Why does mathematics works?

[Speakpigeon]

Of course he knows it. That’s not outlandish in the slightest. He drove to work, and he did so in an automobile (drove, not worked). He worked in the building, and the building is over a hundred years old. What’s not to know? Okay, so let’s say it’s not true the building is over 100 years old and is only a tad over 99. So what, he got that wrong! He thought he knew and didn’t; assuming it’s under 100 years old, it’s not like he knew and then didn’t. He never knew in the first place!

But what about the rest? If it’s true that he drove in an automobile, then his highly justified belief with no contravening evidence, what’s so scary to an admission that doesn’t merely believe but in fact knows? Because HIS BRAIN doesn’t have direct tactile observatory powers and CAN ONLY detect some model-like mentally internal percept of what MIGHT be a distortion of what’s out there in the world? Silly. Silly, silly, silly.

I'm sorry you still can't understand this. I've explained this in detail over the years, going back more than ten years, and there is no question that I am right. The only thing you can possibly know is literally your own mind. You can believe that your impression of reality is reality itself, or you can believe that it is a model of reality. Both are fine but whether what you believe or the model you know is like the reality you don't is a vacuous question.

You are behaving like a child who doesn't want his toy taken away. I know, I know, yes I do!!! LOL, this is pathetic to the last. There's nothing to be discussed that I didn't already explained several times. Those who don't understand don't because they don't want to understand. You have no argument. You're down to making brute assertions only justified by your own ideology. You can keep believing what you pretend to believe but what I say is as old as Plato's metaphor of the cave. You're just stuck in prehistorical time when people thought they saw reality as it was.

People make fun of Trump but you are behaving like him: make-believe in lieu of rational thinking.

99.99% of people are like you, which is why we need philosophy to begin with unless we prefer to get stuck in prehistorical times. You want to be able to claim you know the real world and you can't even face the obvious reality that you don't know the material world.

Again, I don't remember you ever arguing anything. All you can do is repeat your dogma and indulge in fluffy comments which are neither here nor there.

I thought most people were reasonable. I've realised over the years most people are not. Free thought? My ass. You're all stuck in dogma up to your eyeballs and a rational debate is the last thing you want.

Now I have to pee.
EB

 

[fast]

Now I have to pee.

And this is coming from someone who doesn’t know he has to pee.

Purportedly


If you pick up a ball (oh say, off the ground), then if your brain and central nervous system (whatever you think makes you, you) never comes into contact with the ball, then have you really picked up the ball? Yes! Because you are more than (more than!) just that part of you that you think makes you, you.

When I speak of knowing things, I’m talking about people, not their internal workings. Brains don’t know crap anymore than eyes can see. People see. People walk. People hear, smell, taste and duck for cover. Just like a clock cannot display time if there were no internal workings, people couldn’t do anything without some vital internal workings, but people sense the world around them. Learning of the internal workings just goes to show HOW we do the very things WE (the people) do.

When you say we are only privy to what’s in our minds, you are forsaking the big picture for the internal process. Part of how we even come to believe things hinges on our ability to sense (with our senses) the world around us. Did you pee in a toilet? How did you come to believe that? Look out, not inward. Did you see the toilet? Please, for the love of pasta that flies, don’t speak of the brain and any models it perceives. Did YOU (the person) see where you went to pee?

This conversation is reminiscent of some science guy who has learned how the internal process of vision works and suddenly thinks the common everyday folks really don’t see things. Well, we do see things, and we do a hell of a lot more than just believe things. We know things, and YOU should know whether you actually went to pee or not.

And don’t bring me that philosophical jive about caves. That’s a completely different issue that only muddies the waters. It’s what philosophical newbies do when they take an idea to their extremes. Philosophical certainty is so far removed from common everyday knowledge that it’s preposterous to conflate them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now I have to pee.

And this is coming from someone who doesn’t know he has to pee.

What I know is my impression that I have to pee. Whether I really have to is anybody's guess. Wait for when you start to loose your marbles and try to remember what I told you.

If you pick up a ball (oh say, off the ground), then if your brain and central nervous system (whatever you think makes you, you) never comes into contact with the ball, then have you really picked up the ball? Yes! Because you are more than (more than!) just that part of you that you think makes you, you.

When I speak of knowing things, I’m talking about people, not their internal workings. Brains don’t know crap anymore than eyes can see. People see. People walk. People hear, smell, taste and duck for cover. Just like a clock cannot display time if there were no internal workings, people couldn’t do anything without some vital internal workings, but people sense the world around them. Learning of the internal workings just goes to show HOW we do the very things WE (the people) do.

