Is mathematical rigour key to scientific certainty?

[Ostronomos]

Quantum fields, mathematics and the search for rigour | Timothy Nguyen

Galileo claimed that “mathematics is the language in which the book of nature is written” and no more is this apparent than in our most successful theory of nature, quantum field theory. As the mathematical backbone for The Standard Model, quantum field theory’s numerical predictions have been...

iai.tv

The longstanding, timeless tradition of mathematics hints at a world beyond our senses. One that has eluded experimentation as far back as we can remember. However oftentimes, our sense betray our judgement of reality.

It is only through logic and mathematics can we begin to bring the higher dimensional universe closer to our immediate grasp. Whereby science plays the part of practicality.

 

[Jagella]

The longstanding, timeless tradition of mathematics hints at a world beyond our senses.

If by "world" you mean thoughts and words along with attendant methodologies , then math does point in the direction of an unobservable world. But it's a world we invented.

One that has eluded experimentation as far back as we can remember.

What experiments have been performed to find a mathematical world?

However oftentimes, our sense betray our judgement of reality.

That's correct, and that's why we should take care not to make mathematics out to be more than it is. It's a language and algorithms that are useful when thinking about and communicating quantity, measure, shape and order. It's a human invention.

It is only through logic and mathematics can we begin to bring the higher dimensional universe closer to our immediate grasp. Whereby science plays the part of practicality.

Sure. Math is very useful in thinking about "extending" the observable, physical world to worlds that may or may not exist.

 

[wellwisher]

Quantum fields, mathematics and the search for rigour | Timothy Nguyen

Galileo claimed that “mathematics is the language in which the book of nature is written” and no more is this apparent than in our most successful theory of nature, quantum field theory. As the mathematical backbone for The Standard Model, quantum field theory’s numerical predictions have been...

iai.tv

The longstanding, timeless tradition of mathematics hints at a world beyond our senses. One that has eluded experimentation as far back as we can remember. However oftentimes, our sense betray our judgement of reality.

It is only through logic and mathematics can we begin to bring the higher dimensional universe closer to our immediate grasp. Whereby science plays the part of practicality.

Math is only as good as its premises, which are the foundation assumption behind the math. For example, video games use math. Some action or shooter games using the premise of infinite lives to make game play more enjoyable. Once you accept that premise then the math can be structured to fit the curve and make it happen, even if it is not real. Basically you run experiments, plot the data, draw the best curve and then find the math formula that expresses the curve. Now it is tool with predictive value. In the case of infinite lives we add that premise to the math and do beta testing, to see if the game play is better

If your premises are sound and you make a math model, this becomes a powerful and compact tool. But if your premises have no basis in reality we can still create math, and it will still be a loyal follower, but now will support a game or magic trick.

If you look at Casino math; probability and statistics, what is the natural source of its foundation of uncertainty? Is it natural, spiritual or man made? The math does not answer that question, but rather works under the assumption; premise, and then runs with it; experimental simulations, like infinite lives. Due to the utility of the math for helping to solve some problems, it creates its own reality; cart before the horse. This is why logic has to come first, so the basic premises are not unproven, or have no explanation, but rely on faith in the gods of dice and cards and lottery winners.

In statistical models the best curve for the experiments do not always touch all the data points; see below left. This is where margin of error and level of confidence are added. This stretches the data points into fuzzy dice, so we can pretend we have a genuine curve for the math model. To me the curve better fit into a 2-D oval than a 1-D line. What I see with that curve is that the experimental premises was nonsense, since it was not based on any sound reasoning, but from the POV of blindness in a black box. A more rational theory, leading to rational experiments will see trends, earlier than the experiments, and the data will become much more compact for a tighter line and full level of rational confidence; below right.

