Sorry Chuck it is pure math. it simply is a math formula nothing more. if you can not create the formula to back up you physics theory it becomes invalid. nothing wrong with that. I work once for a man who was a theoretical mathematician,, creating the programs to run is math formulas to see if they worked out. Once I asked him if he knew what it did. his reply was he didn't know it was a formula and it worked out mathematically and to him that was all that was important. where his mind was I had no idea.. my job was to plug it into the computer.. and that doesn't mean I understood the formula..because i didn't ,, he had to talk me through them.. do this , then this , then this , type of thing.. but that was his way of double checking is work. He was a great man to work with.. and that is really all I remember of him. Allan
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Chuck Bowling < [email protected]> wrote: > E = mc2 is not math. It is a relationship between energy and matter that is > described by math. I don't believe I ever said that an equation wasn't math. > But then, I've already said this and it appears that we are both talking > about different things. I don't really know what point you are trying to > make. > > As to whether it is subjective or objective, I would fall on the side of > objective. Math is a language that lends itself to rigid formalism. It is > true that someone with sufficient knowledge of math can make pretty much any > argument that he wants and make it appear to be true. However, if the > argument is examined 'under the microscope' by way of mathematical proofs > it's truth or falsity will come out. > > I don't have any idea what your second point is. Are you saying that string > theory is math? > > If so I disagree. String theory is a theory that is best described by math. > > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:45 AM, ornamentalmind < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Here again we agree in some ways. >> >> Yes, math is a language. It is a tool used to convey concepts. As an >> aside here, I’ll add that because of this, it is subjective rather >> than objective. >> >> However, when you say that an equation is not math, even taking into >> account the semantics of the thing, in context (string theory) you are >> incorrect. >> >> See: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/index.html >> Which leads to: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math2.html >> Which leads to: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math3.html >> >> This all comes from the site: http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html >> >> Your last paragraph, being non sequitur, I’ll just ignore for now. >> >> >> On May 11, 11:12 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ornamentalmind < >> [email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > Thanks for restating your position on the relevancy of the math used >> > > in string theory. That is what you are stating, right?...that the >> > > math in string theory is relevant. Also, that it is ‘real’ somehow? >> > > That it is meaningful somehow? That it actually impacts our lives in >> > > some non-philosophical way, right? Admittedly, I’m guessing on most of >> > > these points and await your true thinking. >> > >> > Uh, yea. If the math used to describe string theory is free of error >> then it >> > is relevant. I'm not sure why this should be a huge issue but, >> whatever... >> > >> > > Lastly, we disagree that ‘math is math’ in the sense that math from >> > > one era is as ‘relevant’ as math from another. I used the example of >> > > E=mc2. . . something that I don’t see addressed by your response >> > > unless that is that you somehow wish to equate the math ‘found in cave >> > > drawings created 30,000 years ago’ with it. Is that your >> > > position?...that all math, from the simplest to the most complex is >> > > just as ‘relevant’? I suggest that there are different levels of math >> > > and of math complexity. I further suggest that math is a human >> > > construct…*only*. >> > >> > First, E=mc2 is not math. It is a relationship that is described by an >> > algebraic equation. I didn't feel the need to point that out so I >> ignored >> > it. Math is a language. It is a tool that is used to convey concepts. >> > Nothing more or less. >> > >> > If a caveman 30,000 years ago had created a mathematically correct >> construct >> > it would be just as correct today as it was 30,000 years ago. >> > > -- ( ) I_D Allan If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
