Its all wrong...ALL OF IT...

[meanstotheend]

It seems to me that everyone in the "modern" world of science is becoming fanatical, much as religious fanatics. I am proud to say that i am neither. EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE HUNG UP ON ABSOLUTES...I simply wanted to state that nothing is absolute. From the basic physics equation, to the color of sunlight. In one second anything and everything could change. We have these equations and rules to bring "order" to our world (as if the natural world would alter itself to fit these rules) and understand it better. What no one seems to understand is that absolutely nothing is sure. You could wake up bright green and floating away to the moon. We make rules for things but dont understand, and even if we did there is no reason things have to follow these set patterns. The world could implode upon itself in a matter of seconds. It is as predictable as the human mind. While given a huge number of crucial variables, we could technically calculate someones future. But the problem is we could defy all logic and reasoning and do something incredably spontaneous and random that no calculation could foretell. Please view science as an explanation, not fact set in stone...only a few hundred years ago it was set in stone that sun rotated around the earth....

Any and all comments are welcome!

[RQ]

I would have to agree on this one. I also thought that there could be unexplained factors, always something small that defines chaos theory that could add up to something significant that science does not know about, but science has pretty much been correct for now.

[PWrong]

That's all very well, but what does it have to do with extra dimensions?

From the basic physics equation, to the color of sunlight.

What's this basic physics equation? It's not absolute because it doesn't exist yet. The colour of sunlight depends on where you are and some other variables, and can probably be calculated easily.

The world could implode upon itself in a matter of seconds.

The world hasn't exploded yet, and so far I've never seen anything without a possible explanation.

While given a huge number of crucial variables, we could technically calculate someones future. But the problem is we could defy all logic and reasoning and do something incredably spontaneous and random that no calculation could foretell.

If I had a traffic simulator that predicted that I would be hit by a car tomorrow, I would naturally stay inside the whole day. That doesn't mean I'm denying all logic and reason, it just means I failed to take the results of my own prediction into account.

What no one seems to understand is that absolutely nothing is sure.

This isn't completely true. Mathematics and logic will always be certain. More importantly, everyone understands that we can't predict everything with science. We can only make assumptions about things, and hope that it doesn't have an adverse affect if we're wrong.

We don't have equations to bring "order". We have equations to bring understanding, efficiency, convenience and communication, to allow you to complain to people all over the world.

If it wasn't for science and equations and so on, it would still be set in stone that the sun revolves around the Earth.

So what are you actually protesting against?

[meanstotheend]

This isn't completely true. Mathematics and logic will always be certain.

You're missing the point...science , math, and anything you can think of is NOT constant. Math is such an abstract concept, math does not exist.

The world hasn't exploded yet, and so far I've never seen anything without a possible explanation.

Youve never seen anything without explanation? That seems to be a pretty arrogant statement. Almost any process of your mind can be random, and without explanation. You can create a vague understanding, but there is NO reason that ANYTHING in your universe should follow the patterns that they have, no matter what you say.

If I had a traffic simulator that predicted that I would be hit by a car tomorrow, I would naturally stay inside the whole day. That doesn't mean I'm denying all logic and reason, it just means I failed to take the results of my own prediction into account.

With ENOUGH variables. Had it taken into account your brain process, your past experiences, your ideals and any other detail that may influence the outcome, you wouldnt be able to calculate it to a certainty. Maybe things would have procceded that way 99,999,999,999 out of 100,000,000,000 times, that still won't account for that 1 time. That one time, that everything was thrown out the window.

The colour of sunlight depends on where you are and some other variables, and can probably be calculated easily.

You are overanalyzing what I am saying. I am saying that you could go to sleep and wake up in a flat white plane...for no real reason. NOTHING HAS to happen the way it does. The sun could glow bright pink tomorrow. Just because it hasn't happened, that doesn't mean it wont.


The only thing I'm "protesting" is everyones blind faith in science. Much as people flock to churches and temples, people seem to want to believe in science and follow it without thinking. People seem to take for instance evolution to heart when science truly is lacking its proof. Conclusions are jumped to and it bothers me.

