The Limits of Understanding

[Native]

Native said: ↑
This raises to me a general question on believing in math concerning several "scientific cosmological dogmas".

In the sciences, math works as a language. The use of that language is not affected by the Godel statements.

Is that so? Then why is it that the "Godels statements" is "shocking" for mathematical scientists if they don´t affect anything?

Math is "number lines" which describe and calculate "human made concepts" contrary to the language spoken by people and your "mathematical language" becomes pure gibberish when trying to describe what goes on inside the concept of a "black hole".

The problem with your statement is that you´re main priorities are on math and not on natural philosophy spoken by people.

 

[Native]

How did Universe acquire this language, please?

It was/is FORCED on the Universe by human number acrobats

 

[paarsurrey]

It was/is FORCED on the Universe by human number acrobats

Then , is it reasonable and humane to force mathematics (with all its fallacies) on to a dumb/unlettered Universe, and them be happy with the results, please?!

Regards
_________
Mathematical fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

It was/is FORCED on the Universe by human number acrobats

You mean it is superficial?
Reality is not dependent on it, it doesn't care what human think or do about it, it goes on on its set course unhindered ?! Right, please?

Regards

 

[Native]

Then , is it reasonable and humane to force mathematics (with all its fallacies) on to a dumb/unlettered Universe, and them be happy with the results, please?!

Regards
_________
Mathematical fallacy - Wikipedia

I´ll let the linked contents speak for itself.

You mean it is superficial?
Reality is not dependent on it, it doesn't care what human think or do about it, it goes on on its set course unhindered ?! Right, please?

When it deals with a theory of Big Bang, I really take this to be superficial and even superstitious.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
This raises to me a general question on believing in math concerning several "scientific cosmological dogmas".

Is that so? Then why is it that the "Godels statements" is "shocking" for mathematical scientists if they don´t affect anything?

I said they do not affect anything *in science*. They are deeply significant in logic and the philosophy of math.

 

[Polymath257]

It was/is FORCED on the Universe by human number acrobats

No more than English or French are forced on the universe when we use them to describe it.

 

[cladking]

No more than English or French are forced on the universe when we use them to describe it.

French and English are analog just like math.

Reality, DNA, and a proper representation of the "laws of nature" are all digital.

Godel's work is the shavings of a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Native]

I said they do not affect anything *in science*. They are deeply significant in logic and the philosophy of math.

Oh, so "logics of math and philosophy" don´t affect anything in science?

This statement explains much to me. Also why scientists are shocked by the Godel logics.

It´s almost the same when convensus scientists say that there is E&M all over in the Universe, but "it doesn´t do anything".

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, so "logics of math and philosophy" don´t affect anything in science?

Read what I wrote again. The Godel statements have no impact on on models in science.

For example, the Continuum Hypothesis, a statement known to be independent, has to do with cardinalities of subsets of the real numbers.

There is literally no conceivable experiment where this is a relevant factor in the result of that experiment. Because of this, CH is irrelevant to science.

The same is true of Godel statements, which are combinatorial questions whose solutions, if they exist, involve numbers far beyond anything that comes up in the sciences.

This statement explains much to me. Also why scientists are shocked by the Godel logics.

It´s almost the same when convensus scientists say that there is E&M all over in the Universe, but "it doesn´t do anything".

Nobody said E&M doesn't do anything. But it doesn't do *everything*.

And no, the equations of E&M and GR are not impacted by Godel statements and independent statements. At all.

 

[cladking]

Nobody said E&M doesn't do anything. But it doesn't do *everything*.

And no, the equations of E&M and GR are not impacted by Godel statements and independent statements. At all.

If there are contradictions in math isn't there an implication that our mathematics might not be the best means of representing reality?

I'm sure I don't know.

 

[Polymath257]

If there are contradictions in math isn't there an implication that our mathematics might not be the best means of representing reality?

I'm sure I don't know.

There are plenty of contradictions in ordinary language, yet we manage to do quite a bit with it.

if math is self-contradictory, it would matter quite a lot at what level of the consistency hierarchy the contradiction lies.

 

[paarsurrey]

If there are contradictions in math isn't there an implication that our mathematics might not be the best means of representing reality?

