and a plethora of other -ologies? I can't speak for many of the unlisted, but all three of those subjects rely on quite a bit of mathematics, albeit far less complex (relatively speaking, of course) than, say, high energy phenomenology. Psychology relies (from what I've seen, anyway) almost exclusively on statistics to model and predict, the same can be said for biology (though since I've never really climbed that ladder before I can't say for certain how much. I do know that mathematical biology exists but I've never taken a look to see what it's about). Chemistry is awash with higher math...I'm assuming you're still taking lower level courses? I'm curious what level of math you feel is necessary for something to jump out of being a pseudoscience. Arithmetic is math. Statistics is math. Group theory is math. Gauge theory is math. Chemistry is macroscopic quantum mechanics...so it relies entirely on the maths of QM (which I assume you consider a branch of physics, a "true" science).
There, that rant's over. :wink:
Batman3 wrote:I would submit that both economic science and political science
I would also submit that. Now, one could argue whether they are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science"]"hard"[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science"]"soft"[/url] sciences.
Batman3 wrote:Both evolution and creation-by-design are somewhat "science".
Evolution is a branch of biology which is a science. It gathers information, analyzes, and produces results without prior judgement (bias). It does not propose to know where things came from, it only attempts to predict where things will go. CBD, ID, whatever name you choose to give it is based on prior judgement and works its way forward from there. It proposes we came to be from someone/something through some master plan, be it a deity, alien, of FSM-like wonder. I completely believe that a creationist (whether it be by deity or alien) can follow the path of evolution (that is, "believe in it," for which they really have no choice but seem to think otherwise) and still hold strong to their fantastic creation stories.
Why evolution and creation are even pitted against one another is beyond me...creationism should be fighting the physicists on how we came about (big bang, etc VS god/alien/FSM's will), not the evolutionists on where we are going.
The only crazies that have any change of fighting evolution would be the young earth creationists (who forget FSM and aliens and use their Christian deity and bible as argument). They've got the least compelling argument of the lot, IMHO.
- houserichichi
- Tetronian
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Canada
by thigle » Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:22 pm
"no evolution but a mutation," said a man from Tuwa(Siberia), a cosmic traveller.
for exemple, i believe we are totally self-made. no god/et needed in my cosmology for my, or anybody's creation. God is just the first un-aware entity to incarnate in this solar system. not that i would deny God, gods and godesses, ets... (btw, what is 'FSM will'?), but they, too, are rolling the will of fate, even though relatively different from ours.
big bang is just a very partial cosmological explanation. surely, it is not essential. it is just what it name says - big.
for exemple, i believe we are totally self-made. no god/et needed in my cosmology for my, or anybody's creation. God is just the first un-aware entity to incarnate in this solar system. not that i would deny God, gods and godesses, ets... (btw, what is 'FSM will'?), but they, too, are rolling the will of fate, even though relatively different from ours.
big bang is just a very partial cosmological explanation. surely, it is not essential. it is just what it name says - big.
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by jinydu » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:01 am
Batman3 wrote:What is the future according to evolution theory?
It is difficult to predict what life forms will exist in the future, especially the distant future, since there are complex interactions between species and their environment, the environment is unpredictable and unexpected catastrophes (such as a comet collision) can occur. However, if the environment is carefully controlled, it is sometimes possible to predict trends. For instance, if every year a wheat farmer throws away the half of his wheat that grows most slowly, then we would expect that over many years, his wheat would tend to grow faster and faster.
Having said that, however, I have seen some documentaries on TV where scientists made predictions about what life forms will exist millions of years in the future.
- jinydu
- Tetronian
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am
by thigle » Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:57 pm
but it is not so difficult to dream (instead of predicting) what life forms will we tend towards in close future. life forms are forms of life, forms of self-organization in interdependent arising. and people will hopely start generally seeing their own mind's lights - their own consciousness, in >4d experiential fields of their dimensionless mind-cores
as life-flow interweaves and organizes matter-flow, the form of life is the temporal habitual pattern, the trace of life's processes, that's left behind continually. the life itself and its form of life are different, but indivisible. consider your mindbody (or bodymind (depending on still subtler distinctions)).
what were the scientists claiming about life forms millions of years ahead ? did they said that mother Earth prolly wont be habitable anymore ? if not, they were ethicless, and as such should not be voiced in public mediums. :twisted: and did they mentioned disembodies life forms ? if not, their were prolly not real visionaries, but just some talking calculators and rigid egoists.
