RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[Native]

There's probably at least a platoon of randos
on this forum who know more than any scientist on earth.

How can you tell?

 

[cladking]

I have no idea what you are on about.

In your zeal to reduce infinite complexity to something that can be modeled in a single sentence you have distorted reality in myriad ways.

You think you can just take reality out and unfold it but it was never reality that went in. You simply ignore what you never reduced.

 

[Pogo]

In my analytic perspective, both the model and its math fails simultaneously.

I will be interested in your demonstration of a failure of math.

If so, both the make up ideas of "black holes", "dark matter", and "dark energy" shouldn't have been launched and repeated as if they are the facts.

Not sure what this means, all three are perfectly compliant with the mathematics involved, the problem of infinities is just what it is and not even relevant for the second two.

When seriously contradicted, and in the "we don´t know"-situations, its the very foundation of assumed and included - or excluded - laws which should be reconsidered and eventually discarded.

Well duh, yes when we don't know we look for new explanations, but I think you have a rather unscientific understanding of "laws".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your zeal to reduce infinite complexity to something that can be modeled in a single sentence you have distorted reality in myriad ways.

How so?

Are you saying newtonian physics isn't adequate to calculate rocket trajectories? Because NASA and alike do that all the time, successfully.
Are you saying relativity isn't adequate to calculate GPS position? Because millions and millions of people make use of that system every day, successfully.

So how is that "distorting reality"?

You think you can just take reality out and unfold it but it was never reality that went in.

And yet the equations work anyway.

You simply ignore what you never reduced.

If you say so.
Not sure what your objection actually is.

 

[Pogo]

How so?

Are you saying newtonian physics isn't adequate to calculate rocket trajectories? Because NASA and alike do that all the time, successfully.
Are you saying relativity isn't adequate to calculate GPS position? Because millions and millions of people make use of that system every day, successfully.

So how is that "distorting reality"?



And yet the equations work anyway.


If you say so.
Not sure what your objection actually is.

That makes three of us I think.

 

[Audie]

That makes three of us I think.

Some few others long since quit trying

 

[Pogo]

Some few others long since quit trying

I only read responses to him occasionally.

 

[Native]

I said:
If so, both the make up ideas of "black holes", "dark matter", and "dark energy" shouldn't have been launched and repeated as if they are the facts.

Not sure what this means, all three are perfectly compliant with the mathematics involved, the problem of infinities is just what it is and not even relevant for the second two.

The relevans is that all three of them are mental speculations, including a "mathematical infinity" term itself.

 

[Pogo]

I said:
If so, both the make up ideas of "black holes", "dark matter", and "dark energy" shouldn't have been launched and repeated as if they are the facts.

The relevans is that all three of them are mental speculations, including a "mathematical infinity" term itself.

I'm guessing, that you have no experience in science or mathematics.

Mathematics is essential in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, finance, computer science, and the social sciences. Although mathematics is extensively used for modeling phenomena, the fundamental truths of mathematics are independent of any scientific experimentation. Some areas of mathematics, such as statistics and game theory, are developed in close correlation with their applications and are often grouped under applied mathematics. Other areas are developed independently from any application (and are therefore called pure mathematics) but often later find practical applications.[2][3]
From

Mathematics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Audie]

I'm guessing, that you have no experience in science or mathematics.

Mathematics is essential in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, finance, computer science, and the social sciences. Although mathematics is extensively used for modeling phenomena, the fundamental truths of mathematics are independent of any scientific experimentation. Some areas of mathematics, such as statistics and game theory, are developed in close correlation with their applications and are often grouped under applied mathematics. Other areas are developed independently from any application (and are therefore called pure mathematics) but often later find practical applications.[2][3]
From

Mathematics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another of those "quit bothering" situationals

 

[Native]

I'm guessing, that you have no experience in science or mathematics

And I´m guessing that you have no education in critical and logical analysis.

 

[Native]

Another of those quit trying situationals

I wonder if you have any independent thoughts of anything since you just parrots other debaters comments.

 

[cladking]

If you say so.
Not sure what your objection actually is.

For someone who knows everything you certainly don't know much of anything.

Do you even read the posts you quote. This is a rhetorical question since it is obvious you do not. You forget the beginning of a sentence before you get to the end. Most of reality and all of consciousness (whatever it is) has not or can not be reduced to experiment. All of theory is based solely on experiment. It follows that you can't know the effects of consciousness, the cause, or how it arose. you also can't calculate all of the forces and their interactions on a rocket's trajectory. The rocket works not because you are so smarter that you know everything but because individuals worked out the bugs for the last century; many many individuals with many of them a lot smarter than you or me. All ideas are individual and every individual is standing on the shoulders of giants but this doesn't mean any of them know or knew everything. Just like you and most people they thought they knew everything or at least knew how to google it. Every one of them could lecture on the the importance of fuel for rockets and good calculations for consumption and trajectory. Not one of them in 1925 or today could do it all. Not one of them could successfully perform brain surgery. Not one of them understood the interactions in the elemental forces involved in the launch of a rocket. Not one of them knew what every caveman knew.

Even though not a single rocket scientists, rocket mathematician, rocket programmer, or rocket designer knew much of anything at all most of them were sure they knew most everything and they were all members of the species "homo omnisciencis".

Everything has everything to do with everything.

I mean the bolded sentence literally. Every experiment, every everything affects the trajectory of a rocket and this certainly includes every single thing that science has failed to reduce to experiment such as consciousness. The tide imparted by the most distant galaxies affect the rocket. The ambient temperature at launch affects the trajectory of a rocket. A butterfly in China can bring down a space shuttle.



Despite the impossible complexity of reality most individuals just shrug it off because they know everything. You don't need to see a big picture when you think you can see every puzzle piece with a microscope.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. You think you don't need to see anything but you are wrong. Without the big picture you are as blind as a bat that can see only what it knows or cricket or even a cricket bat that sees nothing at all. But you can only assume an appliance isn't conscious because you have no definition for it.

 

[cladking]

Most people are squatting on the shoulders of giants and don't need no stinkin' ideas of their own.

 

[cladking]

A butterfly in China can bring down a space shuttle.

I saw something the other day but remember no details. I think it was a Wright brother overheard a couple of girls come up with a solution for flight and ran with it. By the same token the butterfly in China shouldn't be blamed for the Challenger Disaster without pointing out that the invention of gunpowder and the idea to put it in a tube opened at one end was also a Chinese invention. ...probably some young girls who had accidently mixed the ingredients and were overheard by some promoter.

 

[Pogo]

And I´m guessing that you have no education in critical and logical analysis.

For somebody who doesn't understand the basis of pure math or probably any other, I find that funny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some few others long since quit trying

I don't bother anymore. I can't see any reason to. If someone thinks they know more than everyone alive and couldn't care less about what I or anyone knowledgeable says, then I'm not going to reciprocate interest.

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if you have any independent thoughts of anything since you just parrots other debaters comments.

Oh @ Audie is a most independent thinker who definitely has her own understandings sometimes as a result of enduring American society.
She is worth listening too.

 

[Audie]

Oh @ Audie is a most independent thinker who definitely has her own understandings sometimes as a result of enduring American society.
She is worth listening too.

A bit late for that.

 

[Audie]

I saw something the other day but remember no details. I think it was a Wright brother overheard a couple of girls come up with a solution for flight and ran with it. By the same token the butterfly in China shouldn't be blamed for the Challenger Disaster without pointing out that the invention of gunpowder and the idea to put it in a tube opened at one end was also a Chinese invention. ...probably some young girls who had accidently mixed the ingredients and were overheard by some promoter.

Always picking on China