Page 1 of 1

science is bad for math

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:50 am
by barbarianhorde
math used to be philosophy. it used to be rational. then people started to apply it and it became imperfect. now math must bend to serve the physical universe. But it doesnt so we get a 'relative' universe. Yeah right. Math just proved that science is baloney.

discuss because I am pissed.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:26 pm
by surreptitious57
Maths is an axiomatically complete system of deductive logic and so bending it is not really an option
But even so it is still philosophical and rational although not imperfect else it would not be deductive

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:23 am
by James S Saint
barbarianhorde wrote:math used to be philosophy. it used to be rational. then people started to apply it and it became imperfect. now math must bend to serve the physical universe. But it doesnt so we get a 'relative' universe. Yeah right. Math just proved that science is baloney.

discuss because I am pissed.

You are right in that math has proven theories like Relativity and Quantum Physics to be fairly tales (or perhaps "tails" in this case). But it isn't the math that has been distorted (not counting a very few efforts, such as declaring that 1 = 0.999...). People's ontological understandings have been toyed with and distorted. And despite what you hear, a great many physicists already know that such theories are nonsense other than convenient mind frames with which to calculate specific kinds of problems, aka "rules of thumb", not actual truth models.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:46 pm
by Arminius
Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:38 pm
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.

Yes that is interesting. I had never thought of math as a "spiritual" thing, but technically it is. The word "spirit" has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a "science". Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. :o Of course if logic doesn't work, neither does math .. nor science. But they skipped over that issue.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:36 pm
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.

Yes that is interesting. I had never thought of math as a "spiritual" thing, but technically it is.

Yes. As I said: It is a spiritual science, thus: a science. In German, there is the distinction between Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and Geisteswissenschaft (spiritual science), and Sozialwissenschaft (social science) is „something“ between them.

Mathematics is the most exact science, and - interestingly - it is not a natural but a spiritual science.

James S Saint wrote:The word "spirit" has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a "science". Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. :o

Yes: :o .

What they did is something like a declaration of bankruptcy. A "science“ that has "proven that logic does not work“ is no science. In other words: The current "scientists“ are no scientists.

James S Saint wrote:Of course if logic doesn't work, neither does math .. nor science. But they skipped over that issue.

Yes, and we both know why they did that. :wink:

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:06 pm
by iambiguous
Arminius wrote:Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.


Merriam -Webster Definition of spiritual
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2.a of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3. concerned with religious values
4. related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5.a of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

So, how is your own understanding of mathematics as a "spiritual science" either relevant or not relevant to the definitions above.

And, while I suspect this is futile, how would you relate this exact science to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. That which preoccupies me here.

Of what practical use can we make of this science?

Or is this just me hijacking another thread?

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:45 pm
by Arminius
Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science "spiritual science" (following the German "Geisteswissenschaft" - "Geist" means "Ghost", "spirit" -, although "Geisteswissenschaft" is often translated by "humanities", but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a "subset" of the "set" logic.

Arminius wrote:All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.

Mathematics is a subset of logic.

Image

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:49 pm
by iambiguous
Arminius wrote:Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science "spiritual science" (following the German "Geisteswissenschaft" - "Geist" means "Ghost", "spirit", although "Geisteswissenschaft" is often translated by "humanities", but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a "subset" of the "set" logic.


I can only presume that this is not addressed to me.

As it in no way addresses the points that I raised with you.

Or so it seems to me.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:14 pm
by MagsJ
Maths was always separate to Science in my mind, but it had implications in every field going, in that it could be universally applied and utilised when needed.

Maths is a standard that cannot be denied, but I'm sure some will deny that sentiment.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:51 pm
by Arminius
iambiguous wrote:
Arminius wrote:Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.

Merriam -Webster Definition of spiritual
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2.a of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3. concerned with religious values
4. related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5.a of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

So, how is your own understanding of mathematics as a "spiritual science" either relevant or not relevant to the definitions above.

My thoughs are not English. So I have to translate each thinking element into the English language. In other words: I am aware of the fact that "Geist" and "spirit" are not the same. The words "Geist" and "Ghost" have the same root. They had the same meaning before this meaning split. So maybe it is not possible anymore to properly trannslate "Geist" into English, which means that it is also not possible to properly trannslate e.g. "Geisteswissenschaft" into English.

Howsoever: The word "incorporeal" (cf. the definitions above) comes very close to the word I am talking about, because "incorporeal" means "unphysical" ("non-physical"), and that leads us to "unnatural" ("non-natural").

iambiguous wrote:And, while I suspect this is futile, how would you relate this exact science to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. That which preoccupies me here.

Of what practical use can we make of this science?

Or is this just me hijacking another thread?

