What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?

[Texas_Roofer]

Since science needs mathematical precision to be successful mathematical quantities and proportions must be essential features of physical reality - and not arbitrarily superimposed. Numbers are not fictions but facts.

The fact that the Poisson distribution reflects so effectively the probability of events occurring in a specific period of time is convincing evidence that it is not an arbitrarily superimposed mathematical game.

I would think probability is the key word. When you write “and not arbitrarily superimposed” I agree 100% and the key word is imposed. It would seem to me if the math is imposed the math is abstract and not real, if there is a probability or distribution then it is not real as a real thing exists and thus would be void of probability. A chevy truck is real, while a 26% chance of a chevy truck is an abstract concept typical of a Poisson distribution.

 

[cho_pilo]

Since science needs mathematical precision to be successful mathematical quantities and proportions must be essential features of physical reality - and not arbitrarily superimposed. Numbers are not fictions but facts.

Which, as far as I can tell, amounts to saying that we can measure things. If that’s what you mean by “mathematics and the material universe are inextricably related”, your expression is misleading and histrionic.

The fact that the Poisson distribution reflects so effectively the probability of events occurring in a specific period of time is convincing evidence that it is not an arbitrarily superimposed mathematical game.

Which doesn’t amount to an implication, all it amounts to is psychological justification for a personal belief. I dont share your belief, unless all you’re saying is that we can measure things.

 

[inocente]

Which doesn’t amount to an implication, all it amounts to is psychological justification for a personal belief. I dont share your belief, unless all you’re saying is that we can measure things.

There’s an elegant algorithm in computer science known as the binary search.

Suppose we want to find a specific item amongst 1,000 items, a binary search need only look at 10 while a sequential search would on average need to look at 500. More impressively, to locate an item amongst a billion items, the binary search need only look at 30 of them.

It appears far too beautiful to be a human invention, yet it seems unused by nature, it’s as if it was sat there for billions of years just waiting to be discovered.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The reality is the same for daltonics and normal people?

Why would it be different? Just because someone is color blind, it does not mean that they perceive reality differently than ‘normal’ people (assuming that you could even define what is a normal person).

Your story is different. in My story, which hand to believe?

My story illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the concept you first produced. You must believe both hands, obviously; they are not giving you contradictory evidence about the temperature of the water, your hands are only giving you information about the relative temperature of the water. That is, all you can determine is that the latter bucket of water is warmer than the cold water and colder than the hot water. Since you said that it is ‘warm’ (and taking the normal “cold → cool → warm → hot” direction of temperatures), you have determined a fact that is consistent with reality: the latter bucket is between the two extremes.

Sorry, Mickey Mouse exists. Imagination is real. So real that the Empire State Building is a fruit of Imagination.

Again, you are confusing real with reality. Real means actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed, reality means the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Mickey Mouse is part of reality, but he doesn’t exist (isn’t real): he has no voice of his own, he has no locomotive abilities, he has no reproductive abilities, he is but a drawing on a piece of paper. Similarly, the imagination is not real, it has no physical qualities.
And note that you carefully inserted the word “fruit” in the last sentence there; the Empire State building is the fruit of imagination. That is, the Empire State Building exists because someone applied their imagining of the building and built it. Before it was laid on paper, the ESB was only part of someone’s non-physical imagination.

Never heard of a Metaphor and personification and Prosopopeic?

That is surely not a metaphor, a metaphor takes a tangible item to explain an intangible item (like saying that one’s eyes glistened like a star). I do not believe it is a personification either, since you gave nothing human qualities (people don’t fall from clouds, nor are people clouds). Nor is it prosopopoea, as you are not speaking as someone else (a prosopopeic is more like saying, “If Miller Huggins was alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave”).
So, go ahead and try again: it is a nonsensical statement. Nonsense literally means, “words that make no sense.” Those words make no sense by themselves, you need to offer an explanation to make sense of it. Again, this is my point: until mathematics is related to the physical, it does not mean anyhting.

Show me an electron, a proton, the air, the last star of the Universe, the bosom of Higgins, energy, a neutron, show me how come ONE photon can pass TWO HOLES AT THE SAME TIME to reach the same point, shoe me a black hole, and the 97% of black matter that constitutes the Universe… - 2 apples is a basket where there are missing 2 apples !!! I cannot show i now but give me time and I will show.

