For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
For the same reason we do any experiment: to see what actually happens.Hobbes' Choice wrote:If that is all it is, then why do we need CERN?uwot wrote:As often as not, the maths is the model. The 4D 'spacetime' of General Relativity may or may not exist; it doesn't make any difference, the model still works.
If you can't see the problem then I don't know what to tell you.Wyman wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is the reason for my skepticism, because when you reach this stage is when you are not really doing science, you are really just masturbating.Wyman wrote: To HC's last point - a model is developed in connection not only with the evidence, but with the mathematics. To be be a model, it must conform to certain stringent mathematical criteria - i.e. its much more than just 'a way to think about it;' it's inextricably connected to the mathematics, so yes, it is substantially about the models complying with the maths.
You are allowing the tail of the maths to wag the dog of evidence.
I don't understand what you're proposing the alternative to be. The math is based on the evidence and predicts future observation/evidence. The interpretation provides a way to conceptualize it.
I see that's your MO. Reminds me of my 6 year old.Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you can't see the problem then I don't know what to tell you.Wyman wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
This is the reason for my skepticism, because when you reach this stage is when you are not really doing science, you are really just masturbating.
You are allowing the tail of the maths to wag the dog of evidence.
I don't understand what you're proposing the alternative to be. The math is based on the evidence and predicts future observation/evidence. The interpretation provides a way to conceptualize it.
So you have a choice. Either go to bed with Greylorn. Literally or metaphorically. Or you could do some philosophy. Looks like you've made your choice.Wyman wrote:I see that's your MO. Reminds me of my 6 year old.Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you can't see the problem then I don't know what to tell you.Wyman wrote:
I don't understand what you're proposing the alternative to be. The math is based on the evidence and predicts future observation/evidence. The interpretation provides a way to conceptualize it.
And you think this sort of remark;"I see that's your MO. Reminds me of my 6 year old." is going to keep me here.Wyman wrote:Do I think that maths leads the universe? I don't even know what that means. Einstein believed that the maths and theories described an underlying reality; that we could discern the laws of that reality. Russell changed his 'philosophy' so many times I don't know or care what it ended up as; I always found him somewhat of a blowhard. I'll have a philosophical discussion, but I think you are hiding behind vague, cryptic comments and when pressed for clarification, you storm off.
Wyman wrote:Do I think that maths leads the universe? I don't even know what that means. Einstein believed that the maths and theories described an underlying reality; that we could discern the laws of that reality. Russell changed his 'philosophy' so many times I don't know or care what it ended up as; I always found him somewhat of a blowhard. I'll have a philosophical discussion, but I think you are hiding behind vague, cryptic comments and when pressed for clarification, you storm off.
Yes, I'm done with HC, as he seems to like the hit and run style of conversation.Greylorn Ell wrote:Wyman wrote:Do I think that maths leads the universe? I don't even know what that means. Einstein believed that the maths and theories described an underlying reality; that we could discern the laws of that reality. Russell changed his 'philosophy' so many times I don't know or care what it ended up as; I always found him somewhat of a blowhard. I'll have a philosophical discussion, but I think you are hiding behind vague, cryptic comments and when pressed for clarification, you storm off.
Wyman,
Sticking to intelligence and logic in the face of persistent bullshit is tough. You have at least one ally, who is poorly regarded by the bullshit community.
You've described Russell's philosophy perfectly. Thank you. IMO he is another brilliant nitwit, someone with an extraordinary mind who could not integrate his mathematical understandings into a coherent whole.
An aside question: Brits posting on this Brit forum seem to use the word "maths" as a shortcut for "mathematics." This usage comes across to me as stupid and illiterate. I immediately tend to discount someone using this literary shortcut as stupid and illiterate.
The term "maths" is not a good linguistic shortcut for the full word, "mathematics." I must assume that this incompetent usage came from the Brit style of trying to teach the basic principles of mathematics to those who are incapable of understanding them.
Have you some insights?
Greylorn
Wyman,Wyman wrote:Greylorn Ell wrote: Wyman,
Sticking to intelligence and logic in the face of persistent bullshit is tough. You have at least one ally, who is poorly regarded by the bullshit community.
You've described Russell's philosophy perfectly. Thank you. IMO he is another brilliant nitwit, someone with an extraordinary mind who could not integrate his mathematical understandings into a coherent whole.
An aside question: Brits posting on this Brit forum seem to use the word "maths" as a shortcut for "mathematics." This usage comes across to me as stupid and illiterate. I immediately tend to discount someone using this literary shortcut as stupid and illiterate.
The term "maths" is not a good linguistic shortcut for the full word, "mathematics." I must assume that this incompetent usage came from the Brit style of trying to teach the basic principles of mathematics to those who are incapable of understanding them.
Have you some insights?
Greylorn
Yes, I'm done with HC, as he seems to like the hit and run style of conversation.
I tinker with using 'maths' from time to time, since 'when in Rome.' But it is extremely unnatural to an American. It is a rare example of American usage being more formal than British. 'Math' has more informal, slang connotations than 'maths.' You'd expect to hear a grade schooler complain about 'math' class or his 'math' teacher or claim that he is not very good at 'math.' One wouldn't usually say that he was majoring in math or that Frederick Gauss was great at math. The British usage of 'maths' seems to be more like our usage of 'mathematics.'
But as much crap as we get on this site by people like VeggieTax, I can't really get sucked into the 'us' versus 'them' mentality too much (except when I'm in a bad mood and VT says something really stupid). I like Europeans generally (and everyone else) unless they give me a reason not to on an individual level. I traveled throughout Europe when I was younger and although they all warned me that no one liked Americans and I should pretend I was Canadian, I made many friends and never had a problem, despite being honest.
Passive aggressive, post avoiding BS.Wyman wrote: Yes, I'm done with HC, as he seems to like the hit and run style of conversation.