as life-flow interweaves and organizes matter-flow, the form of life is the temporal habitual pattern, the trace of life's processes, that's left behind continually. the life itself and its form of life are different, but indivisible. consider your mindbody (or bodymind (depending on still subtler distinctions)).
what were the scientists claiming about life forms millions of years ahead ? did they said that mother Earth prolly wont be habitable anymore ? if not, they were ethicless, and as such should not be voiced in public mediums. :twisted: and did they mentioned disembodies life forms ? if not, their were prolly not real visionaries, but just some talking calculators and rigid egoists.
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by houserichichi » Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:40 pm
it is not so difficult to dream (instead of predicting) what life forms will we tend towards in close future
I would agree with the statement. It is evolution, however, that makes substantial claims. I can dream that three generations from me humans will sprout a pair of wings but it won't (and can't) be so. Evolutionists would agree, not simply by the lack of probability (math), but also by the fact that they understand and accept that the evolution of something as complex as a wing system on the backs of humans would take much longer than three generations to come to be. So on small scales (of, say, three days) evolutionists and the dreamers are on equal footing. But in the lives of humans, who really cares what biological changes will happen in three days? In the lives of viruses, however, things are different. We see new strains cropping up all the time. Why? Because they've adapted (evolved) against the drugs to treat them. That's evolution on a small timescale.
what were the scientists claiming about life forms millions of years ahead
I don't know for sure but I'd imagine you've heard we're either gaining another toe or we're losing one. Whether or not it's true is beyond me (ask a biologist), but it's the earliest example of what I can remember being told of evolution.
did they said that mother Earth prolly wont be habitable anymore ? if not, they were ethicless, and as such should not be voiced in public mediums
As far as I'm concerned, if a particular scientist (in any field) believes they have evidence to support their claims then they should be free to show and discuss it with the public. By the same token, the ones with the wacky ideas should not expect to have their ideas welcomed with open arms, including the "end of the worlders."
if not, their were prolly not real visionaries, but just some talking calculators and rigid egoists.
Why is it whenever someone binds themselves within the laws of science (specifically physics, it would seem) they're the "talking calculators" and the ones with little-to-no evidence are the "visionaries"? It would seem to me that the talking calculators have been the ones making advancements for the human race, albeit not all positive, but advancements none the less. If the calculators are the ones predicting, calculating, building, and ultimately discovering things for humanity don't you think they deserve a little bit of an ego? There is so much "garbage," for lack of a better term, floating around in the meta-scientific/meta-physical (again, for lack of a better term) community, unsubstantiated claims, and theories of dreamers that, until some hard evidence can be found, they should be ignored by the masses.
Visionaries tend to work in solitude until they're accepted. We all know it so they should accept it. I say "show me the proof, for I haven't seen an ounce." What's better is that a large handful (I won't speak for everyone) build their visions directly off the works of the "talking calculators". How's that for backward...
- houserichichi
- Tetronian
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Canada
by wendy » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:46 am
One can do geometry without using mathematical reasoning. For example, i treat it as an engineering problem, using experimental results from number theory and from the notion that things like polytopes are a framework spun in front of a continuium, to do it.
i don't necessarily agree that geometry, number theory &c are deductive processes.
But then, what should i know: i can keep up with the very best in the field.
W
i don't necessarily agree that geometry, number theory &c are deductive processes.
But then, what should i know: i can keep up with the very best in the field.
W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
-
wendy - Pentonian
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
by PWrong » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:30 pm
Chemistry is awash with higher math...I'm assuming you're still taking lower level courses?
Not any more
. I finished (probably failed) my chem exam on the day I wrote that post. It was an introductory unit, without any prerequisites. Next year, I'm just taking maths and physics units . I don't really divide everything into sciences and pseudosciences. I just think some subjects are more scientific than others, and the best sciences tend to be the ones that use the most maths. But as I said, it's just petty first-year rivalry. Some of my best friends are doing psych and biology. Some are doing chemistry too, but they hate it as much as I do. I'm curious what level of math you feel is necessary for something to jump out of being a pseudoscience. Arithmetic is math. Statistics is math. Group theory is math. Gauge theory is math.