–I cannot show you an electron or a proton, but I can show you effects caused by them
–I cannot show you the air, but I can tell you it exists by simple experiments.
–I doubt the last star of the universe has been made yet, since star formation, even in this galaxy which is nearly as old as the universe, is still making them.
–I imagine you mean the Higgs Boson, rather than the bosom of Higgins, but scientists have not yet found its tracks in the LHC. And, as with the electron and proton, you cannot see them, but only see effects of their interactions.
–de Broglie-Bohm theory (also known as pilot wave theory) suggests that it is only the mathematical construct, the wavefunction, that ‘passes’ through both slits, but the photon will physically only go through one slit.
–You should know that you cannot see a black hole, but Hubble has taken some nice photos of black holes surrounded by material (the material is visible).
–I do not believe that dark matter & dark energy are correct, they are fudge factors in calculations. I prefer the f(R) theories over the more-popular Lambda-CDM theories; the f(R) (that is, the function of the Ricci tensor) affects the action integral.
–You cannot show me -2 apples, because negative numbers do not exist. If you remove 2 apples from the basket, where do they go? Into your hand? On the ground? They still exist. If you eat them, then you are changing the form and the question becomes moot. Similarly, one cannot show i anything, as i is short for imaginary: it does not exist. It is a mathematical construct that has no physical correlation.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Sorry, your answer interested me. What do you do when you exhaust the tools of maths? What do you do next?
In my idea, you would have to invent new math tools but your answer seems to imply not.

Math is actually good at helping us understand just how daunting and infinite the real world is.

Sure, we can express in math a hint at the real complexity of things, and even describe how infinitely complex it really is. Only math can do that. But math also points directly to the true infiniteness of the universe

Let me give an example. We can express Maxwell’s equations as a complete theoretical construct - a set of coupled hyperbolic partial differential equations. But then we know that if we try to relate these equations to the real world and make use of them, the parameters that describe matter are in general transcendental (in time and space) tensors. So they are just a place holder for the most general function we can think of. So all the math does is give us a description of infinity.

We truncate and approximate these high order transcendental functions to reduce the problem down to something we can grapple with.

Many folks (undergraduates) only understand the simplified equations and erroneously think they have in their hands a mathematical model for a piece of the universe - when in fact, it is just an approximation.

There is no need to invent higher math. The math itself is an expression of the infinitely complex universe that we choose to truncate to map the infinite world to our finite minds. The key is to remember that you made an approximation, and don’t get cocky.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Math is actually good at helping us understand just how daunting and infinite the real world is.

Sure, we can express in math a hint at the real complexity of things, and even describe how infinitely complex it really is. Only math can do that. But math also points directly to the true infiniteness of the universe

Let me give an example. We can express Maxwell’s equations as a complete theoretical construct - a set of coupled hyperbolic partial differential equations. But then we know that if we try to relate these equations to the real world and make use of them, the parameters that describe matter are in general transcendental (in time and space) tensors. So they are just a place holder for the most general function we can think of. So all the math does is give us a description of infinity.

We truncate and approximate these high order transcendental functions to reduce the problem down to something we can grapple with.

Many folks (undergraduates) only understand the simplified equations and erroneously think they have in their hands a mathematical model for a piece of the universe - when in fact, it is just an approximation.

There is no need to invent higher math. The math itself is an expression of the infinitely complex universe that we choose to truncate to map the infinite world to our finite minds. The key is to remember that you made an approximation, and don’t get cocky.

thanks for the explanation.
I disagree on the higher maths.

You need to invent higher and higher maths. There was a theorem that was proved a few yeas ago. It took 700 pages to explain and only 10/12 people would understand it and may say that the man proved the theory.

Riight, I think we need more and more of these. Why? For the same reason Sir Edmund Hillary explained when asked why did he conquer Everest. He said: “because it is there!”

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Why would it be different? Just because someone is color blind, it does not mean that they perceive reality differently than ‘normal’ people (assuming that you could even define what is a normal person).

Mickey Mouse is part of reality, but he doesn’t exist (isn’t real): he has no voice of his own, he has no locomotive abilities, he has no reproductive abilities, he is but a drawing on a piece of paper. Similarly, the imagination is not real, it has no physical qualities.
And note that you carefully inserted the word “fruit” in the last sentence there; the Empire State building is the fruit of imagination. That is, the Empire State Building exists because someone applied their imagining of the building and built it. Before it was laid on paper, the ESB was only part of someone’s non-physical imagination.