[RQ]

Although I see ur point, I was thinking of something much more fundamental, such as an undiscovered subparticle which could add up to something (just like gravity does, I mean with little matter, none of us would have ever known about gravity).
Math is an application of the real world. you don't technically see math walking around. Science is not faulty as has been proven and is over and over. Practically randomness is either Brownian motion, which has an equation by Einstein about the distance in water that a piece would travel perpendicular to the direction of gravity (t^2 for the time it took it to get that far from the initial place of position and after t^2 it will get on the other side by that much).
I don't think that if a traffic meter said that you would be hit by a car today, would be a valid statement, since it has to do with fate vs. free will.

[meanstotheend]

lol, I understand what you're saying and all. It just seems nowadays that we are following the same patterns that people have followed for thousands of yearrs. We think things are this way and we go with it. We dont question or challenge things as a group. It ends up being the select few who create the paradigm shifts, and they dont always pan out as we would have hoped.

The one thing that I really want to get across is nothing is absolute and everytihng is relative :/....but thats just me. lol...

[RQ]

well, we know that 1+1=2 for starters, and there are proofs for all theorems, + science has been doing its job very well lately.

[PWrong]

I don't see why you think science is like a religion. We don't believe in science and follow it without thinking at all. The only way we can learn science at all is by thinking about it.

I'm sure it's possible that something random and unpredictable could happen. Some things are impossible to predict with our current methods. But we can usually find an explanation after the event, and if not, we can speculate on possible explanations.

People have to believe in something, whether it's science or religion. If everything is totally random as you say, then we have no control over our lives. We might as well off a bridge, because otherwise a random force might throw us off anyway. In fact, a totally random universe would just even out into a thick soup of matter.

I think RQ's right, you're confusing randomness with chaos theory.

Chaos is indeed unpredictable, but if you put exactly the same variables in twice, you'll always get the same result. However, if one of these variables differs slightly, it can have a big impact on the whole system.

The universe is only unpredictable because we're too dumb to predict it completely. Our supercomputers just aren't big enough.

We are definitely not following the same patterns as we have for thousands of years. Look around and see the differences.

Your philosophies are interesting, but you can't go much further with the premise that nothing is certain. If nothing is certain, why bother thinking about it?

[meanstotheend]

What I am trying to say isn't that we can't compute the variables or anything. I suppose the best way I can phrase it is "Why?" We seem to think that all around us, things operate the way we have anticipated, but there is no reason for it to do so. An atom split causes a huge reaction. Why should it? We ahve our reasons and explanations, but there is no promise that it will do that every time. You could split an atom in a few weeks, and it says in plain english "you suck."

You have explanations for everything, but what happens when they don't apply anymore. When you can't explain something for acting sporadically. All I am saying is that everything we know could be turned on its head, and there is nothing we could do about it.

If nothing is certain, it's all the more reason to think about it...

[Aale de Winkel]

but what happens when they don't apply anymore.

These kind of instancies falsifies the theory, which thus should be modified. These kind of views are held by phylosophers as Popper.
Note that any theory we have are mere descriptions of the observed, if some Cochrane find means to travel faster then the speed of light, without traveling to the past then Einstein was wrong and some new theory has to be formulated.
Even 1 + 1 = 2, if someone says to me 1 + 1 = 10 he is right too, he simply uses the binairy number system. Though I must say mathematics is the most solidly defined "universal language" I can imagine.
Every other theory is a "Poperian falsifiable" description of what is observed, and every good scientist allows for this to happen. Iff not he is indeed a religeous fanatic, who says the earth is flat, while even the ancient greek scientist calculated the diameter of the earth and knew it was round.

But still uptill Cochrane invents his warp-drive I'm limited to Einsteintonian physics, which says that no information can travel faster then the speed of light.
.

[Geosphere]

Without agreed upon definition, there is no way to discuss. For example, let us say I no longer agree that the word 'it' is an object, but replace it with 'I' as a being. The heck with that, let's just say I replace every word in my language with the next one listed in Websters 10th dictionary.

