RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who in the hell do you think built the rocket? Scientism?

You believe rockets don't need fuel?

Yeah, sure, I "don't believe rockets need fuel"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just as you can't go to the moon on rubber band power you can't communicate "science" when neither the speaker nor the listener are at all familiar with science. Your beliefs are contradicted by definitions and known fact.

No matter how much you twist and turn and play semantical games science doesn't think, understand, or come up with new hypotheses. People do these things and many of them are wholly ignorant of science or are theists. Peers can't think and Peers have no opinions right or wrong. Science didn't invent rockets with or without rubber bands, individuals did just as individuals invented the waggle dance and individuals procreate (in cooperation with one other individual).

This is not complex. Your belief in magic is complex.

I'm sorry, but is it your belief that we don't understand that rockets, as a whole, are the result of literally centuries, if not millennia, of accumulating ideas and knowledge?

Do you believe that we don't understand that science is a thing that is being done by humans?

 

[Native]

Nakosis said:
Math is just a language.
-----
No it isn´t - It´s simple linear number jugglings unfit to describe a cyclical cosmos.

 

[cladking]

I'm sorry, but is it your belief that we don't understand that rockets, as a whole, are the result of literally centuries, if not millennia, of accumulating ideas and knowledge?

Do you believe that we don't understand that science is a thing that is being done by humans?

I thought you believed that science is only done by believers and Peers while creationists and theists are wastes of space. Surely you don't believe I've ever contributed to putting a man on the moon.

Maybe I don't understand your position. Was it "humans" who put a man on the moon or did "science" do it?

Should "dogs" that protected rocket sites all over the world and "mathematics" get part of the credit? How about "#2 pencils"? Where do you draw the line and how far will you go to not admit individuals invented rockets and not you and not science. How far will you go to not admit every one of these individuals had different definitions and models of what science is?

Is the idea of communication so repellent to you?

 

[cladking]

Math is just a language.

Only in a sense.

To be a language as we define it you must be able to translate simple sentences back and forth. This is impossible.

I'd also point out that math and computer languages all break Zipf's Law which is supposed to hold for all languages.

 

[Nakosis]

Only in a sense.

To be a language as we define it you must be able to translate simple sentences back and forth. This is impossible.

We translate math to different bases. For example an equation in decimal can be translated to binary. So I'm not sure your point.

I'd also point out that math and computer languages all break Zipf's Law which is supposed to hold for all languages.

It is not known why Zipf's law holds for most languages.
Zipf's law - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says here most languages.

 

[cladking]

We translate math to different bases. For example an equation in decimal can be translated to binary. So I'm not sure your point.

You can't translate this sentence to geometry, algebra, or calculus. If you could you still couldn't translate it back.

It is not known why Zipf's law holds for most languages.
Zipf's law - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says here most languages.

Thinking creates Zipf's Law. Bees, calculators, computers, and static don't think so they don't obey any linguistic laws. The authors of the Pyramid Texts didn't think and it doesn't obey the laws either.

All modern human languages obey the laws but some create a better fit than others and it also depends on the author. Because of the way i think my words will have more outliers and a smoother line as well but, I'm sure, they still obey linguistic laws.

 

[Native]

The authors of the Pyramid Texts didn't think and it doesn't obey the laws either.

Well, most pyramids obeys the laws of cardinal directions on Earth, so the authors of the Pyramid Texts didn't IMO make the hieroglyphic texts without thinking of its symbolism.

 

[River Sea]

You can't translate this sentence to geometry, algebra, or calculus. If you could you still couldn't translate it back.



Thinking creates Zipf's Law. Bees, calculators, computers, and static don't think so they don't obey any linguistic laws. The authors of the Pyramid Texts didn't think and it doesn't obey the laws either.

All modern human languages obey the laws but some create a better fit than others and it also depends on the author. Because of the way i think my words will have more outliers and a smoother line as well but, I'm sure, they still obey linguistic laws.