That is surely not a metaphor, a metaphor takes a tangible item to explain an intangible item (like saying that one’s eyes glistened like a star). I do not believe it is a personification either, since you gave nothing human qualities (people don’t fall from clouds, nor are people clouds). Nor is it prosopopoea, as you are not speaking as someone else (a prosopopeic is more like saying, “If Miller Huggins was alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave”).
So, go ahead and try again: it is a nonsensical statement. Nonsense literally means, “words that make no sense.” Those words make no sense by themselves, you need to offer an explanation to make sense of it. Again, this is my point: until mathematics is related to the physical, it does not mean anyhting.

–I cannot show you an electron or a proton, but I can show you effects caused by them
–I cannot show you the air, but I can tell you it exists by simple experiments.
–I doubt the last star of the universe has been made yet, since star formation, even in this galaxy which is nearly as old as the universe, is still making them.
–I imagine you mean the Higgs Boson, rather than the bosom of Higgins, but scientists have not yet found its tracks in the LHC. And, as with the electron and proton, you cannot see them, but only see effects of their interactions.
–de Broglie-Bohm theory (also known as pilot wave theory) suggests that it is only the mathematical construct, the wavefunction, that ‘passes’ through both slits, but the photon will physically only go through one slit.
–You should know that you cannot see a black hole, but Hubble has taken some nice photos of black holes surrounded by material (the material is visible).
–I do not believe that dark matter & dark energy are correct, they are fudge factors in calculations. I prefer the f(R) theories over the more-popular Lambda-CDM theories; the f(R) (that is, the function of the Ricci tensor) affects the action integral.
–You cannot show me -2 apples, because negative numbers do not exist. If you remove 2 apples from the basket, where do they go? Into your hand? On the ground? They still exist. If you eat them, then you are changing the form and the question becomes moot. Similarly, one cannot show i anything, as i is short for imaginary: it does not exist. It is a mathematical construct that has no physical correlation.

1. Sorry, daltonics see reality differently, as snakes, rhinos, bats, eagles. Some are blind, others see in infra red, others in sonar wave length. All see it differently. Even a woman and a man see the same street differently. So, there is a firm boundary beteween perception and reality as you want to put it?.

2.That is your conclusion. Either hand gives you a different sensation. Suppose that instead of hands you had 2 diferent termometers and they behaved the same way. What conclusion would you take? ******and what about mirages? And the delay between the thunder and the lightning? Are they at the same time or not? And about Doppler effect? Whcich is the sound of the train? And the wavelenghth of the stars?

1. Mickey mouse is real. Tell that he is not real to the people that earn their living at His expenses. Mickey mouse is as real as a chip, a car and a plain, fruit of man’s imagination. What is the difference of a ship and Mickey Mouse? A ship is real and Mickey Mouse not? The disctionction between real and reality is so thin that I cannot realize it. Mickey Mouse is not a 2D character but a 3D with locomotion and voice and character of his own.
2. Let’s stop the definition of the speech style. If you that the roses fall, the roses fall. If you may, My Wife is a Jewel, she is not like a jewel, she is a jewel. If you say that your daughter is a rose, she is a rose, actually.

5.A person in love understand immediately what the sentence means without explanation. As for 2, you do not need apples. The number 2 has got an existence by himself as much as E=mc2. The math language is a metaphorical one.

6.You state that things that you cannot see are infered by reasoning, experiments and intelligence. I cannot show you -2 apples, and you cannot show me an electron. But you reason and I reason, that my three children must have 2 apples each. But I brought from the kitchen just 4 which I divided by two. I tell you that my 3rd child, though 3 years old, he knows pretty well what is -2 apples.

1. How do you explain the extradordinary thing I cannot give examples for I belong to the Literature area) that some maths invented by man anfd fruit of pure specutalion be used by an engineers later on to do something estremely pratical?

 

[tonyrey]

There’s an elegant algorithm in computer science known as the binary search.

Suppose we want to find a specific item amongst 1,000 items, a binary search need only look at 10 while a sequential search would on average need to look at 500. More impressively, to locate an item amongst a billion items, the binary search need only look at 30 of them.

It appears far too beautiful to be a human invention, yet it seems unused by nature, it’s as if it was sat there for billions of years just waiting to be discovered.

Thank you for that observation!