If I did that, thenar myalgia langue appearance randomize, butadiene itaconic isallobar nota.

So, instead, we agree upon terms of discussion, unless you can redefine them. If anyone really needs to, they can decipher what I wrote, since I defined my cypher.

"It is all wrong" - fully acceptable.

Unless you can redefine to a new agreed standard, and then you are simply spouting objections. Not acceptable in either philosophical or scientific terms.

Don't wast time with objection until you have a solution.

[RQ]

True on the Banzaaf power index (concerned with voting) 1+1 might as well = 10, but in application of physical objects x+x=2x and that makes it 2.

[jordan]

1+1=2 is still bias. i beleive also that absolutly nothing is absolute. but i will say that having absolutes keeps everything a little bit more civil.

[RQ]

There is a really simple and fundamental proof of why x=x.
If we are to assume that x is a constant value while in the equation (that is even if x on one side were 2 and x on the other was 1 the two Xes would cancel each other out) then for two numbers y and z that when added=x, we have
y+z=x

y=x-z

(x-z)+z=x

X=X!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[meanstotheend]

Given a=b

a^2=ab

a^2-b^2=ab-b^2

(a-b)(a+b)=(a-b)b

a+b=b

a+a=a

2=1

I think mine is better :/...

[RQ]

this could work with 0, but you are dividing by 0 (a-b) so no, mine is better lol

[PWrong]

I was just about to say the same thing. You can't divide by zero, even when you hide it behind something. I once came up with an interesting puzzle that's also related to dividing by zero.


Imagine a virus that can kill you even when you're not infected with it. Even if you couldn't possibly be infected by it, and it will never infect anything else, it kills you instantly. In fact even if it doesn't exist, it is still deadly. There is no such thing as a virus like this, so the question is this:

Why aren't we all dead?

I'll let you have some guesses before I tell you the answer.

[RQ]

Because we're not.

Anyway. Although some squared polynomials, such as x^2-3x+2=0 may arise some complications as to the division by zero, since (x-2)(x-1)=x^2-3x+2 and if we divide x^2-3x+2/(x-2) we get x-1. In this case 2 and 1 are both solutions for x. However if two were a solution, then I suppose that you would have to divide by x-1 to get x-2=0; For double roots, there is a real trouble, since both are the same expressions.
For example the square root of x^2-2x+1, its roots would be 1dr, since (x-1)(x-1)=x^2-2x+1. If we attempt to divide, by either expression we do get the other, but it is dividing by zero nontheless.
I suppose that would mean that 0/0=0. But if we are to divide x^2-3x+2 by 0, we wouldn't get 0, we would get 1, or -1(depending on whether the value of x is 2 or 1). Would this then mean that if 0/0=0 and 1, 0=1?
I suppose not. Just like the solutions x^2=49, are 7 and -7, but they dont equal each other, then so would 0/0 equal all numbers (since there are an infinite amount of polynomial expressions that equal 0).

Back to the example of a^2=ab, when we divide (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b)=(a-b)b/(a-b), I suppose the 0/0 would have to equal a (b), since otherwise it wouldn't work.

[FK]

manstoodtheend:

youve got some good points in what you are saying, and yes we cannot proove, that the sun is bright, or that 1+1 is two. not absolutely.

yes, we can proove it with math (and i tend to believe in math) but we cannot proove if math, in itself is right.

why?

becouse we cannot proove, that the information, that our senses give us are right.

up until here i agrea with you.

BUT:

- there is one thing that is certain and that is, that i exist (you could be an illusion).


- if you would stop and think about what you said, than you would realise that your post does not make much sence ... you are trying to proove that science is wrong by science ... (predicting the human mind or not)

- math is one of the simplest concepts in the world... its all there is in the long run ... math (i am including physics, chemistry biolagy etc. in it... since it all brakes down to math)

- i believe there is one question without an answer/explenation and that is: "why do we/the world excist" for everything else there is a scientific explenation

- there was this french philosopher, who said

"the only real philosophical question is: Will i commit suicide, or not"

there is no answer to "why do we live" we can only either except that, or commit suicide, either in phyicly killing ourselfs, or in committing mental suicide, by searching for an answer in religion or science.

ok ... i am defnatly starting to ramble..

cheers
FK

p.s.

has anybody here read asymov?
becouse we where talking about predicting peoples actions... i find his theory highly plousible...

[meanstotheend]

how am i disproving science with science?...all im saying is that all the fundamental rules and truths in our lives and universe could change from second to another for no reason...

[RQ]

Well, to clear up even further if x were to equal both 1 and 2, since they are equal, then x-x=0, and x=x, where 1=2. I suppose there isn't an ultimately fool proof, but there could be, that if we suppose that 1=2, we can disprove it otherwise. I guess that's where our application of math comes in.

[RQ]

I mean, sure perspective is everything. Whether it is actually eyes, or objects colliding. It is a common misconception to think of observing with the senses. Although that is how we record our data, there is also the objects colliding with each other and stuff.

[PWrong]

RQ, you can stop talking about dividing by zero now. We understand what's wrong with the proof already. Since you just passed off my question, you obviously didn't understand why it's relevant to dividing by zero.

We can say that the "deadliness" of the virus = 1/0, which is undefined. If 0 people are infected, the virus will still kill one person. So it should be able to kill someone, despite the fact that it doesn't exist. There's only one reason why it hasn't killed anyone:
There is no cure for it either.

Anyway, if noone understands that, it's my problem and I won't push it any further.

On the subject of observing things, the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle does say that we can't measure anything exactly, but we can calculate the probability of something using quantum mechanics. So theoretically, we could find out just how likely it is that the sun will be purple tommorow, if you really want to.

I think that French philosopher sums it up very well. I've read some of Asimov's books. Are you referring to the Foundation Trilogy? As far as I remember, most of his other books were about robots.

[FK]

foundation it is

the actions of an individual person cannot be predicted, but if the group of people is large enough, the actions of the group can be prodicted, as long as they dont find out what the prediction is...

or summin like that ... its a pretty plousible idea actually...

[meanstotheend]

no they cannot be predicted to a certainty....it can be caluclated to the 99.999999999999999% but no way in hell to 100%...

[Geosphere]

a^2=ab

How?

[meanstotheend]

it begins with the given a=b....

[Watters]

Any one heard of M-theroy.

It deals witht he fact that we have liek 3 different types of science to do different thigns, General relitivty doesn't wrok on a small partical base level, just like quantum mechanics (particals) dosen't work on Big things, ANd newtonian physics doesn't work on small or large ect. there is one science for differnet things and there for they all have to be wrong to some degree else they should all work for EVERY THING. untill we find a science where every thign works out on all different scales then science isn't complete. Not to say that basic thigns like 1+1=2 isn't true becuase that is basic enoguth to work on all scales, the fact that 1+1=2 in some situation (black hoels, spacial anomoyles) means that the formuals governing thouse situations are worung.

Any comments on M-Theroy would be much aprecated.

[Aale de Winkel]

A search for "M-theory" on http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/ gave me too many an option to be of help.
I do simply think gravity effects on the scale of elementairy particle exists but are simply too puny due to the particle small masses, or their velocities. Note that particle masses are calculated in particle rest-frames with the means of formulae Einstein cs formulated. Also the distance between particles are relatively large, so gravity would perhaps be something as the effect our solar system would have on the next.

But note, gravity is the one force that is difficult to combine with the rest of the forces into one unified theory. I don't know what the curent status is on that, since I didn't keep track on this. Supersymmetry was not the field I studied in great detail in the 1980's, I merely glanced at it.

[Watters]

All i realy know about it is that they are considering that gravity has two forces, it pulls things close to it worwadrs it pushs thgist hat are realy far. I remember someithg abou it being called a "gravtron" or something liek that. It is a massless charge like thing that controls teh gravity of objects. don't know that much abou it