It's more about the attitude toward maths than how heavy it is. When professors try to dumb down the maths to cater for people who never learned exponentials and logs, that annoys me.
Why evolution and creation are even pitted against one another is beyond me...creationism should be fighting the physicists on how we came about (big bang, etc VS god/alien/FSM's will), not the evolutionists on where we are going.
Well, the man who originally suggested the big bang was a priest as well as a physicist. On the other hand, I read a very convincing argument in one of Brian Greene's books, that the big bang was caused by quantum fluctuations in the Higg's field. So in other words, if God hadn't created the universe, it would have happened anyway.
According a New Scientist article from a while back, someone actually calculated the probability of the big bang happening again. There's a 1 in 10^(10^100) chance that there's a new universe appearing as you're reading this, right behind you. Better watch out
.and did they mentioned disembodies life forms ? if not, their were prolly not real visionaries, but just some talking calculators and rigid egoists.
What you're describing is an engineer. Not all scientists are egotistic, at least not compared with engines. I think eccentric is a better description. Maths is about patterns, not calculations. Engines can't seem to recognise patterns, hence the dependence on calculators. If you can't work something out without a calculator, it's probably not an interesting question.
-
PWrong - Pentonian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
- Location: Perth, Australia
by houserichichi » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:18 pm
I was just giving you a hard time :wink: in case there was any doubt.
Really, though, theoretical chemistry is awash with very advanced ("beyond calculus") math if you were to study it further. I suppose the layman's view of physics is nothing more than simple algebraic equations that they'd encounter in a non-calculus based course. By the same token "theoretical" anything has to be washed in math because theory is, for the most part, quantitative...otherwise it's just speculation. Because systems in nature are so complex (at the levels of chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology in increasing order) the maths involved would necessarily become more difficult and statistically driven. I get what you're saying though...for a very long time I thought psychology was a hack subject too!!!
Really, though, theoretical chemistry is awash with very advanced ("beyond calculus") math if you were to study it further. I suppose the layman's view of physics is nothing more than simple algebraic equations that they'd encounter in a non-calculus based course. By the same token "theoretical" anything has to be washed in math because theory is, for the most part, quantitative...otherwise it's just speculation. Because systems in nature are so complex (at the levels of chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology in increasing order) the maths involved would necessarily become more difficult and statistically driven. I get what you're saying though...for a very long time I thought psychology was a hack subject too!!!
- houserichichi
- Tetronian
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Canada
by thigle » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:57 pm
wendy writes that one can do geometry without mathematics. that's what i feel like doing sometimes. but i would like to know more math too. is this math/geometry dyad synonymous with algebra/geometry ? but then, math is broader than algebra. so what are then geometric algebras ? what are they useful for ?
wendy, you can keep up with the very best in field. what is your field ? also, who are 'the best in the field' ?
i like some of pwrong's statements. 'i don't really divide everything into sciences and pseudosciences. i just think some subjects are more scientific than others, and the best sciences tend to be the ones that use the most maths...psychology'. (what is the Higg's field ?) 'if God hadn't created the universe, if would have happen anyway.' well, this reminds me of bon cosmology of pre-buddhist Tibet (and pre-occupation, by Chinese invaders lasting till today). it says that our universe has arisen from karmic trace of previous universe in this cosmic space. now the first being to be reborn in this solar system, observed its coming into being. being alone, seeing creation unfolding, (which was just collective karmic patterns of deepest unconsciouss abysses forming as the most dense, 'freezed' form of being: the physical matter), it mistook this unfolding for his own creation, and started to conceive of himself as of the creator of the universe. then the beings with karmas resulting in next rebirths started to be reborn around him due to their social karmic bounds. the first being (later called Elohim, God, Yhv and other names by some of nations here on Earth), who was already there for a while (ignorant of his open radiant awareness), started to order these into hierarchies around him, etc... stil in illusion of his creativity as the causal principle behind the unfolding of physus. to get to the point, the universe happened without him, but he was the first to witness, so he got fooled by his subtle egoism - taking reference point of him as opposed to other. so aristotle made the same error as God, at least with his logic. anyway, God still turns the wheel of karma, so his is not neccessariily better karmic pattern than the human one, in terms of possibilities. actually it is worse because of ots extremity.
