So, I kind of view Maths as 'hard-core' logic. There are proofs in Maths.
I think many people overlook the intrinsic logic in Mathematics. All they see is numbers and they get lost in the machinations.
However, maths upholds logic (in the background) whilst 'other' things are happening, during say, a maths procedure.
But if an attempt at a mathematical proof is flawed (or in logical error), it is much easier to see, for all observers. (Ie as compared with some kind of verbal debate and the necessity to apply 'Logical Fallacy' distinctions, to reveal the flaws).
I'll use Mathis as an example. His 'proofs' seem to be a direct attack on the logic intrinsic to mathematics. Or is it that he adopts a Machiavellian stance to some aspect of it before he starts out ?
Whatever he's up to, it is certainly destructive, and seems to be a direct attack on the intrinsic logic which operates throughout mathematics in general.
Cheers
Mathematicians will occasionally assume the propostion is false in order to obtain a contradiction.
Machiavellism is based on deceiving others irrespective of whether the statement in question is a truth or a supposition.
For example opponents of the BB at that other website engage in a whole plethora of logical fallacies to justify their arguments.
One particular disturbing aspect is the Staw Man argument where scientists are dishonest corrupt individuals who invented the BB to preserve their careers and paychecks.
Since opponents of the BB don't engage in such nefarious activities, their version of events must be correct.
It's a very attractive line to gain converts.
You can't get more Machiavellian than this.....
Regards
Steven
Hmm .. I don't think anyone could see it otherwise, in this case.
With regards to Mathis, yes it is totally destructive, a fine example of Machiavellian behaviour at work.
Regards
Steven
I could imagine that he might be attempting to demonstrate how mathematics could be used to produce nonsensical outcomes … which would then serve his purpose of undermining theoretical physics.
However, as we've seen in your other Mathis thread, many folk here, immediately found numerous flaws in the logic and thus, he's actually failed, if this was his primary goal.
(You can see that I'm still searching for something other than the obvious 'Machiavellian' motive … I just don't want to believe !! )
I could imagine that he might be attempting to demonstrate how mathematics could be used to produce nonsensical outcomes … which would then serve his purpose of undermining theoretical physics.
However, as we've seen in your other Mathis thread, many folk here, immediately found numerous flaws in the logic and thus, he's actually failed, if this was his primary goal.
(You can see that I'm still searching for something other than the obvious 'Machiavellian' motive … I just don't want to believe !! )
Cheers
According to Mathis, he uncovers corruption (calculus is corrupt, physics is corrupt etc). Why does he need to engage in this type of hyperbole when the exercise is to simply refute the mathematics?
The hyperbole is the deception. It's Machiavelli at work (again).
Probably a little off topic but my difficulties with the big bang theory comes from my perception that to take an observation, (Edwin Hubbles) that the Universe is expanding and from that rationalize such observation as evidence that we can mentally reverse the expansion so reach a point where all matter and energy was concentrated at a single point in the form of a conceptualized singularity, is not a logical approach.
I know what will be said..there is other evidence etc... however my point is simply does not such an extrapolation offend logic.
I am not trying to be cute but as usual seeking guidance from those who have greater understanding of the history surrounding the development of the theory.
alex
Could you elaborate on the illogical perspective ??
cheers
Could no other interpretation of the observation be presented...particularly at that point in the history of human astronomical observation... we are then at a point where galaxies other than the Milky Way are being determined as being outside the Milky Way and we had a new understanding of the Universe ....and in such an environment I feel to make one single conclusion from the observation eliminated consideration of alternatives.
Would it not have been just as logical to suggest that the observation points to a "pulsing" of the universe and that as it was expanding at the point of observation we could expect in time to observe it contracting.
Perhaps a poor example and if not in a rush suspect I could list other conclusions that would at that point in history seem logical.
Anyways must go so it may be a while that I am away and presumably when back I will be too cut to understand much at all...
have a great day.
Thinking more about the logic.
Having made such an observation why did not Hubble reach for Dark Matter to explain it..seems reasonable...in other words could he not have credited the expansion to a dark matter shell at the edge of the universe that was attracting the galaxies in an outward direction??? I simple see the conclusion of expansion although arguably a logical conclusion because of its exclusion of alternatives as not logical.
Thinking more about the logic.
Having made such an observation why did not Hubble reach for Dark Matter to explain it..seems reasonable...in other words could he not have credited the expansion to a dark matter shell at the edge of the universe that was attracting the galaxies in an outward direction??? I simple see the conclusion of expansion although arguably a logical conclusion because of its exclusion of alternatives as not logical.
alex
Alex;
Its all been considered using FLRW spacetime and Einstein's field equations.
Even when they considered non-uniform distribution of present day matter (which normally leads to a singularity), it all comes out to the same answer .. a singularity.
The "If" conditions are first specified with corresponding "Then" outcomes.
The key is matching the "Ifs" with the outcomes.
Apologies if this doesn't make clear sense .. I've run out of time.
More tomorrow, perhaps.
Cheers
PS: Hubble measured the expansion. The Theory came much later .. after Fred Hoyle's theories died out.
Thinking more about the logic.
Having made such an observation why did not Hubble reach for Dark Matter to explain it..seems reasonable...in other words could he not have credited the expansion to a dark matter shell at the edge of the universe that was attracting the galaxies in an outward direction??? I simple see the conclusion of expansion although arguably a logical conclusion because of its exclusion of alternatives as not logical.
alex
Hubble would have committed professional suicide if he made such a statement.
