/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13312878

119KiB, 1024x768, cbfa2b0e1283ff5a1a17d96cf7c57e06.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 03:14:36 2021 No.13312878 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13312897 >>13312901 >>13312914 >>13312915 >>13312919 >>13312924 >>13312970 >>13313001

How do we know the scientific method produces an accurate picture of reality? How is it that mathematicians can produce works from their asses without reference to reality and have it be accurate (concept of limits, differentials, infinity, etc).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:19:47 No.13312897 Report

Quoted By: >>13312905

>>13312878
For one mathematics does not use the scientific method. So which are you asking about? Can you clarify this? Are you asking two unrelated questions?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Christopher-Langan.png, 511KiB, 960x540

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:20:48 No.13312901 Report

Quoted By: >>13312990

>>13312878
>In fact, if we regard the scientific method as a theory about the nature and acquisition of scientific knowledge (and we can), it is not a theory of knowledge in general. It is only a theory of things accessible to the senses. Worse yet, it is a theory only of sensible things that have two further attributes: they are non-universal and can therefore be distinguished from the rest of sensory reality, and they can be seen by multiple observers who are able to “replicate” each other’s observations under like conditions. Needless to say, there is no reason to assume that these attributes are necessary even in the sensory realm. The first describes nothing general enough to coincide with reality as a whole – for example, the homogeneous medium of which reality consists, or an abstract mathematical principle that is everywhere true - and the second describes nothing that is either subjective, like human consciousness, or objective but rare and unpredictable…e.g. ghosts, UFOs and yetis, of which jokes are made but which may, given the number of individual witnesses reporting them, correspond to real phenomena.

>The fact that the scientific method does not permit the investigation of abstract mathematical principles is especially embarrassing in light of one of its more crucial steps: “invent a theory to fit the observations.” A theory happens to be a logical and/or mathematical construct whose basic elements of description are mathematical units and relationships. If the scientific method were interpreted as a blanket description of reality, which is all too often the case, the result would go something like this: “Reality consists of all and only that to which we can apply a protocol which cannot be applied to its own (mathematical) ingredients and is therefore unreal.” Mandating the use of “unreality” to describe “reality” is rather questionable in anyone’s protocol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:21:41 No.13312905 Report

Quoted By: >>13312953

>>13312897
Does the scientific method paint an accurate picture of reality?
How is it thatnmathematics does not use the scientific method and at the same time paints an accurate picture of reality?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:22:56 No.13312914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312878
see >>13308064

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2021-06-22 at 5.23.2 (...).png, 448KiB, 1880x930

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:23:40 No.13312915 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312878
>How is it that mathematicians can produce works from their asses without reference to reality and have it be accurate (concept of limits, differentials, infinity, etc).
you mad soience cuck?
It's because us CHADmaticians operate on divine knowledge and information.
God gave us Natural numbers and space, and with the reasoning given to us by our mother we created Mathematics.
Mathematics is the clothes to chaos, and its practice is the practice of pious worship.
There is the demiurge who is the father of the material, and there is chaos the mother of all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:24:53 No.13312919 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312878
>How do we know the scientific method produces an accurate picture of reality?
We don't. Just like we don't know if any method for anything produces an accurate picture of reality. They're just models, but some models work far better than other models. If I ask two people to make a prediction about what happens to a hammer when I drop it, and one says it'll fall to the ground while the other says it'll fly across the room, the former person's prediction is going to provide us with a more accurate picture of reality. So with the scientific method, it matches up the best with what we actually observe in nature and we can use it to test our predictions and

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:25:21 No.13312924 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312878
Probably not. It seems like a vending machine of sorts, where you plug in a quarter or theory, and you get some consequence or prize as a result. You don't know how the prizes are arranged or how the slot machine as a whole works, just how it responds to your actions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:26:36 No.13312932 Report

Quoted By:

Math is tautology, inference is compression.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:31:03 No.13312953 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312905
>How is it thatnmathematics does not use the scientific method and at the same time paints an accurate picture of reality?
Because mathematics is based on fundemental features of reality.
It started with numbers and space, divine knowledge given to us by god.
from there with our holy gift of reason and intuition we divine concepts of algebra, number theory, geometry, etc.
and now anything relating to space, structures, systems, numbers, etc. can be divined by mathematics.
How will two electrons act in space? this can be answered by math.
We can see how an electron behaves in space and reality and measure mathematical values about it like its position, speed, etc., and create an accurate mathematical model of a thing which behaves the same way.
Math is inherently a de(in)ductive study.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:34:48 No.13312970 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312878
>the scientific method
No such thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:37:31 No.13312983 Report

Quoted By:

Math and the natural sciences, though related, operate off of completely different methodologies and conceptual frameworks. They're not the same thing. Just because a particular methodology works well in one area of study doesn't mean it'll work well in another and thus we have to employ another.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 39558221044_4dde062eb5_o.jpg, 12KiB, 288x203

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:39:11 No.13312990 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312901
>As we noted above, mathematical truth is only one of the things that the scientific method cannot touch. The others include not only rare and unpredictable phenomena that cannot be easily captured by microscopes, telescopes and other scientific instruments, but things that are too large or too small to be captured, like the whole universe and the tiniest of subatomic particles; things that are “too universal” and therefore indiscernable, like the homogeneous medium of which reality consists; and things that are “too subjective”, like human consciousness, human emotions, and so-called “pure qualities” or qualia. Because mathematics has thus far offered no means of compensating for these scientific blind spots, they continue to mark holes in our picture of scientific and mathematical reality.

