What is math? Math is the study of light...

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, I understood what you were saying in broad terms all along. However, the manner in which you post does not lend itself to explicit criticism.

Well if it is true, it should be air-tight (impossible to say it is not true) right? Otherwise you are contradicting yourself.

No, it's not contradictory. As I said right there above, I understand the basis but the details are lost in your improper usage of the English language that is evident in most of your posts. Use complete sentences and paragraphs, for example, and you will instantly be much easier to understand.

As for the topic at hand, I still think the definition of data needs clarification.

I got an idea... using boolean algebra

Ok does logic exist? (1)yes (-1) no.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Nathelion
As such, all axioms are just postulates. However, if the postulate turns out to predict or describe reality in a useful and consistent manner, then it is elevated to the status of "theory"

Ahh but all axioms, which are postulates are thoughts, and do thoughts exist? Now numbers are thoughts, the thought comes before the number, after all to think of a number is to create a thought in the form of a number. Now, if they exist, do they always exist in some form, even as a probability?

When we say something is objectively true about nature, we are saying (creating a truth-thought statement containing a statement of data saying) it is true whether we exist or not, so it is always true (at least until we find out the truth-statement-pattern is incorrect), but we don't even have to go to science to prove things for instance because science itself is based in the functioning of how thought functions. To say science is seperate from thought, is to say science is not thought, is to say science does not exist.

A simple test is this: Will you fall off a cliff, even if you dont know mathematics... Can you objectively calculate the fact that you will fall?

Science has a problem in that it is dependendent on mathematics, but numbers are human thoughts, so the whole of scientific enterprise rests on human thoughts and the group of thoughts human beings have created and recorded.

Now the question becomes: Do thoughts exist? And are thoughts existance and truth? What I mean by this is: Errors in scientific statements, actually aren't non-existing errors, the errors exist, as truth-statements, which contain existing-truth-data, which is not the correct actually-existing pattern.

1. What do you mean by "thought"? Please provide a definition.
2. The scientific method per se is independent of math, at least if you define mathematics as algebraic and/or numerical computations carried out by the scientist. It's just that developing a formal mathematical system turned out to be very useful for a variety of purposes.
3. That brings me to my next question, what do you mean when you say "math"? If the definition I extrapolated based on your earlier posts is incorrect, then what, exactly, do you mean by "math"? I don't see how we can continue a useful discussion without an explicit definition.


Intuition and concepts constitute... the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge.
-Immanuel Kant

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Nathelion
1. What do you mean by "thought"? Please provide a definition.

Ok, first of all you have to answer this question before we continue.

Does existence exist all of the time? And is existence, truth? And I promise you I will answer the rest, I have to begin here for you to follow me.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Nathelion
1. What do you mean by "thought"? Please provide a definition.

Ok, first of all you have to answer this question before we continue.

Does existence exist all of the time? And is existence, truth? And I promise you I will answer the rest, I have to begin here for you to follow me.

No.
Quantum mechanics says that you can "borrow" energy to create a particle that then annihilates and "pays back" the borrowed energy. This energy comes from nowhere and didn't exist before, then it ceases to exist. So long as the energy is conserved globally there is nothing wrong.
So no, existence is not eternal.

I think you might have to define your meaning of truth as well.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Nathelion
1. What do you mean by "thought"? Please provide a definition.

Ok, first of all you have to answer this question before we continue.

Does existence exist all of the time? And is existence, truth? And I promise you I will answer the rest, I have to begin here for you to follow me.

No.
Quantum mechanics says that you can "borrow" energy to create a particle that then annihilates and "pays back" the borrowed energy.

If energy is a non-existant you can't borrow it. you can't borrow a non-existent. Remember when we say nothing we are saying (an existent which is empty that has some kind of existence). Any time you are a non-existent, means you can NEVER exist at all. It follows from the logic. All existents, have partial (potential) or full existence, or a strange superposition of the two (i.e. full and empty the same time).

To put it another way, is there a location in a glass that is empty, can you stick your finger in there? Now does that location exist? Does that actually existing empty location, exist at that location?