houserichichi wrote : "systems in nature are so complex (at the levels of chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology in increasing order).the maths involved would necessarily become more difficult and statistically driven". reminds me of ontological levels in the hierarchy mentioned down this thread, uncovered by K Palmer. there the levels between system & meta-system(i.e. whole & its field or context), marked by the 3 points, are the special systems: dissipative-organ, autopoetic-life and reflexive-social. and the math gets more difficult and statistically driven, because it loses internal coherence from the point of view where we're at. complex numbers used for dissipative level, quaternions for life and octonions for social level of schemas. so you really lose order - the ordinary aristotelian rational one, and the operations of the algebra for the given level get each time more wild, or meta, from the point of view of its subordinate scheme.
so psychology, or mythology, or any other -logy, are all kinds of science. although the math is very powerful, it doesn't seem to be necessary for some knowledge-clustering to be considered science. it gives much to any discipline that accomodates it, but it also always get much back for its services: math gets inspired by different domains of knowledge it enters and transforms. math is itself science but it is also tool for other sciences. and other sciences are and can be tools for math. a set which contains itself as its element.
so you guys know the story of Western science ? in sketch, how it all started to get really explicit (=in speech), was something like this:
in a sense, early Greek form of consciousness, was not able of distinction in the sense of transcendence before the Greek philosophers started to haggle about the transcendent principle. before, all things were symbols of themselves. but someone started to distinct expressions and causes. and postulated Water as the transcendent principle. or Fire. or Number, or... then came Anaximander, and abstracting over his ancestors thoughts, said: "what a nonsense ! finite principles, ordering finite things ! it can not be something limited that is transcendent, and orders all presence. it is the Unlimited - Apeiron, that rules all that is Peiros - the limited. the transcendent is the Apeiron. "
later, the peiron - limited, came dominantly into focus, and split further into categories of physus & logos. all the -logies have their roots in these events.
and thus the Mythopoietic era (Heaven-Earth//Mortal-Immortal) turned into Metaphysical. the unspoken field that lurks the explicit physical focus.
wendy, you can keep up with the very best in field. what is your field ? also, who are 'the best in the field' ?
i like some of pwrong's statements. 'i don't really divide everything into sciences and pseudosciences. i just think some subjects are more scientific than others, and the best sciences tend to be the ones that use the most maths...psychology'. (what is the Higg's field ?) 'if God hadn't created the universe, if would have happen anyway.' well, this reminds me of bon cosmology of pre-buddhist Tibet (and pre-occupation, by Chinese invaders lasting till today). it says that our universe has arisen from karmic trace of previous universe in this cosmic space. now the first being to be reborn in this solar system, observed its coming into being. being alone, seeing creation unfolding, (which was just collective karmic patterns of deepest unconsciouss abysses forming as the most dense, 'freezed' form of being: the physical matter), it mistook this unfolding for his own creation, and started to conceive of himself as of the creator of the universe. then the beings with karmas resulting in next rebirths started to be reborn around him due to their social karmic bounds. the first being (later called Elohim, God, Yhv and other names by some of nations here on Earth), who was already there for a while (ignorant of his open radiant awareness), started to order these into hierarchies around him, etc... stil in illusion of his creativity as the causal principle behind the unfolding of physus. to get to the point, the universe happened without him, but he was the first to witness, so he got fooled by his subtle egoism - taking reference point of him as opposed to other. so aristotle made the same error as God, at least with his logic.
anyway, God still turns the wheel of karma, so his is not neccessariily better karmic pattern than the human one, in terms of possibilities. actually it is worse because of ots extremity.
houserichichi wrote : "systems in nature are so complex (at the levels of chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology in increasing order).the maths involved would necessarily become more difficult and statistically driven". reminds me of ontological levels in the hierarchy mentioned down this thread, uncovered by K Palmer. there the levels between system & meta-system(i.e. whole & its field or context), marked by the 3 points, are the special systems: dissipative-organ, autopoetic-life and reflexive-social. and the math gets more difficult and statistically driven, because it loses internal coherence from the point of view where we're at. complex numbers used for dissipative level, quaternions for life and octonions for social level of schemas. so you really lose order - the ordinary aristotelian rational one, and the operations of the algebra for the given level get each time more wild, or meta, from the point of view of its subordinate scheme.