>But mathematics has its own problems. Whereas science suffers from the problems just described – those of indiscernability and induction, nonreplicability and subjectivity - mathematics suffers from undecidability. It therefore seems natural to ask whether there might be any other inherent weaknesses in the combined methodology of math and science. There are indeed. Known as the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem and the Duhem-Quine thesis, they are the respective stock-in-trade of disciplines called model theory and the philosophy of science (like any parent, philosophy always gets the last word). These weaknesses have to do with ambiguity…with the difficulty of telling whether a given theory applies to one thing or another, or whether one theory is “truer” than another with respect to what both theories purport to describe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:41:02 No.13313001 Report

Quoted By:

>>13312878
>How is it that mathematicians can produce works from their asses without reference to reality and have it be accurate (concept of limits, differentials, infinity, etc).
That's not really their job.
The things mathematicians pull out of their asses are tools to approximate, model & predict things that happen to quantities. Those tools are then used for things in reality which can be described as/with/having quantities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:44:21 No.13313019 Report

Quoted By: >>13313039

The way I understand this divide is that science is using a basis of reality through senses, using what we observe as our results. Maths uses our mind and wandering thoughts, using what we logically think as our results. This is why there is contradictory sciences but also the ability to math any solution you want without a stable base in observable reality.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO aaa.png, 650KiB, 640x719

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:46:32 No.13313031 Report

Quoted By:

>The messages of Duhem-Quine and Lowenheim-Skolem are as follows: universes do not uniquely determine theories according to empirical laws of scientific observation, and theories do not uniquely determine universes according to rational laws of mathematics. The model-theoretic correspondence between theories and their universes is subject to ambiguity in both directions. If we add this descriptive kind of ambiguity to ambiguities of measurement, e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that governs the subatomic scale of reality, and the internal theoretical ambiguity captured by undecidability, we see that ambiguity is an inescapable ingredient of our knowledge of the world. It seems that math and science are…well, inexact sciences.

>How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality? There may be a way. For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists). Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself. In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies. Then we could add an instructive twist. Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic. By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe.

>Gödel used the term incompleteness to describe that property of axiomatic systems due to which they contain undecidable statements. Essentially, he showed that all sufficiently powerful axiomatic systems are incomplete by showing that if they were not, they would be inconsistent. Saying that a theory is “inconsistent” amounts to saying that it contains one or more irresolvable paradoxes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:48:07 No.13313039 Report

Quoted By:

>>13313019
>but also the ability to math any solution you want without a stable base in observable reality
How do I invert or flip a die inside out without separating,opening, or damaging the composition of the die as a cube, in an abstract sense?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1543811708230.png, 2MiB, 1340x2458

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 03:50:04 No.13313047 Report

Quoted By:

>Unfortunately, since any such paradox destroys the distinction between true and false with respect to the theory, the entire theory is crippled by the inclusion of a single one. This makes consistency a primary necessity in the construction of theories, giving it priority over proof and prediction. A cognitive-theoretic model of the universe would place scientific and mathematical reality in a self-consistent logical environment, there to await resolutions for its most intractable paradoxes.

>For example, modern physics is bedeviled by paradoxes involving the origin and directionality of time, the collapse of the quantum wave function, quantum nonlocality, and the containment problem of cosmology. Were someone to present a simple, elegant theory resolving these paradoxes without sacrificing the benefits of existing theories, the resolutions would carry more weight than any number of predictions. Similarly, any theory and model conservatively resolving the self-inclusion paradoxes besetting the mathematical theory of sets, which underlies almost every other kind of mathematics, could demand acceptance on that basis alone. Wherever there is an intractable scientific or mathematical paradox, there is dire need of a theory and model to resolve it.

>If such a theory and model exist – and for the sake of human knowledge, they had better exist – they use a logical metalanguage with sufficient expressive power to characterize and analyze the limitations of science and mathematics, and are therefore philosophical and metamathematical in nature. This is because no lower level of discourse is capable of uniting two disciplines that exclude each other’s content as thoroughly as do science and mathematics.

>Now here’s the bottom line: such a theory and model do indeed exist. But for now, let us satisfy ourselves with having glimpsed the rainbow under which this theoretic pot of gold awaits us.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches