A philosophy of science.

[Ginkgo]

Subject: A philosophy of science.
An opinion: the philosophy of science is still not science.
====.

That's not what is being stated. Philosophy of science, not philosophy is science.

Philosophy of science without formulas and laws is neither philosophy nor science.
Philosophy of science without formulas and laws is tautology:
my opinion - your opinion, positivism, idealism, materialism, creationism ,
skeptics’ or optimistic argument , i believe – you believe . . . etc . . . without end.
Only quantum formulas and laws can logical explain us the beginning of Existence
and the “Philosophy of science”
=====..

The problem with quantum formulations (if it can be considered a problem) is that the system needs to be time dependent. In classical physics a system will evolve over time whether we observe it or not. This is generally not true of quantum formulations. We seem to change it by the act of observation.

The problem would be that if God exists outside of time and space then at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable. I should add, not knowable in mathematical terms.

[Hjarloprillar]

"The problem would be that if God exists outside of time and space then at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable."
WELL SAID

[Ginkgo]

"The problem would be that if God exists outside of time and space then at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable."
WELL SAID

Just to clarify my position. I mean not knowable in a mathematical sense. This does not necessarily negate other arguments for 'knowing'. It is also possible that future mathematical discoveries may necessitate a rethinking of my position.

[socratus]

The problem with quantum formulations (if it can be considered a problem)
is that the system needs to be time dependent.
In classical physics a system will evolve over time whether we observe it or not.
This is generally not true of quantum formulations.
We seem to change it by the act of observation.

The problem with quantum formulations is that this system
belongs to independent spacetime reference frame.
And what an independent spacetime reference frame is nobody knows.

The problem would be that if God exists outside of time and space
then at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable.
I should add, not knowable in mathematical terms.

Maybe the details of God is hidden in this unknown
independent spacetime reference frame . Who knows !?
==...

[socratus]

"The problem would be that
if God exists outside of time and space then
at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable."
WELL SAID

Just to clarify my position.
I mean not knowable in a mathematical sense.
This does not necessarily negate other arguments for 'knowing'.
It is also possible that future mathematical discoveries may necessitate a rethinking of my position.

How many sources of 'knowing' do we know ?

[Ginkgo]

"The problem would be that
if God exists outside of time and space then
at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable."
WELL SAID

Just to clarify my position.
I mean not knowable in a mathematical sense.
This does not necessarily negate other arguments for 'knowing'.
It is also possible that future mathematical discoveries may necessitate a rethinking of my position.

How many sources of 'knowing' do we know ?

I guess that depends on what we want to know. I understand and can appreciate the arguments that wants to depict mathematics as the reality behind the world of causation. Certainly, quantum mechanics has proven very useful in this regard because it has help to solve some of the problems that have plagued classical physics.

Like everyone else I don't know the answers to the big questions. I can only assume that mathematics will lead the way in this respect. One day we may well end up with an equation capable of encompassing everything. Perhaps then will understand the mind of God.

Just my thoughts

[John K]

Chaos theory suggests that what initially appears as disorder might be anything but.
In other words, the pre-Socratics don't really differ too much from modern thought.
That "pattern" is what binds the two schools.
Consider the chaos triangle.

Chaos . . . . What is Chaos Theory?
Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable.
It teaches us to expect the unexpected.
While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena
like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions,
Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible
to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.
#
Order / Disorder Chaos is not simply disorder.
Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder,
which often occur in surprising ways.
#
http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/ ... os-theory/

We don’t know these “surprising ways.”
Maybe therefore Albert Einstein said:
“ As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/ ... os-theory/
====….

Agreed. Philosophy cannot say; "Here's a test-tube of ethics, and here's what is weighs." I'm interested in what is seemingly chaotic, but in time reveals certain patterns. The chaos triangle is something I think is a good example of this transition from what we perceive as disorder to what we perceive as order. The triangle is simply a method of illustrating this process. Could we say that philosophy works in a similar way? Thousands of years of philosophical thought have, I believe, yielded less groundbreaking learning than science has. We can split the atom, but we're still arguing whether or not there's really a chair in the room.

[Cerveny]

"The problem would be that if God exists outside of time and space then at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable."
WELL SAID

Just to clarify my position. I mean not knowable in a mathematical sense. This does not necessarily negate other arguments for 'knowing'. It is also possible that future mathematical discoveries may necessitate a rethinking of my position.

Perhaps a remark: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=17

[Hjarloprillar]

"The problem would be that if God exists outside of time and space then at this stage of our mathematical development he is probably not knowable."
WELL SAID

Just to clarify my position. I mean not knowable in a mathematical sense. This does not necessarily negate other arguments for 'knowing'. It is also possible that future mathematical discoveries may necessitate a rethinking of my position.

Understood.
it takes many posts for a 'sampling'
so far you have 4x 5/5
and a 4/5
[sniker.. im a bad man]

your math is so far above me i give cred just for skill
im very good at history and predictive stochastics. High Math is like ' i tried ouzo once'

this is why teams of skill work.. not in forced workplace crap that never works but natural bonding through reason.

an example is the Vienna circle

---------------------------------------------
and to leech your skill.

i once had equation . lost now.
to go from sol to centauri triplet. lets just say 4 ly. you have 1 g [9.8 mps]
constant.
no cruising

what is time it takes as seen from earth.
As time it takes on ship is not connected to earth.

general and special relativity is a wonderland. before we even touch q mech.