My favorite application of that tool is called risk. Risk fixates on the exceptions to the rule, and then that become the center of attention. All the curves or theories, only have to touch those few stray data points, while the preponderance of the data is ignored. Look what happened during COVID, where half the economy was shut down by ignoring the majority of the data due to the fear manipulation from partial bogeyman data. This is also why natural climate change is called being a denier; only partial data is needed for the magic trick.

This shows the low quality of the foundation premises that often support that math; man made climate change. I would get rid of that math model in science, since it allows for scamming and bad science. It can be used for exploratory uses, but in the end, when time to publish, if you cannot reason with the data, running a con under that fuzzy dice umbrella should be forbidden or subject to liability. Sometime you need to pull off the bandaid so we can let the wound have some air, instead of stay in the dark. The Golden Age of Science peaked about the 1920's. What we have today are mostly derivatives. That was time blind man's prophesy started to replace well thought out logic.

Galileo was connected to the Age of Reason Movement and was breaking away from the whims of the Gods. I agree with his statement but not with fuzzy dice or whims of the gods math that he never endorsed. People of his time ran the wrong experiments since they used faith in one size fits all and not reason.

 

[Ostronomos]

If by "world" you mean thoughts and words along with attendant methodologies , then math does point in the direction of an unobservable world. But it's a world we invented.

This is a false conclusion meant to distract the public from the fact that mathematics and reality share the same reality and therefore mathematics equals reality. But in mental form. As a language of mind, which is then expressed in reality.

What experiments have been performed to find a mathematical world?

That's correct, and that's why we should take care not to make mathematics out to be more than it is. It's a language and algorithms that are useful when thinking about and communicating quantity, measure, shape and order. It's a human invention.

Sure. Math is very useful in thinking about "extending" the observable, physical world to worlds that may or may not exist.

I see through your poor attempt to misdirect the public from the fact that mathematics equals reality.

Do the world a favor, don't post.

 

[Ostronomos]

Math is only as good as its premises, which are the foundation assumption behind the math. For example, video games use math. Some action or shooter games using the premise of infinite lives to make game play more enjoyable. Once you accept that premise then the math can be structured to fit the curve and make it happen, even if it is not real. Basically you run experiments, plot the data, draw the best curve and then find the math formula that expresses the curve. Now it is tool with predictive value. In the case of infinite lives we add that premise to the math and do beta testing, to see if the game play is better

If your premises are sound and you make a math model, this becomes a powerful and compact tool. But if your premises have no basis in reality we can still create math, and it will still be a loyal follower, but now will support a game or magic trick.

If you look at Casino math; probability and statistics, what is the natural source of its foundation of uncertainty? Is it natural, spiritual or man made? The math does not answer that question, but rather works under the assumption; premise, and then runs with it; experimental simulations, like infinite lives. Due to the utility of the math for helping to solve some problems, it creates its own reality; cart before the horse. This is why logic has to come first, so the basic premises are not unproven, or have no explanation, but rely on faith in the gods of dice and cards and lottery winners.

In statistical models the best curve for the experiments do not always touch all the data points; see below left. This is where margin of error and level of confidence are added. This stretches the data points into fuzzy dice, so we can pretend we have a genuine curve for the math model. To me the curve better fit into a 2-D oval than a 1-D line. What I see with that curve is that the experimental premises was nonsense, since it was not based on any sound reasoning, but from the POV of blindness in a black box. A more rational theory, leading to rational experiments will see trends, earlier than the experiments, and the data will become much more compact for a tighter line and full level of rational confidence; below right.

My favorite application of that tool is called risk. Risk fixates on the exceptions to the rule, and then that become the center of attention. All the curves or theories, only have to touch those few stray data points, while the preponderance of the data is ignored. Look what happened during COVID, where half the economy was shut down by ignoring the majority of the data due to the fear manipulation from partial bogeyman data. This is also why natural climate change is called being a denier; only partial data is needed for the magic trick.