@cladking do you understand this math? Two Quotes by @Ostronomos

Suppose you have a moving body at time t. Then it's position would be a function f that contains a domain representing time at t. Therefore, if one wishes to find the position, they would simply calculate the function f(t). Whereas at time t=3, the body is at f(3), and at t=2, the body is at f(2). Or at t=0, the initial position would be f(0).

Now, when the Greeks first wrestled with the concept of limits over two thousand years ago, they fell short of success. It was only in the last 200 years that we came develop the concept of limits to its fullest extent.

E.g. If a function contains an interval (a,b). Where c ∈ (a,b). Then the slope of the tangent at the curve would be f'(c). Where f'(c) is the position of the body at x=c. Or, x=t.

Is this correct?

To whomever it may concern,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the derivative and slope of tangent just two alternative ways of interpreting the limit of first-principles definition?

This can be applied to the concept of motion in the real world. Specifically velocity.

Where x=c and (a,b) is an interval between which the function (assuming it's continuous) behaves? Note: c ∈ (a,b)

 

[Pogo]

@cladking do you understand this math? Two Quotes by @Ostronomos

200 years? but that is just manipulation of numbers according to a set of rules. It might have some relevance to our observations, but that is all I can see. Beyond that @cladking is welcome to have any interpretation he wishes.

 

[River Sea]

200 years? but that is just manipulation of numbers according to a set of rules. It might have some relevance to our observations, but that is all I can see. Beyond that @cladking is welcome to have any interpretation he wishes.

I don't know this math. I procrastinated learning.

In reference to post 109 and 110

Never did I claim @cladking can't have any interpretation he wishes; how could I have written so it wouldn't have appeared that way? Can you show me how @Pogo

Asking what @Pogo wrote in the quote above in this post.
Can you show me from this math that this is 200 years? How is this manipulation of numbers according to a set of rules? What does that mean?
@Pogo @cladking

I was asking if @cladking understands this math or not. I don't understand it, and I will need to learn this math so I can understand. Is this algebra or calculus that @Ostronomos did in math?

@cladking Never did I claim you can't have any interpretations as you wish; please know that.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know this math. I procrastinated learning.

In reference to post 109 and 110

Never did I claim @cladking can't have any interpretation he wishes; how could I have written so it wouldn't have appeared that way? Can you show me how @Pogo

Asking what @Pogo wrote in the quote above in this post.
Can you show me from this math that this is 200 years? How is this manipulation of numbers according to a set of rules? What does that mean?
@Pogo @cladking

I was asking if @cladking understands this math or not. I don't understand it, and I will need to learn this math so I can understand. Is this algebra or calculus that @Ostronomos did in math?

@cladking Never did I claim you can't have any interpretations as you wish; please know that.

Ok, @Ostronomos is describing some concepts of what is called calculus that was discovered / invented in the late 1600s simultaneously by Isaac Newton and Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz. It was a major discovery in our ability to make sense of a lot of equations of movement that is still used and taught today, If you have limited math experience it is an interesting subject. That said his descriptions are not clear. Anyhow, it is math and that it describes well reality as we see it is sort of a side effect that many misinterpret. Math is a formal logic, that it describes what we call reality is a convenient coincidence maybe. It is worth study even if it never quite makes sense as it is one of the bases for almost all of the physics discoveries since then.

Calculus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[cladking]

@cladking do you understand this math? Two Quotes by @Ostronomos

My calculus is very rusty but it appears he is merely defining place and movement. I don't know that it's applicable to anything we're talking about. -or that it isn't.

 

[cladking]

Well, most pyramids obeys the laws of cardinal directions on Earth, so the authors of the Pyramid Texts didn't IMO make the hieroglyphic texts without thinking of its symbolism.

The pyramids are oriented more precisely than we could easily achieve. Everything about these structures is highly precise yet they have never even been studied systematically with modern science since Petrie did in in the 19th century!!! It's shameful.

I believe most of the characteristics of these structures are little more than artefacts of the way they thought. Their language was mathematical in nature so it could to some limited extent be translated into math. This was ancient math though and it lacked ordinal numbers relying instead on cardinal numbers I believe. Incredibly no one understands ancient math. I bet I could have in my younger days but my mind works differently now. I believe what we translate as 1/3 actually means one part of three. And "7" has no meaning except as the 7th of a fixed set. There's very little to work with to solve how they calculated things but remarkably their engineering appears to have had the same safety fact as ours; 5.