Or to put it another way: In space why are there objects and boundaries between objects and a space between them, and do they exist?

When we say someone is dead, we mean the information contained in the pattern of particles, and the configuration is no longer together, not that the particles don't exist and the energy that makes them up.

I think many scientists would dispute the fact that our current understanding of quantum mechancis is a complete picture of reality.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
I got an idea... using boolean algebra

Ok does logic exist? (1)yes (-1) no.

I have an idea. Read my entire post.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

You're going to have to be a lot more clear here.
First, what do you mean by existence?
Next what do you mean by exist, since it's not clear you're using the same meaning as the previous usage.
What are the conditions under of which it(assuming existence) exists?

Regardless of what you say, that is indeed how quantum mechanics describes it as happening. Now if your going to try to debunk the most successfully tested theory of all time go right ahead. Not only that but there are many examples where this theory is put to use and describes physical phenomenon.

Now, I agree, Quantum Mechanics is not a complete picture of reality, it never claims to be. What it does claim it backs up with solid basis, prediction, repeatability, and logic. Even if it is not correct completely it has to be close to get everything right so far.

That being said..

Quantum Mechanics : 1
Wishing-it-weren't-so: 0

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
First, what do you mean by existence?

To be real, partial real, or a fully real, or a superposition of the two.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
I got an idea... using boolean algebra

Ok does logic exist? (1)yes (-1) no.

I have an idea. Read my entire post.

Actually I did, but I need you to answer that question first, otherwise I can't explain anything to you because you are saying you don't want an explanation. If you don't give an answer, then I can't give you an explanation you can follow step-by-step. If you can't agree that logic exists, then why bother? That is a pretty simple statement.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

The types of things created from nothing here are entirely real, they can interact, get excited and de-excited. In fact, there are a number of scientists who claim the entire universe is the ultimate free lunch so to speak.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
The types of things created from nothing here are entirely real, they can interact, get excited and de-excited. In fact, there are a number of scientists who claim the entire universe is the ultimate free lunch so to speak.

But "nothing" is an existent empty-object, or a superposition of two different kinds of objects (all full, and all empty), it's not a non-existent. If you don't exist, you can never exist.

You just said "Types of things created from the-empty-object-thing that exists are entirely real"

You can't borrow that which is a not-existing empty-object-thing at any time.

Like I said, to borrow the energy-thing, means that energy-thing has some kind of existence. Otherwise the energy thing is a non-existent. And you can't borrow that which has an absolute non-existence.

To think of it another way, time flows in a direction, time in simulation also flows in a direction according to the rules of time, now for the people inside the computer, they would think they could borrow "nothing" but that's not true, any time the energy flow is cut off to the computer, the whole world stops existing.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

The thing is though, it's not like an empty glass. The energy literally comes from nothing, not vacuum, nowhere, not space or time.
If thats not non-existent, then what is?

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
The thing is though, it's not like an empty glass. The energy literally comes from nothing, not vacuum, nowhere, not space or time.
If thats not non-existent, then what is?

There is no such thing as non-existent, otherwise you couldn't borrow from it, existences can only borrow from other existences.

To put it in another way: It exists in a strange way.

If you want to borrow my car for your existence, and I never had a car-existing, you can't really borrow it can you?


Otherwise you're saying: There is no such thing as energy.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

This is exactly like saying "Can I borrow your car?" when you don't have a car. Except there's a chance that a car suddenly pops into existence, you drive it, then it disappears.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
This is exactly like saying "Can I borrow your car?" when you don't have a car. Except there's a chance that a car suddenly pops into existence, you drive it, then it disappears.

Ahh but chance is a PARTIAL EXISTENCE, it's not a never-existence. to never exist, is to have no chance of (partial) existence. Even a partial existence, is an existence.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

So where is your source for all this philosophy anyway. You're claiming a lot of things without validation. For instance you claim that existence can't borrow from non-existence then argue semantics when Quantum Mechanics says you can. Then you claim that a probability is a partial existence which is an existence. On what grounds do you make this/these claim(s)?

