Philosophy Now Forum

Wyman wrote:You don't understand simple logic. Just because math can express some truths, doesn't mean it can express all truths. Just because math can sometimes misrepresent truth doesn't mean it always misrepresents truth. Just because math doesn't deal with the subjective and relative doesn't mean that it cannot express truths that are not subjective and relevant. Really, this is simple logic HH, just 'all' does not equal 'some' and vice versa, necessary condition does not equal sufficient condition.

But I do, and you don't.

So when can math misrepresent truth?

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:You don't understand simple logic. Just because math can express some truths, doesn't mean it can express all truths. Just because math can sometimes misrepresent truth doesn't mean it always misrepresents truth. Just because math doesn't deal with the subjective and relative doesn't mean that it cannot express truths that are not subjective and relevant. Really, this is simple logic HH, just 'all' does not equal 'some' and vice versa, necessary condition does not equal sufficient condition.

But I do, and you don't.

So when can math misrepresent truth?

These are your words:

Ones has to be naïve to believe that math can represent truth, it often misrepresent truth,

I don't mind answering questions, because unlike you I like discussion and I am not afraid to expose my reasoning and opinions and sometimes admit when I am wrong. However, I won't keep answering your questions while you ignore mine. It gets boring - I make a point, you ignore it and ask an unrelated question. You ask the questions, not because you are interested, but to deflect from the fact that you are afraid to get into a real discussion.

One way math can misrepresent the truth (off the top of my head) lies in its very nature of abstraction. Mathematical objects and rules are abstractions from things we find in the world. In the process of abstracting, we strip these things of factors or qualities we think are irrelevant - quantification rather than qualification. When we then re-apply these abstract concepts back onto the world - applied math - they of course fail to adequately represent things. For instance, the motion of a projectile is not consistent with treating it as a point of mass traveling in a vacuum; all the projectile's concrete qualities contribute to the air resistance and are not taken into account by the mathematical equations.

Wyman wrote:won't keep answering your questions while you ignore mine. It gets boring - I make a point, you ignore it and ask an unrelated question. You ask the questions, not because you are interested, but to deflect from the fact that you are afraid to get into a real discussion.

Fair enough, a reasonable assertion of the situation.

Wyman wrote:One way math can misrepresent the truth (off the top of my head) lies in its very nature of abstraction. Mathematical objects and rules are abstractions from things we find in the world. In the process of abstracting, we strip these things of factors or qualities we think are irrelevant - quantification rather than qualification. When we then re-apply these abstract concepts back onto the world - applied math - they of course fail to adequately represent things. For instance, the motion of a projectile is not consistent with treating it as a point of mass traveling in a vacuum; all the projectile's concrete qualities contribute to the air resistance and are not taken into account by the mathematical equations.

Why do we have computers that can simulate a wind tunnel and test objects areodynamics? ..then at the same time why do we still have old fashion wind tunnels now that we have computers to simulate wind tunnels?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I'm not sure how Aristotle solves it, but with most paradoxes, they are nothing of the sort.
This one is a problem because it is stated synchronically, whilst reality is diachronic. A static problem solved by a dynamic reality.
Buridan's Ass is solved with the same thought.

For Meno, you can know about a thing, without knowing much about it. Time, as always is the answer. Hermeneutic circles get you no where. Knowledge is gained as result of a spiral, which ascends.

Buridan's ass considers food source A then B, then A the B, But time increases his hunger which forces his decision. The hunger impulse gets more important than making a choice; when it reaches a critical point he moves towards the food.

Aristotle attempts to solve the problem by showing there is more than one way of "knowing".

How?

It is possible to know that vertically opposite angles are always equal. One does not need to refer to any particular example of intersecting straight lines to know the truth of this claim. One may decide to build a fence made of rectangular panels and in my case the construction of a particular style of fence required the use of diagonal strips as decoration?

Once I actually constructed such a fence, and like most people who build this particular type of fence the general principle of vertically opposite angles wasn't a consideration. I have always know this general rule, but it never occurred to me while I was constructing the fence. Interestingly enough, something interesting was manifesting itself. It was only when I stepped back and examined the work in detail this mathematical principle realized itself in practical terms.

Ginkgo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
Aristotle attempts to solve the problem by showing there is more than one way of "knowing".

How?

It is possible to know that vertically opposite angles are always equal. One does not need to refer to any particular example of intersecting straight lines to know the truth of this claim. One may decide to build a fence made of rectangular panels and in my case the construction of a particular style of fence required the use of diagonal strips as decoration?

Once I actually constructed such a fence, and like most people who build this particular type of fence the general principle of vertically opposite angles wasn't a consideration. I have always know this general rule, but it never occurred to me while I was constructing the fence. Interestingly enough, something interesting was manifesting itself. It was only when I stepped back and examined the work in detail this mathematical principle realized itself in practical terms.

Is this his example?

I would have thought the answer was a reflexion on the difference between knowing of and knowing about. Not a problem when you see knowledge as a process rather than in stasis.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Is this his example?

I would have thought the answer was a reflexion on the difference between knowing of and knowing about. Not a problem when you see knowledge as a process rather than in stasis.

It is an example, although one could use many different examples to illustrate the point.

I can see merit in what you are saying. Aristotle's "Prior Analytics" could be of interest if you are interested in this particular problem.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:won't keep answering your questions while you ignore mine. It gets boring - I make a point, you ignore it and ask an unrelated question. You ask the questions, not because you are interested, but to deflect from the fact that you are afraid to get into a real discussion.

Fair enough, a reasonable assertion of the situation.

