What qualifies as science?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Jozen-Bo, Apr 25, 2017.

  1. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    545
    And they end up riding on the waves (the physical things), not the wavelengths (the abstract things).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    Actually, I think they go for a larger amplitude, but I get it you never admit your errors.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    But I am not making that claim.
    Absolutely, wavelengths define the physical properties of waves.
    Which defines the color, no?
    That is my position also, but what humans experience as "light" is just a very small part of the entire spectrum. Insects see a different light (infrared or ultra-violet) than humans. Physics textbooks explain the mathematics of those wavelengths of light which humans do and do not experience.
    I respect that and I am not trying to falsify mainstream science. But as you indicated, this subject has been debated for centuries, but there is an active scientific effort to reduce all natural phenomena to some fundamental, all encompassing rules which explain how and why the universe works as it does. (see post # 393).
    You have hit the crux of the matter (in context of the discussion..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). What is that absolute fundamental property which determines and is expressed as physical reality.
    I have many times qualified my posits as probative, based on hypotheses from authoritative scientists. But then I am accused of making "argument from authority".
    But isn't everybody doing that? "Mainstream science" is also an argument from authority.
    I agree. In Holland (my birth country) a dog is called "hond", but does that mean it's not a dog? IMO, that's just semantics.
    Thank you and I also respect every poster (other than obvious trolls) on this forum. I never resort to ad hominem in any serious discussion of the fundamental mysteries of how humans experience the universe .

    I have little "formal higher education" (an associates in accounting), but that has taught me that mathematics of the accounting system is a fundamental part (at the heart) of the corporation. (the wholeness) But it has also taught me that the sum of the parts constitute the wholeness.

    I watch mostly lectures (narratives) of natural phenomena and from those seemingly unrelated lectures, I constantly find several "common denominators" and they always seem to be mathematical in essence.
    Potential is such a common denominator. In a deterministic universe all events are preceded by potential, Bohm's Implicate, which determines what and how things become expressed in our reality, which is purely a subjective experience.
    Physical structural properties are determined by their mathematical potentials and physical expressions, not the other way around, IMHO.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    You may well be correct and I have no objection to the use of amplitude, because I can relate to it from watching surfers select a wave with specific properties

    But when I look at the definitions of the word amplitude it seems to become more complicated
    and
    And in context of post # 401, I am not sure if amplitude can be used here either. Do surfers ride the "amplitude"?
    But we have all seen surfers select the "perfect wave" with the property of a "pipe-line". Is that the same as "displacement"?
    Just asking.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    Amplitude means wave height to our surfer.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    The only point I am trying to make is that, no matter what physical phenomenon or structure we look at, there is always a certain Imperative, which is deterministic of how specific properties (input) and interactions (function) and results (output) become expressed in our reality, which relative to the point of observation.

    I can relate to the notion that all deterministic expressions have an aspect of mathematical functionality in common.

    I have posted this before, but this NOVA presentation made a deep impression on my perspective of reality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    I understand that
    OK. I accept that term in this context.
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,662
    Surfers are interested in wavelength too. I was never a surfer, but I used to swim in the ocean when I lived in Southern California and associated with surfers. It's very apparent to anyone who observes the ocean/coast interface that waves often come in sets, in groups of x number of waves (2 to maybe 10). That fact allows surfers to time their movements through the waves and to predict when the next wave will arrive at a particular location (and surfing lore seems to be that the last wave in a set is the biggest).

    http://www.surfline.com/community/whoknows/whoknows.cfm?id=1120
     
  12. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    545
    Is this the definition of "function" you have been using all this time?
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Ho ho, good luck with that.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    Oh please,

    Mathematics; Function;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In context of science and mathematics is this so exotic that it warrants explanation? As a chemist are you not familiar with this;
    Chemistry; Function;
    p.s. please define "good luck" in context of science and mathematics.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    How did you interpret my use of the term, that you need to ask this?
    Perhaps something like; the function of an axe is to chop down trees? Really?
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,662
    I know. I was attributing that idea (very foolish in my opinion) those who are trying to put you down. Sorry that wasn't clear.

    It seems to me that there are (at least) two things to keep in mind.

    1. Mankind has created over time a whole collection of mathematical concepts, including the concepts of various mathematical relations. These are expressed in a rather arcane symbolic language that fills boards in front of uncomprehending mathematics classes.

    2. Physical reality seems to behave in accordance with and even incorporate (in geometrical or dynamical properties and whatnot) many of these mathematical structures and relationships. The future behavior of physical systems and the future values of variables can be predicted by placing certain measured variables into the equations of physics (they are indeed functions) and then by turning the crank.

    It seems to me that your tormenters are insisting that mathematics is nothing more than the symbolic system which they insist was created entirely by man.

    I'm more inclined to think that while human beings have most definitely thought up the symbolism, it's far less clear whether the content of pure mathematics itself is invented or discovered. (I lean towards 'discovered', which makes me something of a mathematical Platonist I guess.)

    Unlike your critics, you seem to be using 'mathematics' to refer to the underlying formal structure of reality, to whatever it is that forms the content of pure mathematics, whatever it is that keeps mathematicians the world around on the same page and in agreement about various proofs, and whatever it is that makes the mathematical functions of theoretical physics work.

    It's fine and well to harp on about models, but without some fundamental isomorphism (shared structure) between the model and the thing being modeled, the ostensible model wouldn't be useful or informative at all. (And physics would be bullshit.)

    So we have 1. 'Mathematics is the man-made model and nothing more', vs 2. 'Mathematics is whatever it is that the formal structure of the model and the structure of reality share.

    So I'm agreeing with you, Write4U. At least so far. I'm just not ready to agree that the formal structure is all there is to reality. I think that mathematics and physical reality are isomorphic, not identical. I'm skeptical that physical reality can be reduced to mathematics and nothing more, without remainder. That's a mistake that many theoretical physicists seem to make, confusing the equations on their boards with reality itself.

    Tegmark may or may not be among them. In his defense, he does rate his various chapters as accepted science, as matters of current controversy or as his own speculations based on that. I think that his mathematical universe idea is rated as speculation. I have no problem at all with scientists speculating about metaphysics, just so long as they clearly label it speculation and don't try to convince lay readers that it has the authority of science, doctrines of the church.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
    Write4U likes this.
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Look, pal, you have been using the term "function" wrongly, so far as its mathematical sense is concerned, for several years now.

    P.S. "Good luck" has no meaning in science and mathematics, but then nor does "please".
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    OK. then you explain the word "function" to me. That would indeed be helpful.
    Then why use it in a discussion about science. Are you changing the subject on me?

    This is what you and especially NotEinstein have been doing to me this entire thread. Take some of your own medicine. See how it tastes.

    p,s . My nom de plume is Write4U (W4U), not "pal".
    I didn't start this, you did. But I can play this game too.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    No point. I've already tried in the past but you take no notice.

    And I'm not "changing the subject" on you. I made a brief comment to another poster, not you, and it is you who has picked it up and made an issue of it.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    Where?
    It was about me, and it was an implied ad hominem. That's why you snipped it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    Well spotted.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,085
    Yes, I am able to interpret the thrust of a statement, something you seem unable to do .

    I am still waiting for an answer to my question.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,618
    No I'm out of this now. NotEinstein can take it on. I've done my time.
     
    origin likes this.

Share This Page