When you say we are only privy to what’s in our minds, you are forsaking the big picture for the internal process. Part of how we even come to believe things hinges on our ability to sense (with our senses) the world around us. Did you pee in a toilet? How did you come to believe that? Look out, not inward. Did you see the toilet? Please, for the love of pasta that flies, don’t speak of the brain and any models it perceives. Did YOU (the person) see where you went to pee?

This conversation is reminiscent of some science guy who has learned how the internal process of vision works and suddenly thinks the common everyday folks really don’t see things. Well, we do see things, and we do a hell of a lot more than just believe things. We know things, and YOU should know whether you actually went to pee or not.

And don’t bring me that philosophical jive about caves. That’s a completely different issue that only muddies the waters. It’s what philosophical newbies do when they take an idea to their extremes. Philosophical certainty is so far removed from common everyday knowledge that it’s preposterous to conflate them.

Where are the arguments? You are forever rehashing your belief. You never articulate rational arguments. You are like the old chap who can only mumble "I know what I know". Yeah, sure.

As to the question of the person v. the internal workings, I already commented on that but you failed to reply. You're rather too selective here. You should know you can't articulate anything like a consistent description of the facts if you restrict yourself to the "person". And if you don't, then you can't articulate the relation between internal workings and the person. Even science can't do it for God sake! The last time you tried it, you failed of course. I told you so, but you failed to reply. You're too selective here.
EB

 

[fast]

You should know you can't articulate anything like a consistent description of the facts if you restrict yourself to the "person".

What the hell does that mean?

A thing that is apart of something else is not the something else.
A brain is a thing that is apart of something else (the person).
Therefore, <signaling conclusion to argument>
A brain is not a person

You believe you’re picking up a ball. Your brain doesn’t belive anything. Brains don’t even think. People think. People use their brain to think. Worded differently, brains function allowing people to think. Therefore (just to let you know there’s an argument in here somewhere), no matter what model manifests, if it represents reality, then it’s you (not some brain that can access only some model) believes you’re picking up a ball. If it doesn’t model reality, then Houston, you have a problem and will only believe in accordance to what is filtered through your brain.

Now, does the model represent reality? Who gives a donkey’s behind! You have a belief, and you have justification. Leaving out Gettier type situations for now, the only thing left is NOT whether you know the truth condition is met. You don’t need to know that. It just has to BE THE CASE that it’s met. IF (IF IF IF) the conditions are met, THEN (THEN THEN THEN) the conditions are met; trivially true—no argument required.

PS; math works to describe the universe because it’s the language capable of addressing the fact the universe and it’s parts can be expressed mathematically. It’s a perfect fit. Like a tight pair of jeans on a young hot lass.

 

[fromderinside]

It’s a perfect fit. Like a tight pair of jeans on a young hot lass.

Yeah. I think he's too cute by half too.

 

[steve_bank]

Mathematics 'works' because mathematicians need to earn a living.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually what works best for mathematicians is employment in financial markets.

 

[MxM111]

Is there principal possibility of illogical laws or of universe without laws at all?

I intuit that the answer is no. And this is why math (and I consider logic is part of it) works.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is there principal possibility of illogical laws or of universe without laws at all?

I intuit that the answer is no. And this is why math (and I consider logic is part of it) works.

There could have been a universe illogical in the sense that it wouldn't be open to any mathematical description.

Our universe is not like that but why?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

 

[fromderinside]

Us?

 

[fromderinside]

Is there principal possibility of illogical laws or of universe without laws at all?

I intuit that the answer is no. And this is why math (and I consider logic is part of it) works.

There could have been a universe illogical in the sense that it wouldn't be open to any mathematical description.

Our universe is not like that but why?
EB

Us? Or, alternatively maybe it is like that.

 

[fromderinside]

Anything seen through the proper filters or magnifiers will be seen to make logical sense to some. Or anything so large as to hide it's uncertainty will be found determined by some. Maybe we are just those 'some'.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Why does mathematics works?

Because we all agree on the definitions.

This isn't specific to mathematics either. Language works, too, at least as long as you keep it logical. Any model works, as long as it is logical.

Mathematics IS a language. And to anyone who speaks Math it is the most perfect description of the universe - but it isn't limited to that.

So, the question of why mathematics works is trivial. It works because human logic works, and mathematics works only to the extent that it is logical.