so psychology, or mythology, or any other -logy, are all kinds of science. although the math is very powerful, it doesn't seem to be necessary for some knowledge-clustering to be considered science. it gives much to any discipline that accomodates it, but it also always get much back for its services: math gets inspired by different domains of knowledge it enters and transforms. math is itself science but it is also tool for other sciences. and other sciences are and can be tools for math. a set which contains itself as its element.
so you guys know the story of Western science ? in sketch, how it all started to get really explicit (=in speech), was something like this:
in a sense, early Greek form of consciousness, was not able of distinction in the sense of transcendence before the Greek philosophers started to haggle about the transcendent principle. before, all things were symbols of themselves. but someone started to distinct expressions and causes. and postulated Water as the transcendent principle. or Fire. or Number, or... then came Anaximander, and abstracting over his ancestors thoughts, said: "what a nonsense ! finite principles, ordering finite things ! it can not be something limited that is transcendent, and orders all presence. it is the Unlimited - Apeiron, that rules all that is Peiros - the limited. the transcendent is the Apeiron. "
later, the peiron - limited, came dominantly into focus, and split further into categories of physus & logos. all the -logies have their roots in these events.
and thus the Mythopoietic era (Heaven-Earth//Mortal-Immortal) turned into Metaphysical. the unspoken field that lurks the explicit physical focus.
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by wendy » Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:12 am
it really depends on what doing the maths means.
one must understand that something like euclidean 5-space or hyperbolic space is an entity over any mathematical description. That is, hyperbolic space exists without any formal hyperbolic geometry applied to it.
One can indeed study these fields without having to invent a formal theory for it: just working notions will do. When one uses these working notions, one is essentially treating it as an engineering problem: lots of unrelated formulae, rather than a core logic and derived formulae. The connection and validation of the formulae are themselves an engineering problem.
in the sense of who is among the brightest minds in the field, i have brought up issuse with the likes of john conway, norman johnson, chaim goodman-strauss, all of whom are learned professers in the elements of geometry.
for the main, i am either often right or competently wrong. What the latter means, is that my incorrectness tends to reflect a valid possible alternative, or a path that is a long dead-end, that others of high calibre have taken also.
in the main, i rely heavily on an unusual technique of "circle-drawing", which makes all three geometries variations of the same thing.
w
one must understand that something like euclidean 5-space or hyperbolic space is an entity over any mathematical description. That is, hyperbolic space exists without any formal hyperbolic geometry applied to it.
One can indeed study these fields without having to invent a formal theory for it: just working notions will do. When one uses these working notions, one is essentially treating it as an engineering problem: lots of unrelated formulae, rather than a core logic and derived formulae. The connection and validation of the formulae are themselves an engineering problem.
in the sense of who is among the brightest minds in the field, i have brought up issuse with the likes of john conway, norman johnson, chaim goodman-strauss, all of whom are learned professers in the elements of geometry.
for the main, i am either often right or competently wrong. What the latter means, is that my incorrectness tends to reflect a valid possible alternative, or a path that is a long dead-end, that others of high calibre have taken also.
in the main, i rely heavily on an unusual technique of "circle-drawing", which makes all three geometries variations of the same thing.
w
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
-
wendy - Pentonian
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
by thigle » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:38 pm
can you tell more about this unusual technique of 'circle-drawing' ? i always was attempting for an operation which would allow traversing all 3 geometries in one continuous stroke, for a given object of interest. i thought there must exist something similar to parabola-ellipse-circle-hyperbola & conics connection, or like the confocal quadrics in 3-space, or something. i never figured out though... :?
so could you please say something more about 'circle-drawing' ? it sounds mesmerizing (in the good sense of it).
you wrote that 'something like euclidean 5-space or hyperbolic space is an entity over any mathematical description. that is, hyperbolic space exists without any formal hyperbolic geometry applied to it."
that's as clear as truly important. it applies for any object of consciousness. that is the zen point of the flower not saying "i am a flower", or ancient greeks not knowing they are ancient greeks.
forms are empty, emptiness itself is a form. so form is form and emptiness is emptiness. (in some translations, empty&emptiness are translated as open&openess).
so could you please say something more about 'circle-drawing' ? it sounds mesmerizing (in the good sense of it).
you wrote that 'something like euclidean 5-space or hyperbolic space is an entity over any mathematical description. that is, hyperbolic space exists without any formal hyperbolic geometry applied to it."
that's as clear as truly important. it applies for any object of consciousness. that is the zen point of the flower not saying "i am a flower", or ancient greeks not knowing they are ancient greeks.
forms are empty, emptiness itself is a form. so form is form and emptiness is emptiness. (in some translations, empty&emptiness are translated as open&openess).