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
So where is your source for all this philosophy anyway. You're claiming a lot of things without validation. For instance you claim that existence can't borrow from non-existence then argue semantics when Quantum Mechanics says you can. Then you claim that a probability is a partial existence which is an existence. On what grounds do you make this/these claim(s)?

The source is logic, is there any statement I have made which is not true? That you can point out is incorrect? You should be able to point out exactly where I have made an error.

Just answer this question: Was there a time when energy never existed? That's all the justification I need. i.e. it absolutely never existed.

You said you could borrow, a absolute-non-existent .. energy-thing.

That is a contradiction.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Energy is theorized to come with time and space during/at the Big Bang. Since there was no concept of time "before" the bang then there was also no time when energy did not exist.
In the sense that the energy is borrowed, then yes there was a time when the energy needed to make the particle did not exist and then was gone.

Its not a contradiction since we're talking about quantum mechanics. This is all a spin off of the uncertainty principle...delEdelt<=hbar/2.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
In the sense that the energy is borrowed, then yes there was a time when the energy needed to make the particle did not exist and then was gone.

Yeah but to say energy is "borrowed in a sense" is to say that you borrowed in a sense from a something that "exists in a sense"

You can't borrow an energything in a sense, from a non-existence.

To borrow, is to borrow an existing-thing that exists in a sense.

I write

I borrowed

you're going to ask... what did I borrow?? That statement does not make any sense.

It's corrollary must be true for the statement to maintain integrity.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Borrowing the energy is an analogy. Look at the equation and you'll realize that you can have a known energy (enough to make a particle) but then the certainty in you time is decreased. What this all means is that you can have a particle existing for the amount of time which you are uncertain by before it has to annihilate. Hawking radiation works on this assumption, except one particle escapes the black hole (strictly speaking, you have to produce 2 particles one normal and one anti). Then the energy has to be taken back by the nearest available source--the black hole.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
Borrowing the energy is an analogy.

The equation doesn't matter because you said yourself quantum mechanics is not a complete picture of reality.

If quantum mechanics says: "I can borrow an existing-object, from absolute-non-existance" it is a contradiction. A Non-existent can never exist, at any moment, period, even in a "non-time" which is really just a nice way of saying "Time that exists, which exists in strange way", for time to have existence, it's potential for existence, must exist also.

Math is a subset of logic. So math doesn't really matter here because you can make math mean anything you want it to mean.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
Borrowing the energy is an analogy.

You said it was an analogy (I want you to tell me what you mean just so I am clear):

analogy (plural analogies):

1. The use of a similar example or model to explain or extrapolate from.

Now what about the analogy of "borrowing energy" is similar in what way?

Is energy being TAKEN from an existing-something, or an absolute-non-existence? yeah or nay?

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

The energy is not "taken" from anywhere, it just begins to exist.
Its an analogy because when you look at the whole process after the fact it looks similar to a money lending problem since the particle can only exist for the amount of time governed by the uncertainty principle.
Like I said though, QM backs everything it claims up. I also said borrowing is an analogy, the energy used to create the particles just comes into existence.
Now, why is a chance a partial-existence? Something besides your own opinion.
What is a partial-existence? Why is it also an existence? If so why have a separate definition in the first place.

The math certainly matters, it provides the same function as word-logic.

Point is, in these situations you cannot use your own intuition. Until you can actually claim something with substance this is still just philosophy..not science.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
Like I said though, QM backs everything it claims up.

Yeah but QM is is based in logic, because QM is a theory, it can never make a statement that goes against logic, or QM theory is wrong. That was my point.

Now is there a time when the "borrowed energy", was borrowed from absolute-non-existence.

The whole of science collapses if logic does not work, keep that in mind. We mind as well give up and go collect stamps.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
Like I said though, QM backs everything it claims up.

Yeah but QM is is based in logic, because QM is a theory, it can never make a statement that goes against logic, or QM theory is wrong.

have your physicist friend paraphrase this quote.