It's been known since the 18th century if you distribute matter into a spherical shell then there is no force of attraction between an object inside the shell, and the shell itself. The force of attraction can only exist for objects outside the shell.
To put this into a human perspective we have an analytical pre frontal cortex and an emotional response to stimulus driven by the amagdala in our brains.
If we rely on a long train of logic when threatened with our immediate survival by the time you have worked out a solution you have been eaten!
A balanced human uses both to survive.
A psychopath has no neural connection between his pre frontal cortex and amagdala. So it is perfectly logical to do the most obscene things as he has no empathy whatsoever.
The problem with the concept of TRUTH is that the other person you are trying to convince must have your baseload of knowledge at least. This is why you do not reason with two year old children. You explain reality to them as a dictator.
That is why there are so many ways to lead the ignorant astray. The best way of course is to appeal to emotion and all futher reason is just ignored!
Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.
Education is not about facts it is about the ability to reason with the available evidence.
My definition of TRUTH goes beyond equal baseloads of knowledge, though Bert.
I mean, there is a physical reality (or TRUTH), in our universe which would seem to transcend a conversation beyond individuals. No matter how different knowledge levels may be amongst humans, there would still be agreement between two individuals about something having length, breadth and depth (under the same frame of reference … & within reasonable bounds).
Perhaps this is why Science is confused with TRUTH. (??)
Ie: Science is usually attempting to define & deal with reality, huh ?
Maintaining the distinction between truth in physical reality and truth as a result of conversations would seem to be a prudent practice (good Wisdom).
Craig if I told you all you see is a fabrication of your brain and is in reality a bunch of infinite wave functions that collapse to your reality for your time and place, you would doubt my sanity.
Science is not about TRUTH. It is about emperical evidence to formulate some structure of perceived reality. The fact that mathematics works to describe that reality is still amazing to me.
We humans do have this strange adaptation of abstract thought where a concept is as real as reality.
I have seen the noise on the interwebs where people scream at each other to be heard above the din of the ignorant. A bit like the rabid mobs of old!
The most mind enhancing vision I ever had was after climbing through thick cloud near sunset (in a light aircraft) and after clearing the cloud it was a sea of pink cloud to the 'horizon'. The Sun was on the 'horizon'. It could have been the surface of another planet. It was very disorienting but I managed to fly the plane. All my preconceived inputs to my senses were wrong! Fortunately I had an instructor with me that knew far more than me including how to get back to the airport through 100% cloud cover from eight thousand feet.
If we did not argue we would never learn the other point of view. I think it is healthy we have differences. I never feel threatened by someone who knows more than me such as sjastro or even craigs.
I will be long gone while they are stil interacting!
Craig if I told you all you see is a fabrication of your brain and is in reality a bunch of infinite wave functions that collapse to your reality for your time and place, you would doubt my sanity.
In the past … yep.
Now, I'm beginning to understand it .. its a very real and cool concept .. and weird … and it all came from conversation and knowledge acquisition (reading lots).
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
Science is not about TRUTH. It is about emperical evidence to formulate some structure of perceived reality. The fact that mathematics works to describe that reality is still amazing to me.
Absolutely .. me too !
Why/how does mathematics do this ? Is it because it describes the reality which conceived it in the first place ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
We humans do have this strange adaptation of abstract thought where a concept is as real as reality.
I recently read someone arguing that Einstein's Relativity was all a thought experiment turned into reality by other evil scientists who attempted to follow in his footsteps !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
I have seen the noise on the interwebs where people scream at each other to be heard above the din of the ignorant. A bit like the rabid mobs of old!
I think I read the same noise (see my comment immediately above).
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
The most mind enhancing vision I ever had was after climbing through thick cloud near sunset (in a light aircraft) and after clearing the cloud it was a sea of pink cloud to the 'horizon'. The Sun was on the 'horizon'. It could have been the surface of another planet. It was very disorienting but I managed to fly the plane. All my preconceived inputs to my senses were wrong! Fortunately I had an instructor with me that knew far more than me including how to get back to the airport through 100% cloud cover from eight thousand feet.
Hmm a mixture of the physical reality of impending doom .. countered by knowledge … that's cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
If we did not argue we would never learn the other point of view. I think it is healthy we have differences. I never feel threatened by someone who knows more than me such as sjastro or even craigs.
Be afraid .. be very afraid .. of being led by CraigS !!
His perspective changes everytime he reads something new (and he's starting from scratch most of the time … a self-starting-repeater !)
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
I will be long gone while they are stil interacting!
I do wonder how long I can keep this effort going … is there a limit ?
I'd like to think its called 'death'.
By the way … I bought myself my Christmas present … "Godel, Escher and Bach" !! It's a big book … look out if I actually understand any of it, though !
I still don't know what its about .. and yet I bought it !! Strange.
Spent my spare time during university poring through it.
H
G'Day H;
Ha ! I'm a bit intimidated by the look of it !
It seems that quite a few IISs have read it .. there'll be no stopping me asking for explanations once I get going with it !
(That's given that I have absolutely no idea of what its really about at the moment !.. that might not change, either … )
Watch out all !
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you & all.
Cheers
Hmm, I am not sure one could postulate that scientific method is a way of logical. Logic is a philosophical way of thinking. For something to be logical it must have a set of dictums assigned to it that are seen as being self evidentary. Lawyers use logic in a syllogistic method. Science uses arguments based on observation through experimentation. Not logic but evidence based statements. Subtle difference but one all the same.
)