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by wendy » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:59 am
The fact that one can create a set of axioms for Euclidean geometry, and decide that these axioms are right or wrong, suggests that Euclidean geometry exists before the axioms, and that the axioms are in fact a kind of description of the thing.
Hyperbolic or Spheric Space exist in the same manner as Euclidean space,that these exist without having to access the body of work of other people. That is, one can completely derive something, and later on, identify it with the existing euclidean geometry. This is what happened with circle drawing.
Curvature is a measure that corresponds to 1/radius2. One can embed a space of given curvature in one that is a lesser curvature. You can draw a 3-inch circle in a 3-inch sphere, or a 6-inch sphere, or a flat plane, but not on a 1-inch sphere. You can't even draw a fragment of a 3-inch circle on a 1-inch sphere.
One sees that a given circle can belong to (ie be part of the surface of) any sphere, and such a circle has the geometries of any embedding sphere. That is, the 3-inch circle is part of a five-inch sphere, and has the geometry of a 5-inch sphere.
When we allow zero curvature, we unite spheres with the euclidean plane, and we see that a pentagon drawn in any given circle remains a pentagon in the euclidean sense. The transform from a euclidean circle to a circle on a 5-inch sphere is a function purely of the embedding spaces etc.
The notion of hyperbolic space is simply negative curvature. We allow the curvature term to go negative. None the same, a euclidean space that spans the hyperbolic sphere is still euclidean.
Since for the main part we can not tell if the horochorix (3d zero-curvature fabric) is itself one, or embedded in some higher space (eg a 4d horochorix or 4d bollochorix), we see of our space that we _can't_ tell the general curvature of all-space, and the notion that all three geometries are the realisations of a single geometry, with a curvature term can be taken to account.
This is different to the classical model, which puts spheric, euclidean and hyperbolic geometries into their own, separate boxes. The nature of physical space is designated as dE, that is, a curvature of curvature so close to zero, but without a clear sign, that we can not tell in the large scale if the space is E or H or S.
It is possible to put the fabric of isotropic, homogeneous, isometric space into terms that make the decision of the nature of a straight line on hold. You can do a good deal of geometry without ever laying hands on what straight is, although you do have local geodesics to deal with. That is, you can deal with the surface of a sphere (geodesics), without ever having to wonder if it is straight or not.
And circle drawing does this so elegantly.
W
Hyperbolic or Spheric Space exist in the same manner as Euclidean space,that these exist without having to access the body of work of other people. That is, one can completely derive something, and later on, identify it with the existing euclidean geometry. This is what happened with circle drawing.
Curvature is a measure that corresponds to 1/radius2. One can embed a space of given curvature in one that is a lesser curvature. You can draw a 3-inch circle in a 3-inch sphere, or a 6-inch sphere, or a flat plane, but not on a 1-inch sphere. You can't even draw a fragment of a 3-inch circle on a 1-inch sphere.
One sees that a given circle can belong to (ie be part of the surface of) any sphere, and such a circle has the geometries of any embedding sphere. That is, the 3-inch circle is part of a five-inch sphere, and has the geometry of a 5-inch sphere.
When we allow zero curvature, we unite spheres with the euclidean plane, and we see that a pentagon drawn in any given circle remains a pentagon in the euclidean sense. The transform from a euclidean circle to a circle on a 5-inch sphere is a function purely of the embedding spaces etc.
The notion of hyperbolic space is simply negative curvature. We allow the curvature term to go negative. None the same, a euclidean space that spans the hyperbolic sphere is still euclidean.
Since for the main part we can not tell if the horochorix (3d zero-curvature fabric) is itself one, or embedded in some higher space (eg a 4d horochorix or 4d bollochorix), we see of our space that we _can't_ tell the general curvature of all-space, and the notion that all three geometries are the realisations of a single geometry, with a curvature term can be taken to account.