We already observe that mathematics and the rest of all sciences, especially the social sciences, are in conflict with each other:

James S. Saint wrote:The word "spirit" has two distinct concepts. Math fits one of them perfectly. Although I would object to math being referred to as a "science". Science would have been better off to include logic (and thus math), but they chose not to. At one point they even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. :o

I think that this sociopolitical development is a very ugly one. At last there will be no practical science anymore (at least no one which is practiced by real humans), and "no practical science" means "no science in use, only false definitions of it".

Mathematics should remain what it has always been: an "unphysical" ("non-physical"), thus an "unnatural" (non-natural") branch of science which is the most exact one, thus also the best one when it comes to help all other branches of science.

If someone is badly talking about mathematics, then you can be sure that this someone is not a scientist.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:45 pm
by Arminius
iambiguous wrote:
Arminius wrote:Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science "spiritual science" (following the German "Geisteswissenschaft" - "Geist" means "Ghost", "spirit", although "Geisteswissenschaft" is often translated by "humanities", but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a "subset" of the "set" logic.


I can only presume that this is not addressed to me.

As it in no way addresses the points that I raised with you.

Or so it seems to me.

What is mathematics to you?

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:26 pm
by Ultimate Philosophy 1001
Einsteins theory is bullwash.

People debate me by saying "GPS proves me wrong"?

Okay so how bout this. Ned is an astraunout, takes off from florida. His grandma is on the beach watching him leave. Spaceshuttle goes 99.99999 percent the speed of light. Ned looks at his grandma, she is basically not moving.

Spaceship is going almost 186,000 mps, grandma sees it moving around at nearly 186,000 with her supertelescope. It cruises around for 3 months.
By this grandma moved back to kentucky. Spaceship comes back, lands in florida. Ned gets out, According to ned's vision, his grandma is still on the beach at florida, moved only one inch. But according to grandma she is in kentucky.

This is the bullshit and fatal flaw in his theory Einstein didn't see.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:26 pm
by Ultimate Philosophy 1001
So if Einstein is true that means simply running on the street faster than someone will put you in another dimension, unless it is explained away by some pressure tension threshold system where the dimensions are magnetically tied and you have to exceed x amount of pressure to rip apart the dimensions.

Explaining away= tendency of the religious

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:17 pm
by James S Saint
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Einsteins theory is bullwash.

People debate me by saying "GPS proves me wrong"?

Okay so how bout this. Ned is an astraunout, takes off from florida. His grandma is on the beach watching him leave. Spaceshuttle goes 99.99999 percent the speed of light. Ned looks at his grandma, she is basically not moving.

Spaceship is going almost 186,000 mps, grandma sees it moving around at nearly 186,000 with her supertelescope. It cruises around for 3 months.
By this grandma moved back to kentucky. Spaceship comes back, lands in florida. Ned gets out, According to ned's vision, his grandma is still on the beach at florida, moved only one inch. But according to grandma she is in kentucky.

This is the bullshit and fatal flaw in his theory Einstein didn't see.

You kind of have that story backwards. First, no one would be able to "see" anyone else because of the light speed issue. But even if they could, Ned would not see grandma not-moving, but rather moving extremely fast.

I am not defending SRT. There are other issues with it.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:34 pm
by Ultimate Philosophy 1001
James S Saint wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Einsteins theory is bullwash.

People debate me by saying "GPS proves me wrong"?

Okay so how bout this. Ned is an astraunout, takes off from florida. His grandma is on the beach watching him leave. Spaceshuttle goes 99.99999 percent the speed of light. Ned looks at his grandma, she is basically not moving.

Spaceship is going almost 186,000 mps, grandma sees it moving around at nearly 186,000 with her supertelescope. It cruises around for 3 months.
By this grandma moved back to kentucky. Spaceship comes back, lands in florida. Ned gets out, According to ned's vision, his grandma is still on the beach at florida, moved only one inch. But according to grandma she is in kentucky.

This is the bullshit and fatal flaw in his theory Einstein didn't see.

You kind of have that story backwards. First, no one would be able to "see" anyone else because of the light speed issue. But even if they could, Ned would not see grandma not-moving, but rather moving extremely fast.

I am not defending SRT. There are other issues with it.

Googled it, SRT says that if you look out your window when you are going lightspeed, everything will be frozen in time. Not just because the light is slow, but litterally they say time itself will be stopped.

If they changed it, it is a science conspiracy trying to change history after I exposed the errors in their teachings. thing is, you can erase the internet but not books.

Re: science is bad for math

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:26 am
by UrGod
barbarianhorde wrote:math used to be philosophy. it used to be rational. then people started to apply it and it became imperfect. now math must bend to serve the physical universe. But it doesnt so we get a 'relative' universe. Yeah right. Math just proved that science is baloney.

discuss because I am pissed.


Come back and help me solve this problem for good. We're not far off.