[MEDIA=youtube]Jwrf59L-xsM[/MEDIA]
Just thought I would leave this here. Enjoy!
R.J. Schneider, post: 375037, member: 409 wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html
VG program
Roadhand, post: 375016, member: 61 wrote: [MEDIA=youtube]Jwrf59L-xsM[/MEDIA]
Just thought I would leave this here. Enjoy!
Ain't clicking it- no.way.
Oh, come on. It's just 10 minutes of very deep thinking. Does math exist to explain nature or does nature prove that math must exist?
drop me in the nominalism camp. like any other language it seems we invented maths, and we can point it at the real world and use it to advantage. But it doesn't seem exceptional to me that creatures that came from, and evolved within this universe, would evolve languages like maths that successfully describe it.
Holy Cow, post: 375048, member: 50 wrote: Oh, come on. It's just 10 minutes of very deep thinking. Does math exist to explain nature or does nature prove that math must exist?
I clicked an RH link once and am scarred for life.....
Hee hee. Is that "scarred" or "scared". Sixth century historians need to know.
Holy Cow, post: 375102, member: 50 wrote: Hee hee. Is that "scarred" or "scared". Sixth century historians need to know.
Yes
Math is an expression of physical truths. The paths to correct expression have all existed since before time, they simply await discovery.
thebionicman, post: 375113, member: 8136 wrote: Math is an expression of physical truths.....
Math is an approximation of physical properties (truths). No trig functions, excluding 0å¡ and 90å¡ are finite. ëÊ (Pi) is not a finite number...they are approximations. I can stretch the word "approximations" to include political "truths"...but can't make it to physical truths..;-)
There are no political truths, only interests.
Dave Karoly, post: 375134, member: 94 wrote: There are no political truths, only interests.
paden cash, post: 375133, member: 20 wrote: Math is an approximation of physical properties (truths). No trig functions, excluding 0å¡ and 90å¡ are finite. ëÊ (Pi) is not a finite number...they are approximations. I can stretch the word "approximations" to include political "truths"...but can't make it to physical truths..;-)
The fact that we have not discovered a more perfect expression does not change truth...
thebionicman, post: 375140, member: 8136 wrote: The fact that we have not discovered a more perfect expression does not change truth...
What is truth?
Brad, the ABSOLUTE truth is not allowed on this forum. That delves into Religion, The afterlife, and concepts that require faith. And, we all fight about it too much to discuss it. Jesus, what in the world am I talking about?
🙂
I have had a bout with lymes flare up lately. I'm glad I know Jesus.
N
Brad Ott, post: 375141, member: 197 wrote: What is truth?
Metrication was a STUUUUUUPID idea. How's that for starters?
thebionicman, post: 375140, member: 8136 wrote: The fact that we have not discovered a more perfect expression does not change truth...
I will readily admit we have determined constants in our physical universe..but they too are crude approximations. Take the speed of light for instance. We thought we had it pinned down in the 20th. century...but come to find out, it CAN speed up or slow down. Time itself is not a constant! Everything we think we have pinned down when it comes to physics is merely an approximation that is close enough to satisfy our mortal curiosity....
And if you think our little a+b=c stuff applies ALL over the universe, I'll bet you're wrong. Way too many heebie-jeebie things out there we cannot explain...;-)
paden cash, post: 375158, member: 20 wrote: I will readily admit we have determined constants in our physical universe..but they too are crude approximations. Take the speed of light for instance. We thought we had it pinned down in the 20th. century...but come to find out, it CAN speed up or slow down. Time itself is not a constant! Everything we think we have pinned down when it comes to physics is merely an approximation that is close enough to satisfy our mortal curiosity....
And if you think our little a+b=c stuff applies ALL over the universe, I'll bet you're wrong. Way too many heebie-jeebie things out there we cannot explain...;-)
I understand and agree with your statements, but would propose a separation of the thought tracks.
We use the math we understand to express the physics we think we know. I have physics text books going back a hundred plus years and it is pure entertainment to read them from time to time. The improvements in expression are phenomenal. As you have correctly pointed out they are far from perfect. My point is that once discovered, a perfect expression will be no different than it was prior to discovery. Those expressions all exist right now, they just haven't been chalked up yet...
Great video. I have been posed this question many times in the past. Usually it is posed to me by some wise-cracking kid who things they are going to rattle my world by asking me such a deep question.
The answer is very, very complex and well beyond the scope of even my own long-winded nature. But I'll say a few things.
For one, this is a tough question to tackle because we are ill-equipped to express what is really being asked. And we are ill-equipped because our language is inherently limited in its ability to express ideas. The video talked about the "inherent three-ness" in the universe. That's a good example because when I see the word "three" or the numeral 3 (or even the Roman numeral III, or other ways of expressing it), I have an idea in my head. But that idea is inexorably intertwined with that word or numeral. AND since my primary language is English, I'm inherently skewed to thing of it in English words. But other words such as "tres", "trois", "trÌ»s", "trÌ?", "âÛ?ü", or even "Í´ ÛÍ´ ã" all are ways that people around the world express the idea of "three".
This distinction is more apparent when you talk about something else. I have a black dog. He's a great dog. And when I say that he is a 9-year-old black labrador retriever that weighs 105 pounds, most people can get a fairly accurate idea of what I mean. Now, I could say that in a few ways.
â« ¡Ï?Ó 105 ÎÎ?«ÒÏ Â«?Î 9 ⫤Ï? ?ÛÛ ?÷üÎ?ã ?Â?ü?Â?ã?ÉÜöÜ?
Aking aso ay isang 9 na taong gulang itim labrador aso para sa pamamaril na weighs 105 pounds
Moj pes je 9-letni rni labradorec, ki tehta 105 kilogramov
(by the way, I'm just using google translate. I've no idea if these are accurate ways of saying these words in other languages)
Presumably, each of these sentences expresses the same idea. But, the point is that regardless of what words I use to describe my dog, he is the same. A dog is a dog, regardless of whether I use English, Armenian, or Swahili. My point to this is that there is a "language OF math" and a "language FOR math".
The second phrase is describing the actual words and symbols we use to express mathematical concepts to each other. It is a function of language, which is entirely an invention on the part of humans. The language we use FOR math, what we use to talk about math amongst ourselves is one thing.
The first phrase, however, the language OF math, is something different. This is an abstract concept of ideas like the "three-ness" of something, or the concept of "prime-ness". The language OF math talks about the inherent traits and qualities that something may have, regardless of the words used to speak about it. And this is the difficult thing to express and understand.
One thing I feel for certain is that math is definitely a wonderful, amazing, and brain-wracking thing!
