The idea of an infinite past

[Kharakov]

Erm... Isn't mathematics the best language used to describe reality?

I'm kinda' lost here, but please don't hold it against me.

Mathematics is used as a part of models which are abstractions of reality. But no model is just mathematics.

And when the models can make predictions they are thought to approximate, not replicate, reality.

Come on, try to beer with him!
EB

lol...

 

[Beer With Straw]

Come on, try to beer with him!
EB

It'd be her BTW, but I was already tempted to post a Feynman quote: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.


1+1=2 is not mathematical argument that has ever failed experiment. M-Theory has no technology available to be experimented on, yet is the best idea for unifying GR and QM.

:EDIT:

And quantum mechanics has never failed experiment and GR hasn't either.

Yes, the models are good enough to be of use.

That doesn't make reality connected to mathematics.

The models use mathematics.

And the models are abstractions of reality. Not a replication of reality.

Well, God plays a lot of dice, but there is always some numerical value.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, who knows, maybe we could get to agree on a pragmatic solution to this difficult question of whether infinity is real or not.

So, obviously lots of people will use irrational numbers without much thinking about the metaphysical implications, but maybe we could help them.

So, first, what is an irrational number?

Here's a dictionary definition:


That should be clear enough to all of us around here I guess.

Now, the example given here, π is also a transcendental number. What's that?

Here it is:


That's a bit more technical but you all know more about this stuff than I do so it should be good enough.

We all understand how π is used in life but the question is, do we really need to see it as a transcendental number, or would it be enough to cut it down to size to a more ordinary perspective.

So, first, here's the definition of π:

π
2. (Mathematics) A transcendental number, approximately 3.14159, represented by the symbol π, that expresses the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle and appears as a constant in many mathematical expressions.

So, it's made clear here that π is a very useful number. To cut it down to size, it's also very easy. We would just have to replace in the definition of π "approximately 3.14159" with "equal 3.14159", and just use this in our calculations.

Now, this should be considered as a pragmatic decision. No more metaphysical debate now. A "yes", or a "no"!

And, oops, sorry, also why, but only in terms of practical consequences of doing it or not doing it.
EB

No takers?

Yes? No?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Yes, the models are good enough to be of use.

That doesn't make reality connected to mathematics.

The models use mathematics.

And the models are abstractions of reality. Not a replication of reality.

Well, God plays a lot of dice, but there is always some numerical value.

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, the models are good enough to be of use.

That doesn't make reality connected to mathematics.

The models use mathematics.

And the models are abstractions of reality. Not a replication of reality.

Well, God plays a lot of dice, but there is always some numerical value.

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

Infinity isn't a number, but like numbers, its concept can be derived from nature from nature.
... nitpick - your assertion that numbers don't exist in nature carries an implied false corollary - that humans aren't natural.

 

[Beer With Straw]

Yes, the models are good enough to be of use.

That doesn't make reality connected to mathematics.

The models use mathematics.

And the models are abstractions of reality. Not a replication of reality.

Well, God plays a lot of dice, but there is always some numerical value.

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

Yes, well semantics aside, conduct an experiment to prove 1+1 does not equal 2.

Reproducible experiment that is.

 

[Kharakov]

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

Infinity isn't a number, but like numbers, its concept can be derived from nature from nature.
... nitpick - your assertion that numbers don't exist in nature carries an implied false corollary - that humans aren't natural.

And that people don't have necks.

 

[untermensche]

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

Infinity isn't a number, but like numbers, its concept can be derived from nature from nature.
... nitpick - your assertion that numbers don't exist in nature carries an implied false corollary - that humans aren't natural.

Infinity was not derived from nature.

It was created using the imagination. And it only exists as a defined concept.

It is not something observed or discovered.

 

[untermensche]

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

Yes, well semantics aside, conduct an experiment to prove 1+1 does not equal 2.

Reproducible experiment that is.

One plus one equals two based on the defined concepts of one and two.

Nature has nothing to do with it.

 

[Beer With Straw]

There are no numbers in nature.

Reducing things to numbers is to abstract.

Yes, well semantics aside, conduct an experiment to prove 1+1 does not equal 2.

Reproducible experiment that is.

One plus one equals two based on the defined concepts of one and two.

Nature has nothing to do with it.

What is nature, then?

 

[untermensche]

One plus one equals two based on the defined concepts of one and two.

Nature has nothing to do with it.

What is nature, then?

That which can be observed in some way.

 

[Beer With Straw]

One plus one equals two based on the defined concepts of one and two.

Nature has nothing to do with it.

What is nature, then?

That which can be observed in some way.

Then, conduct the experiment.

I guess.

 

[untermensche]

That which can be observed in some way.

Then, conduct the experiment.

I guess.

What experiment are you talking about?

 

[Beer With Straw]

That which can be observed in some way.

Then, conduct the experiment.

I guess.

What experiment are you talking about?

Then one I asked you to do previously.

To falsify 1+1=2?

 

[Phil Scott]

What experiment are you talking about?

Then one I asked you to do previously.

To falsify 1+1=2?

Add two drops of water together. 1 + 1 = 1.

 

[untermensche]

What experiment are you talking about?

Then one I asked you to do previously.

To falsify 1+1=2?

That is a defined statement.

There is no experiment that could demonstrate it.

Numbers do not exist in the real world.

 

[Beer With Straw]

What experiment are you talking about?

Then one I asked you to do previously.

To falsify 1+1=2?

Add two drops of water together. 1 + 1 = 1.

FUCK OFF YOU PIECE OF SHIT COCKSUCKER! (Stupid git.)

Dammit, I lose.

 

[untermensche]

What experiment are you talking about?

Then one I asked you to do previously.

To falsify 1+1=2?

Add two drops of water together. 1 + 1 = 1.

How is a drop of water "one"?

 

[Beer With Straw]

Add two drops of water together. 1 + 1 = 1.

How is a drop of water "one"?

Faith, the drop of water is one with Jesus.

 

[fast]

This reminds me of 2+1=1

Two holes close by. Dig one between them, but oops, now there's just one large hole. The gap between the two holes was just an inch apart, and the post hole digger is more than an inch wide, so, while 1 added to another makes 2, the addition of the 3rd yields not 3 but 1.