 

[tonyrey]

Since science needs mathematical precision to be successful mathematical quantities and proportions must be essential features of physical reality - and not arbitrarily superimposed. Numbers are not fictions but facts.

Which, as far as I can tell, amounts to saying that we can measure things. If that’s what you mean by “mathematics and the material universe are inextricably related”, your expression is misleading and histrionic.
Your reaction is misleading and histrionic because it’s not what I mean! Mathematics is far more than measurement…

The fact that the Poisson distribution reflects so effectively the probability of events occurring in a specific period of time is convincing evidence that it is not an arbitrarily superimposed mathematical game.

Which doesn’t amount to an implication, all it amounts to is psychological justification for a personal belief.
Do you know anyone who rejects that belief? All knowledge is based on personal beliefs!

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

1. Sorry, daltonics see reality differently, as snakes, rhinos, bats, eagles. Some are blind, others see in infra red, others in sonar wave length. All see it differently. Even a woman and a man see the same street differently. So, there is a firm boundary beteween perception and reality as you want to put it?.

All of these people & animals see things differently, but they still perceive reality quite the same as ‘normal’ people.

2.That is your conclusion. Either hand gives you a different sensation. Suppose that instead of hands you had 2 diferent termometers and they behaved the same way. What conclusion would you take? ******and what about mirages? And the delay between the thunder and the lightning? Are they at the same time or not? And about Doppler effect? Whcich is the sound of the train? And the wavelenghth of the stars?

–It is not my conclusion, it is the only conclusion. The sensations are true sensations and can only give you relational information about the sensations.
–If I had two different thermometers and they gave two different values (and by different, I assume beyond decimal place differences that could arise in mislabeling the tick marks of the thermometer), I would assume they were broken. Thermometers are designed to give exact readings of materials they are in contact with, if they behave otherwise they are poorly designed and/or broken.
–What about mirages? Are they real? Yes and no. They represent real objects, but they are not where the object is truly located. They are much like mirrors: does a mirror show you you, or does it show you a spatially-shifted you (technically speaking, it is also a temporally-shifted you as well, but at the close distances used, one cannot perceive the temporal delay)?
–As per lightning and thunder, the event that causes both happen at the same time, but due to traveling speed differences they occur separately to those further away from the source.
–The sound of the train is what you hear. The stationary observer hears the whistle differently from the co-moving observer due to the traveling waves. Both are correct. Similarly with the wavelength of stars.

I’m not sure why you’re introducing such well-known concepts into such an argument. The events causing the observed effect occur in simultaneity, even though the observations of the events occur succession. Both are purely physical and consistent logically.

1. Mickey mouse is real. Tell that he is not real to the people that earn their living at His expenses. Mickey mouse is as real as a chip, a car and a plain, fruit of man’s imagination. What is the difference of a ship and Mickey Mouse? A ship is real and Mickey Mouse not? The disctionction between real and reality is so thin that I cannot realize it. Mickey Mouse is not a 2D character but a 3D with locomotion and voice and character of his own.

Mickey Mouse is a drawing on a piece of paper, he is not real. He exists as a drawing, sure. But is he himself real? No.
The distinction between real and reality is not thin, and I imagine that your confusion between the two is what is causing your trouble in recognizing that animated characters are not actually real.

1. Let’s stop the definition of the speech style. If you that the roses fall, the roses fall. If you may, My Wife is a Jewel, she is not like a jewel, she is a jewel. If you say that your daughter is a rose, she is a rose, actually.

You are the one who started the definitions of speech by asserting that your nonsensical phrase was one of them, I pointed out that it fits in the “none of them” category. If your wife’s name is Jewel, sure she is a Jewel (capital J, not lowercase, to be sure); otherwise she is not a jewel but like a jewel. My daughter is not a rose, she is a human being; just because I could compare her to a rose (in that she’s pretty like a rose), it does not mean that she is actually a rose.

5.A person in love understand immediately what the sentence means without explanation. As for 2, you do not need apples. The number 2 has got an existence by himself as much as E=mc2. The math language is a metaphorical one.

You may not need apples, but you need to ascribe 2 to something for the number to have any meaning. The number 2 and the equation E=mc[sup]2[/sup] are true mathematical terms, but they have no meaning until you say that you have 2 apples or that E is the energy of the particle, m is the mass of the particle, and c is the speed of light. But by itself, E=mc[sup]2[/sup] is meaningless.

