Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:15 AM
20 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, PaulK (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Physics contradicts maths - how is this possible?
Taz
Member (Idle past 1371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 61 of 69 (442992)
12-23-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
12-22-2007 8:07 PM


Buzsaw writes:

I've been reading and thinking about my message signature relative to this discussion and whether it has any application to this discussion relative to the Buzsaw hypothisis that the universe is unbounded in area/space and having no beginning and incapable of ending.


I don't understand something, Buz. Perhaps you could clear it up for me?

Here are the positions that you hold as far as I know.

(1) The bible is the literal word of god, that the universe was created in 6 days by god.

(2) Armageddon is some time in the not too distant future.

(3) The universe has no beginning and no end.

As far as I can see it, #3 is in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. Care to explain?


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 12-22-2007 8:07 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 3:37 PM Taz has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 69 (443051)
12-23-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Taz
12-23-2007 11:18 AM


Taz Wrong On Buzsaw Positions
Hi Taz. Merry Christmas! You've got all three items wrong relative to my positions. As to item 3, Armageddon is not the end of the world and certainly not of the universe as your statement appears to imply. I have no idea how you came to think of my positions as you are depicting here.

Since this is not the place to go into it all I've bumped up the one on one Great Debate thread between Moose and me. I hope a read of this will clarify my position for your understanding. :)


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Taz, posted 12-23-2007 11:18 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Taz, posted 12-23-2007 8:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 63 of 69 (443097)
12-23-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
12-23-2007 10:58 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
RAZD responds to me:

quote:
A wrong use\application of math\model still means the math is wrong for the situation, no matter how perfect it is for other use\applications.

Precisely. Wrong FOR THE SITUATION. There's nothing wrong with the math. It's that you're trying to use a screwdriver when the situation requires a hammer. Now, you can use a screwdriver as a hammer, but it won't work nearly as well. There's nothing wrong with the screwdriver. It is correct and works. There is no flaw in it in any way, shape, or form.

It just isn't a hammer.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 8:50 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 64 of 69 (443137)
12-23-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Taz Wrong On Buzsaw Positions
Buz writes:

You've got all three items wrong relative to my positions.


Haha, sorry about that. I'll read that thread you bumped.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 3:37 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19758
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 65 of 69 (443153)
12-23-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rrhain
12-23-2007 6:41 PM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
... you're trying to use a screwdriver when the situation requires a hammer ... It just isn't a hammer.

Funny, I almost used that same analogy in my last post.

The way I see it, the math\model gives the answer "2" ... and even though the calculations are correct, the answer in reality is "3" ... and that makes the answer just plain wrong no matter how perfect the math and correct the calculations were.

Modeling math with hammers and screwdrivers won't change the fact that the mathematical answer is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2007 6:41 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2007 7:13 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 69 (443459)
12-25-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
12-23-2007 8:50 PM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
RAZD responds to me:

quote:
Modeling math with hammers and screwdrivers won't change the fact that the mathematical answer is wrong.

That may be, but the math isn't wrong.

If your model only says 2 + 2 but the reality is 2 + 2 + 2, that doesn't mean the math is wrong because it came up with 4 instead of 6. It simply means that you have overlooked something.

That's the point behind the aerodynamics of bees and pigeons. Using rigid-wing aerodynamics, you cannot accurately model the flight of bees and pigeons. That doesn't make the mathematics of rigid-wing aerodynamics wrong. Planes still fly.

It simply means that you have made a mistake. Do not confuse the model with the math that drives it.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 8:50 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 7:47 AM Rrhain has responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 67 of 69 (443468)
12-25-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rrhain
12-25-2007 7:13 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
Do not confuse the model with the math that drives it.

Creating the mathematical model is part of the maths (applied mathematicians spend most of their research doing just this).

So the maths can be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2007 7:13 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2007 4:40 AM sinequanon has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 68 of 69 (443857)
12-27-2007 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 7:47 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
sinequanon responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Do not confuse the model with the math that drives it.

Creating the mathematical model is part of the maths (applied mathematicians spend most of their research doing just this).


As an applied mathematician, not quite. You build your model, but that's you, not the math. You're using the math and how well your model fits what is seen will help drive you to refine your model, but the model is not the math. It's just a model.

That's the entire point behind curve fitting. You have a set of data points and you work to fit a curve to it. Using your cubic splines, you create an equation that smoothly connects the data points together.

But you always know that your result is a fitting of external curves to your data and can never be confused for the actual process that created the data points.

quote:
So the maths can be wrong.

The math can never be wrong. To say such would mean that somehow, 2 + 2 no longer equals 4 (and let's not be disingenuous and come up with a snarky reply such as "In mod 3, 2 + 2 = 1!" shall we?)

A screwdriver is not a hammer, even though you can use it as a hammer. There is nothing wrong with the screwdriver. It's just not very good at being a hammer and to expect it to be able to function as one is a problem of the person using it, not the screwdriver.

Newtonian mechanics is wrong. At all levels, all speeds. The math that describes it is not wrong. It simply does not model the universe in which we happen to live. At low speeds, it is a fair approximation (so accurate that you would need special equipment in order to detect the error), but that's all it can be.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 7:47 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by sinequanon, posted 12-27-2007 6:14 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 69 of 69 (443862)
12-27-2007 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rrhain
12-27-2007 4:40 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
As an applied mathematician, not quite. You build your model, but that's you, not the math. You're using the math and how well your model fits what is seen will help drive you to refine your model, but the model is not the math. It's just a model.

You are talking of mathematical logic and mathematics as a tool, and I am talking about the art of doing mathematics and mathematics as a discipline.

Mathematics, the art, includes building and refining a tractable model, applying mathematical logic, and interpreting the assumptions and results - all the crucial skills that fall within the domain of the mathematician.

As far as the mathematical logic itself is concerned, it is questionable whether it even makes sense to say it is wrong. Its application may be invalid or it may prove the inconsistency of the axioms. It could, however, be argued that the maths is wrong if the axioms are inconsistent.

If an applied mathematical result does not match physical observation, the mathematician would spend most of the time checking assumptions and approximations, very rarely axioms. The balance would shift for pure maths. So, of course it is valuable to rate the confidence in the various areas. But they all come under the discipline of mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2007 4:40 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019