i think chuck is right, we made math so we can better understand our
universe , math didnt create us , but there is the argument that math
is the language of god , ( or the universe itself ) like time we made
it to keep track of nateral rhythms to better understand . / time is
( as all things ‹----- thats not true to the tee ) a matter of
perspective . like the dopler effect _____ veeeeeeeerrrrrrrrr /
wwooooooo ( a car or train ) compresson/de-compresson . my cat is 8
months old but its physical self holds no real life , its "life force"
is as old as the universe itself , what then of u and i !?! if u hide
or stand in the open u r still the same being, only in differant
states ...... is my buick ( car ) 11Ft. long , it depends on
perspective ( speed of traveler and viewer , D=T×V , if u mesure the
age of the universe from its center ( motionless ) as campaired to
where we stand ( hureling through space ) the resalts are verrrrrry
diferant ! if one is as valid as the other yet they are very differant
is eather one grounded in reality as we pathetically comrihend it ----
are the differing resalts equally true or do they prove eachothers
falsehood ?
@\ /@
"
VVVVV
VVVVV
Chuck Bowling wrote:
> I think you might be missing my point. It is not pure math. It is a sentence
> that describes a relationship. Energy is not math, nor is matter, nor is
> light. The symbols that describe the relationship between them is math.
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:14 AM, allan deheretic <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > 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,
> >
> >