6.You state that things that you cannot see are infered by reasoning, experiments and intelligence. I cannot show you -2 apples, and you cannot show me an electron. But you reason and I reason, that my three children must have 2 apples each. But I brought from the kitchen just 4 which I divided by two. I tell you that my 3rd child, though 3 years old, he knows pretty well what is -2 apples.

Your example only furthers my assertion: mathematics is meaningless until you assign a physical relation. 4/2 = 2 is useless by itself, until you say: “I had 4 apples and gave them evenly to my 2 children, they then had 2 apples each.”
And I can assure you that your 3 year old probably knows full well that he cannot show you -2 apples. I suggest you ask him to do so, and he’ll probably be confused. My 4 year old nephew got confused when I asked him the same thing.

continued…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

continued…

1. How do you explain the extradordinary thing I cannot give examples for I belong to the Literature area) that some maths invented by man anfd fruit of pure specutalion be used by an engineers later on to do something estremely pratical?

As far as I know, all math developed has had physical applications as its origin.

 

[cho_pilo]

Mathematics is far more than measurement…

Go on then, tell me about it.

Do you know anyone who rejects that belief?

Asking questions is not demonstrating implications. Last chance on this, what is the implication? Spell out the argument.

All knowledge is based on personal beliefs!

Irrelevant.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

continued…

As far as I know, all math developed has had physical applications as its origin.

Let me simplify for the details are too much.

1. You seem to refuse that imagination belong to the reality, it is not something of another world. THE IMAGINATION is in this world it is NOT in a separate world.
2. When I see a wall, I do not say that it diffuses 3 micron (for example) wavelengths, but you say it is red. You do not say that to your ear reached 1 micron wavelengths but that you hear a violin. And you do not say that the wall is red but it is not red because it is the sensation of wavelengths…no one has the patience to have such a talk. The instructed people may distinguish but ordinary people just say “red”.
3. You say “normal”. But what is normal? The horses and dogs see at night. Maybe they are normal and we are abnormal. And the concept of normality if diffused. Man uses telescopes, microscopes, infra-red and ultra-sound instruments, resonance ones and all the kinds of helpers to view nature in the “realities” that we do not see. You may use instruments do see the nature as a snake sees it (normal for her!)
4. You asked me for -2 apples and I gave the example. You did not like it. But I tell you my experience. I taught my kids ( 5 year olds), playing, the numbers, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. And backwards; 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0. And once, in the car, I asked “and behind zero?”. He stopped. And I said: “-1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7,-8,-9” ; and then “-9,-8,-7,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0”. I needed once and both of them learnt the sequence. In a short while, and they were 5 year olds, they did operations like “2-7”, after a few intermediary steps. If I worried about if they understood what -7 meant? Neither I understand what an irrational number is or even what the quality “number” is. As long as they understood the logic of Maths, I did not care about Physics. But I love physics.

I changed the tone as it was becoming too complicated.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Let me simplify for the details are too much.

1. You seem to refuse that imagination belong to the reality, it is not something of another world. THE IMAGINATION is in this world it is NOT in a separate world.

Imagination has no tangible substance to it, so it’s not real in that sense. However, it is part of reality, something I agree with.

1. When I see a wall, I do not say that it diffuses 3 micron (for example) wavelengths, but you say it is red. You do not say that to your ear reached 1 micron wavelengths but that you hear a violin. And you do not say that the wall is red but it is not red because it is the sensation of wavelengths…no one has the patience to have such a talk. The instructed people may distinguish but ordinary people just say “red”.

Agreed, people say things of which they can formally speak of through experience. I could say such things about wavelengths in regards to sound and light due to my formal training as a physicist, but a limited number of people would understand.

1. You say “normal”. But what is normal? The horses and dogs see at night. Maybe they are normal and we are abnormal. And the concept of normality if diffused. Man uses telescopes, microscopes, infra-red and ultra-sound instruments, resonance ones and all the kinds of helpers to view nature in the “realities” that we do not see. You may use instruments do see the nature as a snake sees it (normal for her!)

Actually, you are the one who said normal, to which I had stated, “as if you could even define normal.” Please do not confuse the arguments you have made with the ones that I have made.