This shows the low quality of the foundation premises that often support that math; man made climate change. I would get rid of that math model in science, since it allows for scamming and bad science. It can be used for exploratory uses, but in the end, when time to publish, if you cannot reason with the data, running a con under that fuzzy dice umbrella should be forbidden or subject to liability. Sometime you need to pull off the bandaid so we can let the wound have some air, instead of stay in the dark. The Golden Age of Science peaked about the 1920's. What we have today are mostly derivatives. That was time blind man's prophesy started to replace well thought out logic.

Galileo was connected to the Age of Reason Movement and was breaking away from the whims of the Gods. I agree with his statement but not with fuzzy dice or whims of the gods math that he never endorsed. People of his time ran the wrong experiments since they used faith in one size fits all and not reason.

Mathematicians like Aristotle and the 16th century movement of the age of reason gave us the imaginary number, i. This concept of an imaginary number extended our numerical horizon.

 

[Jagella]

This is a false conclusion meant to distract the public from the fact that mathematics and reality share the same reality and therefore mathematics equals reality. But in mental form. As a language of mind, which is then expressed in reality.

I see through your poor attempt to misdirect the public from the fact that mathematics equals reality.

Is this the latest conspiracy theory? Sadly, the "public" is poorly educated in mathematics which has opened them up to believing these quasi-religious notions about mathematics. Sorry, but math is just a language and a methodology people invented to describe the world in numerical terms. Math won't get you to any wonder-worlds anymore than The Lord of the Rings will.

Do the world a favor, don't post.

Well, I invite you to post. I will be here to correct you.

 

[wellwisher]

Mathematicians like Aristotle and the 16th century movement of the age of reason gave us the imaginary number, i. This concept of an imaginary number extended our numerical horizon.

Imaginary numbers, are connected to the square root of a negative number. You find the square root of the minus sign and the number separately. The square root of -1 is i. And the square root of -25 is 5i.

These are useful in many engineering math applications where you are modeling man made things such as in electronics, fluid dynamic and process control, to name a few. Engineering can be quite imaginative. It is sort of a placeholder for some of the math models. fWithout it there would be math bottlenecks. This extra possible step, however, opened new doors for how manmade reality works. I used these for when I studied process control and fluid dynamic models in chemical processes.

But in this case, nobody assumes these is real beyond on paper, since it was called imaginary. While using them still had practical utility. Luckily, unlike statistical math, engineers don't call this tool, a natural fact due to a conceptual reversal assumption; cart before the horse.

 

[Ostronomos]

Is this the latest conspiracy theory? Sadly, the "public" is poorly educated in mathematics which has opened them up to believing these quasi-religious notions about mathematics. Sorry, but math is just a language and a methodology people invented to describe the world in numerical terms. Math won't get you to any wonder-worlds anymore than The Lord of the Rings will.

Well, I invite you to post. I will be here to correct you.

Forgive me for jumping to conclusions. Your false deduction lead me to conclude that your pretence about mathematics was maliciousness masquerading as innocence.

You're an atheist I presume. That makes you wrong at the outset of this discussion. As you are making a poor attempt to mislead the masses as it seems, about the relationship between mathematics and reality.

Two things are different because they have at least one similarity in common, namely that they are both real.

I certainly hope that clarifies things.

But in case you wish to continue pulling the atheist's wool over an unsuspecting public's eyes, I suggest you don't. Since that would only lead to downward spiral into your disgrace.

 

[Jagella]

Forgive me for jumping to conclusions. Your false deduction lead me to conclude that your pretence about mathematics was maliciousness masquerading as innocence.

You lost me here. What conclusions have you jumped to and what "pretense about mathematics" are you referring to?

You're an atheist I presume.

I've concluded using reason that Gods are merely imaginary, if that's what you mean by "atheist." But my objections to your assertions about math have nothing to do with the existence of Gods but with the nature of mathematics. I would disagree with you even if I was a theist.

That makes you wrong at the outset of this discussion.

