/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11574912
>At the extreme other end, Max Tegmark is an extreme Platonist and he literally believes that reality IS mathematics and "physical things" are just abstraction for what is actually happening which is pure formula and mathematical structures.
Based

if you can't quantify or express it with math then it's not science (i.e. a huge chunk of social sciences, psychology, etc) and if it can only be expressed with math then it's probably just some theoretical wankery. for example when calculating the side of a triangle with the Pythagorean theorem you can have a negative value since it's a root but that doesn't mean that there is a inaccessible black realm where all negative lengths exist

>>11574912
Physics is about modeling reality as accurately as possible.
It *fundamentally* requires quantitative models to do anything that isn't guessing/hand-waving and the only way to do "quantitative"-anything is using mathematics.

>DESPISE the notion that a physical theory should have a complete mathematical description.
Probably because they are too dumb to understand it.

>>11574912
pretty sure the theory of atom didnt require any math

>>11575101
>theory of atom
It was literally just a (good) guess by some greek guy, but definitely not scientific in the slightest.

>>11575036
>if you can't quantify or express it with math then it's not science
false, math is just symbolic logic - you can express a great deal without symbols or quantities and have it called science.

E.g. the theory of gravity and it's validation does not require an ounce of math.

Tegmark is an absolute retard.
Both sides are retarded though.

>>11575106
What makes it a guess as opposed to sound inductive reasoning?

>>11574912
>For example, Wallace Thornhill, the electric universe guy, seems to DESPISE the notion that a physical theory should have a complete mathematical description.
Why would a pseudoscientist's opinion ever matter? It's not even a philosophy, just an excuse for his quackery not making any sense.

>>11575128
Not as pseudoscientific or quacky as GRT at least

>>11575109
>the theory of gravity and it's validation does not require an ounce of math.
not science if you say it's just there and you can't explain it

>>11574912
If it doesn't have a mathematical description, then it doesn't work the same way consistently, and is therefore implying that there are no physical laws of the universe. If the universe has no physical laws, that's fine, but it means the theory isn't useful since we can't exploit it to engineer anything or make predictions. Also, it's really hard to falsify something if it doesn't make numerical predictions that you can measure against and prove wrong.

>>11575116
I said it wasn't scientific.
It was an untestable theory at the time which made absolutely no prediction, which obviously makes it unscientific.

>>11575109
>E.g. the theory of gravity and it's validation does not require an ounce of math.
LOL

>>11575112
How is Tegmark a retard?
Platonism is true even if Tegmarks description is inaccurate

>>11574912
>Max Tegmark is an extreme Platonist and he literally believes that reality IS mathematics
has anyone looked into this? Sounds extremely retarded and like a good example of the stereotype of theoretical physicists going on about things (philosophy, mathematics, CS in this case) they have little knowledge in.

>>11574926
nothing wrong with those dawkins quotes.

>>11574912
I mean, what physics is or isn’t ends up being up for debate, but I can tell you in practical terms that theoretical physicists tend to be the ones making guesses for models and mathematical physicists are the ones that write rigorous papers. Both are very important activities.

Without theoretical physics, we wouldn’t have a lead to the recently tested gravitational waves. Without mathematical physics, we wouldn’t have Maxwell’s equations.

>>11575163
>untestable at the time
pretty sure you could break a rock into a damn fine powder at the time. Maybe they didn't go to the microscopic extreme, but it was certainly testable.

>>11575139
It absolutely is science. If I hypothesize a thing will fall to the ground when I drop it and it does, and it continues to do every time, and I call this property of objects gravity, guess what doofus - I've done science.

Also, that equation doesn't "explain" gravity just as much as it doesn't explain mass or radius or force. All of those notions are semantic and would fall under the category of "unscientific" according to you.

>>11575131
>one of the most well-evidenced theories in modern science is pseudoscience
Everyone point at the projecting quack and laugh.

I think numbers are the only way we can be cognizant of "mores and lesses". In order to compare and contrast things, we need a way to say how much faster, how much larger, and we divide things into pieces which become numbers

>>11575610
agreed, numbers are for describing differences, gradations of reality, but not conceptualizations of reality.

>>11575610
>>11575631
you guys do know numbers are only a single part of mathematics right? The study follows more structure and construction than just sets of numbers.