Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
What still amazes me that there are people who barely understand just the basics of 'known' mathematics and physics and then glibly expound theories that supposedly 'solve' some of the big problems. There is nothing wrong with expounding these theories but listening and understanding to any valid critical assessment of these so called theories is also part of the game. Blindly ignoring valid criticism is bordering on delusion.
Bert
|
I agree with your comment, but only in-part: Conversely, Mathematics can be used at detriment; I have seen many an idea posted as theory in mathematical form however, unless it is observed in natural state or experimentally, it is pure fantasy also. Mathematics, to me, is so plastic that almost anything can be postulated. Any idea in itself, including the supporting mathematics, is pure speculation, until show otherwise.
I once viewed mathematics was an absolute. Now I see it merely as a tool, no different than the language of English or indeed an engineering drawing...it is purely another form of communication of thought.
I know that you already know this; I just wanted to add to the conversation.
Lastly, the term I used above "experimentally" must also be viewed with skeptical analysis, because if something is NOT naturally occurring in nature, why should we offer it validity if created at the hand of man. We can never, ever, truly know if some particle - for instance - ever really existed at the beginning of the universe, even if our theories say it is so and we do see it materialise in a collider somewhere (ie are we entangled with the experiment and deriving a product of our choosing, which the universe has never seen before anyway). Such a particle should only ever be offered a status of 'Possible Particle' because mere existence of entanglement means we are always subject to interference, perhaps even some sort of [dynamic] creative interference.