1. You asked me for -2 apples and I gave the example. You did not like it. But I tell you my experience. I taught my kids ( 5 year olds), playing, the numbers, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. And backwards; 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0. And once, in the car, I asked “and behind zero?”. He stopped. And I said: “-1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7,-8,-9” ; and then “-9,-8,-7,-6,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0”. I needed once and both of them learnt the sequence. In a short while, and they were 5 year olds, they did operations like “2-7”, after a few intermediary steps. If I worried about if they understood what -7 meant? Neither I understand what an irrational number is or even what the quality “number” is. As long as they understood the logic of Maths, I did not care about Physics. But I love physics.

Taking 2 apples from a basket does not mean you have -2 apples. It means your basket has 0 apples and your hand has 2. There is no -2 apples there. So by all means, try again. Also, informing them of the number line as it extends to negative numbers is not equivalent to asking them to show you -2 apples, which I will, again, ask you to ask them.

 

[hecd2]

tonyrey:

Mathematics is far more than measurement…

Go on then, tell me about it.

Well mathematics is far far more than measurement, and the use of mathematics in science goes far beyond using it as a framework for measurement. I think what Tony is saying here is that the fact that mathematics can be used to describe reality is both surprising (in the sense that it is not self-evident) and significant. Why should an abstract arbitrary set of procedures (a mathematics starts with a set of axioms and rules and is the set of all true propositions that are well formed statements) yield theorems that have connection to external reality? Another way of asking this question is why is external reality capable of being described by mathematics? There is no a priori reason why this should be so.

It is one of the greatest wonders of the universe to me that it is so, not just superficially, say with the correspondence between counting objects and the natural numbers, but with much subtler and complicated matters. The fact that the gravitational influence of one body on another can be described in straightforward mathematical terms and yet the use of that very simple expression in conjunction with the calculus is capable of describing any number of natural phenomena to a high degree of precision is astonishing. Why should gravity go as the inverse square of distance - why not to the -3.765402 power, or a different relationship in the UK and the USA or something on Fridays and something else on Sundays; or something entirely disorganised, unintelligible and undescribable?

Physics is rife with cases where an abstract mathematics was developed and where some years or decades later physicists found that it could be used to describe some aspect of reality. Examples abound from complex numbers to non-Euclidean geometries, symmetry groups and quaternions. This is a matter for wonder.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… Why should gravity go as the inverse square of distance - why not to the -3.765402 power…

Because math provided a endless set of such terms “the inverse square” is the one which matched, otherwise you would simply list the one which did matched.

…, or a different relationship in the UK and the USA or something on Fridays and something else on Sundays…

Because the source is the same, or again we would subdivide the question to match the sources

… or something entirely disorganised, unintelligible and undescribable?..

and there it is only when the “knowledge” is disorganised, unintelligible and undescribable does math fail, however never forget we cannot separate if the subject is viod of source verses us not knowing the existing source. Which a key issue in statistics, maybe their is no variation, no probablity, and no distribution, only unknown sources.

It is all accuracy there is no precision?

hope that helps

 

[hecd2]

As far as I know, all math developed has had physical applications as its origin.

I don’t think that’s true. Rather the converse - in most cases the physical applications have come long after the theorems have been proven.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Because math provided a endless set of such terms “the inverse square” is the one which matched, otherwise you would simply list the one which did matched. Because the source is the same, or again we would subdivide the question to match the sources and there it is only when the “knowledge” is disorganised, unintelligible and undescribable does math fail, however never forget we cannot separate if the subject is viod of source verses us not knowing the existing source. Which a key issue in statistics, maybe their is no variation, no probablity, and no distribution, only unknown sources.

It is all accuracy there is no precision?

hope that helps

I think that you have comprehensively misunderstood my point.

Alec

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think that you have comprehensively misunderstood my point.

Alec

I don’t think that’s true. **Rather the converse - in most cases the physical applications have come long after **the theorems have been proven.

Alec

Wow, and just how were these “theorems” proven? And if you do not mind -referenced for comparison purposes? And I’ll only mention in passing motivated.

For example when Einstein theorized the bending of light by gravity he had to accept or reject gravity affecting all things. So the unproven theory was motivated by the observations of gravity. And referenced by comparison of a picture of light during a solar eclipse verses the same picture with no solar eclipse.

I hope that helps

 

[tonyrey]

Mathematics is far more than measurement…
Do you know anyone who rejects that belief?

I don’t have discussions with persons who are discourteous (“Go on tell me about it…Last chance… Spell out the argument.”

All knowledge is based on personal beliefs!

Irrelevant.

False!

It’s obviously far too complicated…