I'm sure I don't know.

It has to be as it is manmade. Right, please?
If it differs and as much as it differs with nature- the Work of G-d , it has to be corrected. Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

It has to be as it is manmade.

No. I don't think so.

I believe that reality itself is a logical system and that mathematics is as well. Man didn't invent logic (and wouldn't know it if it bit him on the nose) nor did he "invent" math. Reality is logic manifest and math is logic quantified. But there is a logical error in our mathematics; there is no number over unity, above one. There is only existence and nonexistence, 1 or 0. This error was created because modern language is analog rather than digital and it certainly "seems" to us that 2 exists as well so why not 2.5 or pi? Why not toss in an infinite number of universes whether they exist or not?

I don't know what a digital mathematical system would look like but I believe the "number" system would be cardinal rather than ordinal. I believe it would look strange to us but much of its logic would look perfectly "natural". I have to suspect that Godel's ideas and other paradoxes would "all" disappear. I believe that all of reality would look logical.

I've worked on this for only a few years.

There are plenty of contradictions in ordinary language, yet we manage to do quite a bit with it.

Indeed. "Ordinary language" is a mess but much of the progress we've made has less to do with language than ideas and much of the language of progress is scientific language and math. I believe it is important to invent a more useful language for philosophy (even religion) so each new thinker doesn't need to start at square one. "Applied Science" is far behind the times.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Oh, so "logics of math and philosophy" don´t affect anything in science?

Read what I wrote again. The Godel statements have no impact on on models in science.

For example, the Continuum Hypothesis, a statement known to be independent, has to do with cardinalities of subsets of the real numbers.

There is literally no conceivable experiment where this is a relevant factor in the result of that experiment. Because of this, CH is irrelevant to science.

The same is true of Godel statements, which are combinatorial questions whose solutions, if they exist, involve numbers far beyond anything that comes up in the sciences.

You STILL have to explain WHY scientists are intellectually/scientifically shocked by the Godel "logics of math and philosophy".

Why is that?

 

[Heyo]

You STILL have to explain WHY scientists are intellectually/scientifically shocked by the Godel "logics of math and philosophy".

Why is that?

Current science uses maths that is well in the knowable range.
But the possibility that maths as a tool won't work in the future is shocking.

 

[Native]

Indeed. "Ordinary language" is a mess but much of the progress we've made has less to do with language than ideas and much of the language of progress is scientific language and math. I believe it is important to invent a more useful language for philosophy (even religion) so each new thinker doesn't need to start at square one. "Applied Science" is far behind the times.

"Ordinary language" is no problem today as everything can be quickly translated online.

It´s another thing with math on the cosmological scales as most of the cosmological models depends on different cosmological perceptions and philosophical approaches.

 

[Native]

Current science uses maths that is well in the knowable range.
But the possibility that maths as a tool won't work in the future is shocking.

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. If so, the math used today on the cosmological scales should be revised when used "outside our knowable ranges".

Just take for instants a wooden board. It never has a constant length as it reacts with temperature and so do everything else in cosmos. There are no mathematical constants but lots of fluctuations of expansions and contractions everywhere.

Edit: In the cases with "cosmological formations", math also have to describe dynamically how cosmic clouds of "dust and gas" are "folded" into stars in galaxies and how these stars are distributed in the galaxies. Until now, this cosmological formation cannot be described by math as the standing prediction of formation and motions in galaxies is contradicted. by the Galactic Rotation Curve.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Oh, so "logics of math and philosophy" don´t affect anything in science?

You STILL have to explain WHY scientists are intellectually/scientifically shocked by the Godel "logics of math and philosophy".

Why is that?

Ask them.

 

[Polymath257]

Indeed. "Ordinary language" is a mess but much of the progress we've made has less to do with language than ideas and much of the language of progress is scientific language and math. I believe it is important to invent a more useful language for philosophy (even religion) so each new thinker doesn't need to start at square one. "Applied Science" is far behind the times.

Yes, the great advantage of math is that it is a *formal* language which attempts to limit the ambiguities of natural languages. But it is still a human language, made to help us explain the world, but branching out into poetry in modern mathematics.