Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 112 of 373 (739839)
10-28-2014 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Colbard
10-26-2014 12:00 AM


Colbard writes:
Maths can be used to describe or make a model of anything. Say for instance a toilet roll, it can even account for its printed patterns using fractals.
Mathematics is like clay, it can be molded.
In describing the universe and the BB, things are squeezed, compressed, expanded, warped, inverted, diminished, exploded, segregated. Every process takes place, and all of these processes can be derived mathematically, but it does not prove the case at all, rather it just shows that if you have notion, and work hard with maths ans physics, and theories, then you can achieve a model that will convince many.
But somewhere in this tower is a brick that does not fit, a brick in a crucial place that renders the whole structure false.
It will stand for a while until someone finds the flaw.
And in modern science, the very founders of certain theories have had to go back on their word, even while the world continues to believe and work with the theory.
Are you are saying that because math is used to understand the standard model the theory is debunked?
Are you saying because there are gaps in the understanding of various cosmology theories they all are of no value?
To sum up, it is your premise that since math is used in physics and our knowledge is incomplete we as a species should shit can all theories that use maths and are not complete.
Is that what you are saying?
Because if that is your position then you would in essence be advocating complete ignorance or your trolling.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Colbard, posted 10-26-2014 12:00 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Colbard, posted 10-30-2014 8:27 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 118 of 373 (739980)
10-30-2014 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Colbard
10-30-2014 8:27 AM


Colbard writes:
I am objecting to the opinion of those who say that if something goes well using Maths, then it must be fact. Maths can be used to describe the perfect lie without Maths ever lying. Maths is factual, and yet only ever a description as well, but because it is reliable does not mean it cannot describe falsehoods with perfection.
Sure anyone can use math to cook their books.
If this is your point then it is a well known; hence the existence of auditors. Just as any established theory must be scrutinized. That does not mean we dismiss them outright. It is virtually impossible to personally fact check and verify every bit of knowledge. That's what scientist are for.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Colbard, posted 10-30-2014 8:27 AM Colbard 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