LOL--I'd recommend you prove me wrong if you can by using logic and facts rather than my opinion on whether or not Gods exist.

As you are making a poor attempt to mislead the masses as it seems, about the relationship between mathematics and reality.

I happen to be a mathematician and math educator having studied it for most of my life, and there is no genie in that bottle. Mathematics is part of reality in that it is human thought--nothing more. We can use math to model the physical world, but the physical world is often way too messy to be perfectly described by those models. That's why math is a very imperfect way to see reality. Like any tool we've invented, mathematics is very limited in what it can do.

Two things are different because they have at least one similarity in common, namely that they are both real.

I certainly hope that clarifies things.

Clarify? It's illogical for one thing. Two things aren't different based on what they have in common but how they differ! It's also irrelevant to what we're discussing.

But in case you wish to continue pulling the atheist's wool over an unsuspecting public's eyes, I suggest you don't. Since that would only lead to downward spiral into your disgrace.

"I'm going off the rails on a crazy train!" Your posts are really getting weird here.

I've seen this kind of nonsense before. A lot of people, with obviously limited understanding of mathematics, think it's somehow built into the fabric of reality waiting to be discovered. When I try to set them straight on that issue, then they get really obnoxious and start the personal attacks. I'm bursting their bubbles proving that whatever heavens or Gods they're seeking in mathematics just aren't there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scientific certainty is a lot like vegetarian mosquito.

 

[Ostronomos]

You lost me here. What conclusions have you jumped to and what "pretense about mathematics" are you referring to?

I assumed you were intentionally misleading the public. But rather concluded that you're simply ignorant.

I've concluded using reason that Gods are merely imaginary, if that's what you mean by "atheist."

Then I'm afraid your logic has fallen short of reality. Which leads me to ask, why do you contradict yourself by stating that logic (and God) is imaginary yet you state here that it leads you into a path of truth with regards to reality. Are you saying that the subjective and objective are disjoint and never the twain shall they meet? I'm sure you're of that conviction but I am here to open your eyes to logic itself. Because I have a superior comprehension of reality compared to your inferior comprehension of such.

This, I happen to have logically concluded, is correct.

God is real because He is proven using logic. And whether or not you are aware of that logic, does not detract from this very statement on the logical nature of God.

But my objections to your assertions about math have nothing to do with the existence of Gods but with the nature of mathematics. I would disagree with you even if I was a theist.

That is because you are living in what psychologists call delusion. Albeit a common one known as materialism.

LOL--I'd recommend you prove me wrong if you can by using logic and facts rather than my opinion on whether or not Gods exist.

See my thread One X, Therefore One God for starters.

I happen to be a mathematician and math educator having studied it for most of my life, and there is no genie in that bottle. Mathematics is part of reality in that it is human thought--nothing more.

And thought=reality, but in the form of thought. There is a higher dimension whereby thought influences reality. Consider it this way (I certainly hope my logic does not escape your feeble mind this time):

The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

We can use math to model the physical world, but the physical world is often way too messy to be perfectly described by those models. That's why math is a very imperfect way to see reality. Like any tool we've invented, mathematics is very limited in what it can do.

Messy or not it is mathematical in nature.

And the split between reality and mind is purely illusory.

Clarify? It's illogical for one thing. Two things aren't different based on what they have in common but how they differ! It's also irrelevant to what we're discussing.

It is not that it is illogical, it is simply that you have failed to grasp it.

"I'm going off the rails on a crazy train!" Your posts are really getting weird here.

Why thank you.

I've seen this kind of nonsense before. A lot of people, with obviously limited understanding of mathematics, think it's somehow built into the fabric of reality waiting to be discovered. When I try to set them straight on that issue, then they get really obnoxious and start the personal attacks. I'm bursting their bubbles proving that whatever heavens or Gods they're seeking in mathematics just aren't there.

Talk to MIT professor Max Tegmark, we share the same view he and I.