Our language has no tie at all to reality, science, or math. Believers in science merely imagine that everything can be quantified and solved where in reality only mans' machines and constructs can and those things we can compute through knowledge like the force exerted on the earth by the moon or the amount of salt that can be dissolved in water.

 

[Native]

Math is a formal logic, that it describes what we call reality is a convenient coincidence maybe. It is worth study even if it never quite makes sense as it is one of the bases for almost all of the physics discoveries since then.

OK, math is formal logic for things we can touch and measure in terrestrial matters - in space, it doesn't seem to be much of a help for Standard Model cosmology, since the calculus muddles it all up in all kinds of dark things and energies and black holes.

 

[Native]

I believe most of the characteristics of these structures are little more than artefacts of the way they thought. Their language was mathematical in nature so it could to some limited extent be translated into math. Incredibly no one understands ancient math.

I really don't think our ancestors were that fascinated or occupied by numbers. They were "just" keen natural observers.

Just by marking the cardinal daily and seasonal positions of the Sun with a central stick in a marked circle, they automatically got the reel terrestrial and celestial mathematical numbers and directions correct.

By using this natural measurement method, they even got the true annual solar time which mirrors the Earth annual elliptical orbital motion, instead of the alienating modern linear second, hour, day, and year method.

Our language has no tie at all to reality, science, or math.

No, not the modern language. IMO you have to speak the ancient language of natural symbolism embedded in the numerous cultural and very similar Stories of Creation to tie it all together and make the human relation to it all.

" . . . and those things we can compute through knowledge like the force exerted on the earth by the moon . . .".

We even don't know by what dynamic means this should happen - and even in space, Newtons' gravitational calculation guessworks is falsified by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve. And as our Solar System is an integrated and intrinsic part of the galactic formation and rotation, I bet the terrestrial made laws of celestial motions have to be seriously revised.

And that goes for an assumed lunar influence on tides as well.

 

[River Sea]

OK, math is formal logic for things we can touch and measure in terrestrial matters - in space, it doesn't seem to be much of a help for Standard Model cosmology, since the calculus muddles it all up in all kinds of dark things and energies and black holes.

@Native I could be wrong which gives me the freedom to write.

Membrane where?

Light tunnel goes through the membrane.

It's more difficult to nourish feed and drink from light from this side of the membrane compared to the other side of the membrane

Light can think.

Light is in us, and I allow light in me to teach me how to nourish, feed, and drink from light within my situations.

What happens is I'll write about light because I've seen light in people radiate outward, and drink from light.

And when I shared about light, people would think I'm writing about planet Sun.

I think I'm passive, because I give in and let the conversation continue as people write about the planet Sun, because that's interesting too. Yes, people think I'm writing about the planet Sun when I write about light. And I gave in and let them then continue about planet Sun.

Then suddenly I see math before me from people. So maybe we don't know this math yet? Would PNC help in this area or not? I don't know, maybe PNC math won't help and we hadn't discovered this math yet?

What are your thoughts about this?

 

[Pogo]

OK, math is formal logic for things we can touch and measure in terrestrial matters - in space, it doesn't seem to be much of a help for Standard Model cosmology, since the calculus muddles it all up in all kinds of dark things and energies and black holes.

It is really the other way around, ancient mathematicians came up with an equation 1/x^2 originally through geometry and squares and circles, Much much later we discovered that that relation would describe the relative brightness of a light as you moved away from it if the x was the distance. Even later we discovered that the equation applied to force between to objects that we call gravity and that discovery allowed us to understand why the planets and moons stay in their orbits and why things orbit at the distance they do.
The standard model of cosmology is actually based on a set of equations that describe the observations of the heavens and then, using these equations they were solved for time in the past and it predicted that the universe was very much smaller some 13.8 billion years in the past and that it would have been extremely hot etc. The actual confirmation that this set of equations does describe the behaviour of the universe which was predicted in the early 1900s did not even come till an accidental measurement taken in the 1960s. Again, math is not controlling things, but if you find the right mathematical equations they can describe expected observations.
In fact, the dark things and energies were looked for because either the math was wrong or there was something else out there.