[socratus]

Chaos theory suggests that what initially appears as disorder might be anything but.
In other words, the pre-Socratics don't really differ too much from modern thought.
That "pattern" is what binds the two schools.
Consider the chaos triangle.

Chaos . . . . What is Chaos Theory?
Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable.
It teaches us to expect the unexpected.
While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena
like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions,
Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible
to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.
#
Order / Disorder Chaos is not simply disorder.
Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder,
which often occur in surprising ways.
#
http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/ ... os-theory/

We don’t know these “surprising ways.”
Maybe therefore Albert Einstein said:
“ As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/ ... os-theory/
====….

Agreed.
Philosophy cannot say; "Here's a test-tube of ethics, and here's what is weighs."
I'm interested in what is seemingly chaotic, but in time reveals certain patterns.
The chaos triangle is something I think is a good example of this transition
from what we perceive as disorder to what we perceive as order.
The triangle is simply a method of illustrating this process.
Could we say that philosophy works in a similar way?
Thousands of years of philosophical thought have,
I believe, yielded less groundbreaking learning than science has.
We can split the atom, but we're still arguing whether
or not there's really a chair in the room.

In the nature this opinion doesn’t work.
Why?
The geometrical ‘chaos triangle’ consists on big and small triangles.
Let us take the Pythagoras' theory.
In math Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest
and smallest triangles. So physicists decided that this
applies also to the electromagnetic phenomena; that the laws
of a nature in macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so. There is difference between
the macrocosm ( big triangle ) and the microcosm ( small triangle).
===.

[Hjarloprillar]

So physicists decided that this
applies also to the electromagnetic phenomena; that the laws
of a nature in macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so. There is difference between
the macrocosm ( big triangle ) and the microcosm ( small triangle).
===.

example pls ...have faith . you can describe in words with math thrown in.. i'm not stupid.
just lazy [lazy for me is just one book a week]
" The dirt. The soil of the garden of knowing. called wisdom.. needs the blood of fathers and heroes to grow"
[ prill]

when i die i want my blood shed on that garden. why else am i alive?

pythagosus
In any right-angled triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle).

as a 3d space game designer it is a given to use Pythagoras.
stars exist in 3d x.y and z. distance requires Pythagoras.

play x3 and you are dumped in verse ruled by such. Without knowledge of x.y . z and without pythagorus you are f**d. why i love the game and the graphics wooooo
http://videobam.com/BPSMy

click close to play

[socratus]

How many sources of 'knowing' do we know ?

I guess that depends on what we want to know.
I understand and can appreciate the arguments that wants to depict
mathematics as the reality behind the world of causation.

I guess that depends on from which reference frame we observe some phenomena.

Certainly, quantum mechanics has proven very useful in this regard
because it has help to solve some of the problems that have plagued
classical physics.

Fact: Quantum Mechanics is the most successful scientific theory
ever created by human beings. But we have more than 14 interpretations
of QT and all are problematical.

Like everyone else I don't know the answers to the big questions.
I can only assume that mathematics will lead the way in this respect.
One day we may well end up with an equation capable
of encompassing everything. Perhaps then will understand the mind of God.

Of course math is the queen of science.
But without his king–physics she can be a mad women.

Just my thoughts

It is just my thoughts too.
Your opinion – my opinion . . . . . .you believe – i believe . . . . etc . . . etc
===.

[Hjarloprillar]

How many sources of 'knowing' do we know ?

I guess that depends on what we want to know.
I understand and can appreciate the arguments that wants to depict
mathematics as the reality behind the world of causation.

I guess that depends on from which reference frame we observe some phenomena.

Certainly, quantum mechanics has proven very useful in this regard
because it has help to solve some of the problems that have plagued
classical physics.

Fact: Quantum Mechanics is the most successful scientific theory
ever created by human beings. But we have more than 14 interpretations
of QT and all are problematical.

Like everyone else I don't know the answers to the big questions.
I can only assume that mathematics will lead the way in this respect.
One day we may well end up with an equation capable
of encompassing everything. Perhaps then will understand the mind of God.

Of course math is the queen of science.
But without his king–physics she can be a mad women.

Just my thoughts

It is just my thoughts too.
Your opinion – my opinion . . . . . .you believe – i believe . . . . etc . . . etc
===.

ginko v socratus... awsome

[John K]

The geometrical ‘chaos triangle’ consists on big and small triangles.
Let us take the Pythagoras' theory.
In math Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest
and smallest triangles. So physicists decided that this
applies also to the electromagnetic phenomena; that the laws
of a nature in macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so. There is difference between
the macrocosm ( big triangle ) and the microcosm ( small triangle).
===.

The dichotomy between Newtonian and quantum physics?

[Hjarloprillar]

The geometrical ‘chaos triangle’ consists on big and small triangles.
Let us take the Pythagoras' theory.
In math Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest
and smallest triangles. So physicists decided that this
applies also to the electromagnetic phenomena; that the laws
of a nature in macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so. There is difference between
the macrocosm ( big triangle ) and the microcosm ( small triangle).
===.

The dichotomy between Newtonian and quantum physics?

As a no high math guy i ask the same
"The dichotomy between Newtonian and quantum physics"
for having no high math does not mean a 150+ iq is dead.

the brain works well . v-16 at 3000 rpm

it runs on hydrogen the 16 cylinders are ceramics capped with titanium alloy