Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 24 (544580)
01-27-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
01-24-2010 8:36 PM


Re: Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Reality
Your decision to write in a language of your own invention makes your point unnecessarily obscure.
However, in plain English we may note that it is trivially the case that the proposition that a mathematical structure forms a good model for some aspect of reality is necessarily a scientific theory to be confirmed or disconfirmed by observation and experiment; a question which is extrinsic to the mathematics as such.
Whether or not you find this observation helpful depends, of course, on what the heck it is that you're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-24-2010 8:36 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 01-27-2010 2:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 24 (544633)
01-27-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
01-27-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Math's Arbitrary Non-Necessary Necessarily-Disconnected Conventional Link to Real
Ahh, and it is the fact that Mathematicslike a scientific theory composed of words in their structure, the units of Languageis falsifiable
No.
like a scientific theory composed of words in their structure, like any Linguistic proposition, i.e., a proposition which relies on Linguistic modes for its conveyancethat shows the arbitrarily disconnected, conventional (i.e., not by necessity) link that Math has with Reality.
The relationship between math and reality isn't conventional, it's discovered. The fact that two apples plus three apples is five apples isn't a mere social agreement like driving on the right. The isomorphism between reality and the structure of the natural numbers actually exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 01-27-2010 2:27 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 24 (544819)
01-28-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Son Goku
01-28-2010 5:51 AM


Calculus
I should say that most constructionists that I have met (i.e. all two of them) believe that 0.999.. = 1, the transcendentals and all other wierd Real number stuff, is just unfortunate formal junk we have to put up with to obtain calculus. That is they agree with calculus, they just don't like the bizarre number system it's based on.
"My uncle thinks he's a chicken."
"Have you taken him to see a psychiatrist?"
"Well, we would ... but we need the eggs."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Son Goku, posted 01-28-2010 5:51 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 24 (549452)
03-07-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
03-06-2010 10:03 PM


Yes, Bozo
I wish the mathematicians would have warned me of this little glitch in their system before I tried adding them. I ended up having to start all over from nothing.
We did tell you about it. I told you about it.
The mathematical system of the natural numbers is a mathematical system. If you wish to use it as a model of reality then you should first ascertain empirically that it is indeed a model of the aspect of reality to which you wished to apply it.
As it is, your complaint is as meaningful as if you bought a lawnmower, tried to use it as a suppository, and now you're writing to the lawnmower manufacturer complaining that their lawnmower hurt when you tried to stick it up your ass. Well yeah, that'll happen. But the manufacturers didn't market it as a suppository. It's not their fault if you are nutty enough to use it in a way that they never intended. It's yours. It is not a "little glich" in the lawnmower about which the manufacturers should have warned you. Doubtless they would have warned you if they'd realized that anyone in the whole world would be so stupid as to try to cram the lawnmower up his ass. In that case, they would have avoided liability by putting a big warning label on the lawnmower saying NOT TO BE USED AS A SUPOSITORY. But who would believe that anyone in the world would be that stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 03-06-2010 10:03 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024