The reason that logic works is less trivial. It works because it has been thoroughly tested by nature itself and finding a flaw in it is probably not easy at all. It seems safe to believe that finding a flaw in logic is beyond our current technological powers and will remain so for a very long time.

However, here too, there is no eternal guaranty. Only the future will tell.

As long as we agree on the definition of "area" there will be no time in the future where the Pythagorean Theorem will not hold. And it really doesn't exist in the observable universe, as there is no perfect right triangle to test it on (measured in angstroms). However, I would concede that if you redefine area as the time it takes a snail to cross it, you would have trouble proving the pythagorean theorem (as well as concepts like square, triangle, and circle).

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Damn electron microscope and MR techniques.

Not a law a solution that works for what was known at the time. The theory has been extended by such as mercury observations and light bending showing that energy was better than force as a measure. The relationship between force and energy is

Work done is equal to force * distance. And, energy is equal to work done in unit time, which is equal to force*diatance/time, which is equal to force * velocity.

e=Fv

Not to be pedantic but energy = E, e for me usually refers to the electron unit charge or voltage. Just sayin

e= Euler's Number

aa

 

[fromderinside]

I think it makes a difference whether 'e' is a physical variable or whether 'e' is a mathematical constant.


Or "eeeeeeeeeeeee"!!!

Obviously you are a fun gee Alcoholic Actuary.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why does mathematics works?

Mathematics works because, and only to the extent that, it is logical.

The answer depends on what you mean by "works." Math is obviously useful for many applications or for just intellectual self-indulgence. It does have its limitations, though, not the least of which is its being difficult to learn and the ease of making errors when applying it to given tasks.

Mathematicians can also invent theories that don't "work" because it just happens that there is nothing in the universe that works like that.

Much of mathematics is "pure" in that it may have no known applications. The theorems and techniques can work fine, but there's just nothing physical that can be modeled by that math that we know of.

When a mathematical theory works, it can be thought of as a model of something real.

Not necessarily. Like I said, a lot of mathematics is purely abstract.

For any such mathematical model, there is no good reason to claim that we know that it will work for ever, as if it was somehow a perfect model. In effect, we may believe that it will work for ever when in fact it won't because at some point in the future the model will be falsified by new facts. And we don't know the future.

If a mathematical conjecture is falsified via a proper proof, then we need not worry that it "won't work forever" because we already know.

In this case, we just don't know when it will stop to work. So, we can only believe that mathematical models will work. And then, that a model works doesn't mean that it is correct. Newton's laws of gravitation worked beautifully but then were effectively falsified by the more precise observation of Mercury's orbit.

You're confusing astrophysics here with mathematics. Newton's laws of motion weren't wrong because the math was wrong but because he got the physics wrong as Einstein demonstrated.

It may well be that we won't find anything ever for which mathematics doesn't work. However, this should be no surprise. I don't know of anything in nature that would somehow be illogical. So, again, as long as mathematics is logical, we should be safe.

We've already found it. Human psychology can't be meaningfully modeled by mathematics, for one thing.

This isn't specific to mathematics either. Language works, too, at least as long as you keep it logical. Any model works, as long as it is logical.

Actually, human language is very illogical. That's why English words like "right" and "rite" sound the same but have very different meanings. That's illogical.

 

[Elixir]

CMBR was predicted mathematically …

 

[steve_bank]

All I know is if I add 1 and 1 on my calculator I get 2. What else is there to know?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Mathematics works because it relates to physical world in an operational way.

Again, math need not "relate to the physical world." It can be purely abstract.

Mathematics actually serves as the inspiration for logic.

I'm not so sure. I've often wondered which came first: Logic or math? I don't believe we have the answer to that question.

Logic is a discipline that often wraps up itself in irrational outcomes.

If attempted logic results in an "irrational outcome," then it isn't valid logic.

Logic can apply to an imaginary world with little or no benefit to those who apply it beyond being some sort of gotcha game.

That's not true. Much of logic makes use of hypothetical arguments that start with some supposition to see what results. Such argumentation is a very useful way to predict what will result if that supposition is ever realized.

Applying mathematics as a logical tool breaks the link between discipline and the real world.

No--logic works fine both in math and in "the real world."

As for the link between logic and natural selection you have no evidence for such. Natural selection is always material, treatable by systems linking the physical to observational tools - mathematics. Logic is not. For instance logic would tell us the next coin flip with be either different or the same as the previous for some personal causal reason (contradiction of terms). On the other hand mathematics shows us that coins will tend to fall equally heads or tails with just a skosh of edge probability as the result of observation.

I would respond to this if I knew what you were talking about.