Wyman wrote:One way math can misrepresent the truth (off the top of my head) lies in its very nature of abstraction. Mathematical objects and rules are abstractions from things we find in the world. In the process of abstracting, we strip these things of factors or qualities we think are irrelevant - quantification rather than qualification. When we then re-apply these abstract concepts back onto the world - applied math - they of course fail to adequately represent things. For instance, the motion of a projectile is not consistent with treating it as a point of mass traveling in a vacuum; all the projectile's concrete qualities contribute to the air resistance and are not taken into account by the mathematical equations.

Why do we have computers that can simulate a wind tunnel and test objects areodynamics? ..then at the same time why do we still have old fashion wind tunnels now that we have computers to simulate wind tunnels?

Trial and error.

Wyman wrote:Trial and error.

..fine ..less offensive then!

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:Trial and error.

../facepalm!!!!

Aren't you a little old to be communicating in smiley faces and cute gestures?

Wyman wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:Trial and error.

../facepalm!!!!

Aren't you a little old to be communicating in smiley faces and cute gestures?

What it boils down to is ..am I right or wrong?

Besides when would math show that they're wrong? Math alone can't really show it, only for patients if they die, or if the flood gate closes too late and the Water pours in.
This is exactly why we haven't replaced humans with computers, computes can calculate trillions of data much faster than any humans, yet they don't have the cognitive abilities to comprehend what they're doing.

Dear Wyman you have always made completely unqualified guess work and speculation, you haven't studied much, only surficial outdated nonsense and babble, please find some better pass time than cozy chat.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:
Aren't you a little old to be communicating in smiley faces and cute gestures?

What it boils down to is ..am I right or wrong?

Besides when would math show that they're wrong? Math alone can't really show it, only for patients if they die, or if the flood gate closes too late and the Water pours in.
This is exactly why we haven't replaced humans with computers, computes can calculate trillions of data much faster than any humans, yet they don't have the cognitive abilities to comprehend what they're doing.

Dear Wyman you have always made completely unqualified guess work and speculation, you haven't studied much, only surficial outdated nonsense and babble, please find some better pass time than cozy chat.

You're being vague. But generally, when mathematical models of very complex systems fail - such as weather forecasts or aerodynamic models - we don't view it as a failure of mathematics in theory, but either a result of human error in the application or creation of models, or a result of the complexity of the subject matter outrunning the computational capacity of the computers. If the latter, we can only wait for technology to catch up or more efficient models to be created (which is related to human error - it's opposite, human ingenuity). If the former, then we 'go back to the drawing board' and come up with new and better models taking into account the reasons, as we deduce them, for the failure of the math to predict the results in the wind tunnel. That is trial and error - which is another term for scientific method.

Wyman wrote:You're being vague. But generally, when mathematical models of very complex systems fail - such as weather forecasts or aerodynamic models - we don't view it as a failure of mathematics in theory, but either a result of human error in the application or creation of models, or a result of the complexity of the subject matter outrunning the computational capacity of the computers. If the latter, we can only wait for technology to catch up or more efficient models to be created (which is related to human error - it's opposite, human ingenuity). If the former, then we 'go back to the drawing board' and come up with new and better models taking into account the reasons, as we deduce them, for the failure of the math to predict the results in the wind tunnel. That is trial and error - which is another term for scientific method.

Dude, now you just making utterly lame excueses. Just admit that you are wrong!

You are extremely deluded and believe in your own blatant nonsense and babble.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:You're being vague. But generally, when mathematical models of very complex systems fail - such as weather forecasts or aerodynamic models - we don't view it as a failure of mathematics in theory, but either a result of human error in the application or creation of models, or a result of the complexity of the subject matter outrunning the computational capacity of the computers. If the latter, we can only wait for technology to catch up or more efficient models to be created (which is related to human error - it's opposite, human ingenuity). If the former, then we 'go back to the drawing board' and come up with new and better models taking into account the reasons, as we deduce them, for the failure of the math to predict the results in the wind tunnel. That is trial and error - which is another term for scientific method.

Dude, now you just making utterly lame excueses. Just admit that you are wrong!

You are extremely deluded and believe in your own blatant nonsense and babble.

I didn't even think anything I said was controversial. Tell me where I went wrong and I'll stand corrected. I'm no expert on wind tunnels or applied mathematics. Get to the point.

Wyman wrote:I didn't even think anything I said was controversial. Tell me where I went wrong and I'll stand corrected. I'm no expert on wind tunnels or applied mathematics. Get to the point.

Ok, let me put it simple.
I've known you for a very long time, and everything you say comes from surficial knowledge, you don't really have any deeper knowledge of what you say, it's ONLY spoken straight out of your ass.

Everything you say comes from your faulty logic! You are completely unsuited (like 99.99% of all other cozy chatters) for even basic philosophy.

You ask me to point out a specific section where you have gone wrong, that's not necessary, because EVERYTHING is faulty of what you say.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:I didn't even think anything I said was controversial. Tell me where I went wrong and I'll stand corrected. I'm no expert on wind tunnels or applied mathematics. Get to the point.

Ok, let me put it simple.
I've known you for a very long time, and everything you say comes from surficial knowledge, you don't really have any deeper knowledge of what you say, it's ONLY spoken straight out of your ass.

Everything you say comes from your faulty logic! You are completely unsuited (like 99.99% of all other cozy chatters) for even basic philosophy.

You ask me to point out a specific section where you have gone wrong, that's not necessary, because EVERYTHING is faulty of what you say.

What a cop-out. You ask me a series of questions that go further and further off topic and I answer them, never claiming to be an expert. I wait for you to make a point - giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking that your questions were perhaps leading somewhere (I was very patient and polite). Then you act like a child, stamp your feet, and say I'm superficial and you don't want to play any more.

You can only earn respect by stating your positions and laying out your reasoning. I have not earned yours, which is fine. But only a coward refuses to state his position for fear that his reasons will not stand up to scrutiny.