The math itself however is just a playing around with geometry and numbers until we find something that it relates to.

 

[cladking]

I really don't think our ancestors were that fascinated or occupied by numbers. They were "just" keen natural observers.

You're dealing with later times; the times of myths and legends. I believe these myths primarily sprang up from a t9ime a different kind of language was used and the stories became confused when that language died and created the myth. Your methodology of seeking commonalities in myth and legend is quite sound and I agree with some of your conclusions.

But the ancient people who left us things like great pyramids couldn't have done it without a "complete" understanding of math and engineering. Of course we know little more about things like gravity than the ancients knew but just as we can put a man on the moon lacking an understanding they could accomplish their feats.

No, not the modern language. IMO you have to speak the ancient language of natural symbolism embedded in...

I believe the original human language was universal and metaphysical. As such there was no "symbolism" of any sort. Words represented things that were real and concrete and had fixed meanings instead of definitions. When this language failed due to its increasing complexity the ancient stories and ancient history survived as myth.

And that goes for an assumed lunar influence on tides as well.

I certainly do not contend that we understand the true nature of gravity or the effects, tides. I contend only that observation explains tides in terms of our "theory of gravity". And, yes, i agree that the textbooks are all wrong and will be rewritten in time. I believe modern theory is stuck in 1925 and the only way to unstick it is probably going to be to reinvent ancient science and use computers to run both metaphysics in tandem.
The hubris of modern people is of Biblical proportions and this is why I call us "homo omnisciencis"; despite the fact we know nothing we think we have every answer.

 

[icant]

Pogo says:

It is really the other way around, ancient mathematicians came up with an equation 1/x^2 originally through geometry and squares and circles, Much much later we discovered that that relation would describe the relative brightness of a light as you moved away from it if the x was the distance. Even later we discovered that the equation applied to force between to objects that we call gravity and that discovery allowed us to understand why the planets and moons stay in their orbits and why things orbit at the distance they do.
The standard model of cosmology is actually based on a set of equations that describe the observations of the heavens and then, using these equations they were solved for time in the past and it predicted that the universe was very much smaller some 13.8 billion years in the past and that it would have been extremely hot etc. The actual confirmation that this set of equations does describe the behaviour of the universe which was predicted in the early 1900s did not even come till an accidental measurement taken in the 1960s. Again, math is not controlling things, but if you find the right mathematical equations they can describe expected observations.
In fact, the dark things and energies were looked for because either the math was wrong or there was something else out there.

The math itself however is just a playing around with geometry and numbers until we find something that it relates to.

Math is a concept created by mankind.

The standard model of cosmology is actually based on a set of equations that describe the observations of the heavens and then, using these equations they were solved for time in the past and it predicted that the universe was very much smaller some 13.8 billion years in the past and that it would have been extremely hot etc.

The BBT is not based on any math.

The BBT is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning to exist.

The assumption is that about 8 billion, 13.8 billion, some even believe 20 Billion , others go up to 27 Billion years ago that the universe began to expand from nonexistence. If there was non existence that would mean no energy, no matter and no place for anything to exist. So far the consensus is 13:8 billion years ago at T=10^-43 seconds the universe began to expand and has been expanding every sense.

For 16 years I have asked the question: "What existed at T=0?" The best answer I have been able to get from Scientist is, "We don't know". Maybe some of you have a better answer. I have also asked where did all that energy come from that existed in something the size of a pin head that created the universe and everything in it we can see and all that beyond what we can see? Amy ideas?

In fact, the dark things and energies were looked for because either the math was wrong or there was something else out there.

Dark energy and Dark matter are created by an assumption. It is assumed they exist without any evidence because if all that energy and matter did not exist the universe would fly apart.

Enjoy,