This is different to the classical model, which puts spheric, euclidean and hyperbolic geometries into their own, separate boxes. The nature of physical space is designated as dE, that is, a curvature of curvature so close to zero, but without a clear sign, that we can not tell in the large scale if the space is E or H or S.
It is possible to put the fabric of isotropic, homogeneous, isometric space into terms that make the decision of the nature of a straight line on hold. You can do a good deal of geometry without ever laying hands on what straight is, although you do have local geodesics to deal with. That is, you can deal with the surface of a sphere (geodesics), without ever having to wonder if it is straight or not.
And circle drawing does this so elegantly.
W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
-
wendy - Pentonian
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
by thigle » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:44 pm
but: what does it mean when the parameter of curvature for a given nD fabric varies through its whole range (is it <-infinity, +infinity> ?) ? or can there be such a thing as complex curvature ? or even quaternionic curvature ? 
also, has the way of observing, or perceptual modality any effect on the representation of the underlying unconditioned pre-existent geometry ? is the curvature measure the parameter somehow bound to the way of the observer, to the kind of schema used for seeing ?
do you work with projective geometry ?
and what is the single geometry that underlies the 3 different curvatures ? do you have any name for it in polygloss ?
you say that for the main part we cannot tell if the horochorix is itself one, or embedded in some higher space (4d horochorix or bollochorix).
i had this strange idea of having multiplied my visual resolution so many times, that one perceptual pixel became smaller than planck measure. so it's like planck-zoom. does the curvature of peceived space change ? or if there was a planck-fine cubic lattice embedded in this space and i planck-zoomed under planck, would the appearance of lattice curve somehow ? + or - ?
i still don't grasp circle drawing. what is this method's technique, its goals (distinction of what?) ? what does it allow one to induce ?
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
by wendy » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:45 am
a given isocurve has a single curvature. It can contain an isocurve of curvature not less than it, and a dimension less than that of the isocurve. That is, you can put a circle or a plane or sphere into 3d space, but not a glome or bollocycle.
i did not understand the perceptual modality thing...
curvature is intrinsic to the space. it's a number of the curve.
i have not got around to naming it as yet, apart from isospace. i dont know how it relates to inversion-geometry (or hypereuclidean or longsight IV).
i know the planck distance thing is just a physicical implimation. curvature has little to do with planck distance. it also has little to do with bending things. a thing is curved even when it is straight. it is there that the curvature is the same as the embedding space (such as a great circle on a sphere).
circle drawing is implemented to make polytopes. a pentagon is a euclidean pentagon regardless of what size sphere it projects onto. however, the spheric pentagon is size-dependent. i figure that you could remove the size dependency by working in euclidean planes. These intersect in other isocurves (spheres, bollospheres), in circles. So you can treat a sphere as a euclidean object as long as you use only circles, and shared chords.
the geometry of circles in this way is inversive geometry. i just took it a little further.
W
i did not understand the perceptual modality thing...
curvature is intrinsic to the space. it's a number of the curve.
i have not got around to naming it as yet, apart from isospace. i dont know how it relates to inversion-geometry (or hypereuclidean or longsight IV).
i know the planck distance thing is just a physicical implimation. curvature has little to do with planck distance. it also has little to do with bending things. a thing is curved even when it is straight. it is there that the curvature is the same as the embedding space (such as a great circle on a sphere).
circle drawing is implemented to make polytopes. a pentagon is a euclidean pentagon regardless of what size sphere it projects onto. however, the spheric pentagon is size-dependent. i figure that you could remove the size dependency by working in euclidean planes. These intersect in other isocurves (spheres, bollospheres), in circles. So you can treat a sphere as a euclidean object as long as you use only circles, and shared chords.
the geometry of circles in this way is inversive geometry. i just took it a little further.
W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
the dream we dream together is reality.
\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
-
wendy - Pentonian
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
by thigle » Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:40 pm
isospace. iso like in isotropic - same in every direction ? why iso ?
what is 'longsight IV' ?
as to the plack thing: it is often said that 4th dimensionality can be either global, or local. in the latter case, it is said to be compactified under planck-scale. i meant this 'micro-compactification' :?
what is 'longsight IV' ?
as to the plack thing: it is often said that 4th dimensionality can be either global, or local. in the latter case, it is said to be compactified under planck-scale. i meant this 'micro-compactification' :?
- thigle
- Tetronian
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm
35 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Where Should I Post This?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests