[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 28 KB, 481x640, 1329046161699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418537 No.4418537 [Reply] [Original]

Someone said that math isn't logical.
And that physics aren't either.

Is that true?
I thought that logic= structure.
And since math and physics are structured they are bound to be logical.

I also heard that particles in quantum level defy laws of physics.
How much of the above is true?

>> No.4418545

Not a single thing. Stop hanging out with morons.

>> No.4418561

>>4418545
So math and physics are logical and quantum physics aren't random?

>> No.4418566

>>4418537
Math and physics are logical because at the higher levels, problems involving them aren't solved by intuition and usually requires a good process for solving problems.

>> No.4418596

>>4418537
Ill take that challenge.

I'm a debater, i use critical thinking and scientific method to structure my arguments. I eliminate flaws and fallacies as i see them due to their lack of logic.

Maths uses its standard numerical structure.
Maths is not a form of logic as you can change the equations however you like.

In critical thinking, you cant do this. The because the sentence wouldn’t make sense.

Nore is maths even a science. Biology for instance comes from the latin word bios, meaning life, and logos meaning study of. Maths does not study life in any deliberate way. However geometry does.

Maths is simply a method of representing data, like a graph, after it has been managed into groups.

>> No.4418600

>>4418596
That's only true up to calculus, then you start doing discrete mathmatics and you attain enlightenment

>> No.4418603

>>4418596
>Maths is not a form of logic as you can change the equations however you like.
>Maths is simply a method of representing data, like a graph, after it has been managed into groups.
wat

>> No.4418605

>>4418596

Counterpoint: math is a theoretical construct just as language is. While humans have inherent understanding of some of these concepts (think nouns versus numbers), most of math has been formulated for convenience of communication, just as language has. You can readily alter either, though neither will make sense without some context for the alteration.

See: different base number systems, different languages.

>> No.4418608
File: 1.48 MB, 815x863, Blaized pascal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418608

>>4418537
Given that all mathematics can be grounded in logic, it's stupid to say that mathematics isn't logical.

>> No.4418609

>>4418596
That's like saying programming isn't logical cause you can edit the source code and it will still compile.

>> No.4418615

Wow you obviously deserve to be stuck with talking to those people if you can't answer those yourself.

>> No.4418620

>>4418608
... says the guy who has proven in several homework threads that he doesn't understand logic

>> No.4418622 [DELETED] 

>>4418608
Only Bruised is capable of such extraordinary levels of faggotry. No other human on this planet is capable of such a feat. Like a super saiyan your faggotry radiates over your body with a glow brighter than that of a supernova. You truly are the master of all that is faggot. Congratulations

>> No.4418624

>>4418596
>DERP I only know of applied mathematics

>> No.4418630

>>4418561
Quantum physics is random.
But quantum physics doesn't defy the laws of physics, it IS the laws of physics.

>> No.4418631
File: 7 KB, 180x128, dolan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418631

>>4418622
Finally a Blackman post that made me laugh.

>> No.4418633

>>4418615
I just wanna learn, if you're not willing to share your knowledge thats ok.
Also, if it was that obvious then we wouldn't have arguments itt.

>> No.4418634

>>4418596
I think my brain died a little while reading this post.

>> No.4418635

Math is completely logical, but nothing more.

>> No.4418639

>>4418630

Quantum physics is not random. We've only been studying it for like 100 years, wait a little bit.

>> No.4418641

>>4418620
>>4418622
>>4418631
Obvious samefag.

I thought it was you earlier blackman. We meet again. Can we be nemeses?

>> No.4418645

>>4418630
Hmm.
Interesting.
But when i try to think it through it comes off like:

If its truly random then it means it has no structure, thus its not based on physical laws.
From my point of view you can't have both true random events and laws of physics.

>> No.4418647

>>4418641
No samefag here. I'm not Blackman, although I have abused his name in the past. I have been tripfagging under other names you might remember.

>> No.4418654

>>4418596
>I'm a debater, i use critical thinking and scientific method to structure my arguments.
>scientific method
>gathering data
>empirically testing hypothesis
>in a debate

What the fuck am I reading?

>> No.4418660

>>4418630
>QM
>Random

Probabilities =! True randomness

>> No.4418663

Did you ask your friends how math and physics is not logical?

>> No.4418664

>>4418645
The laws of physics normally defines a set of 'truths' which were succefully corroborated experiments, from there you can extract differnt conclutions (called theorems), while the laws of quantum physics are based on probabillistical laws(In which a variable can adopt a random value) doesn't mean we can't predict the evolution of certain variable of that system using that laws.

>> No.4418667

Randomness thread you say?

1) Everything we understand is logical.
2) If something is illogical, our minds wouldn't able to process it.
Thus we could never think outside of logic.
The human thought is based on logic, all philosophy, all ingenuity, reason, everything is based on human brain process which is based on logical procession.

Ergo, everyone itt are dumfucks who can't into basic logic.

QM are not randumb, anyone who says its random, is a child that doesnt grasp the weight of his words.

>> No.4418671

>>4418645
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function
>>4418647
>tripfagging under other names you might remember
I doubt it.

>> No.4418672 [DELETED] 
File: 39 KB, 355x355, fgts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418672

>>4418641
Sure man

>> No.4418673

>I also heard that particles in quantum level defy laws of physics.

it is often said, yes:
Quantum physics defies NEWTONIAN physics -- the familiar laws.
but that's like saying baseball players violate basketball rules; they do, kind of, except those aren't the rules that matter. (a Matter joke!)

>> No.4418675

>>4418671
You doubt what? Don't you remember me?

>> No.4418678
File: 19 KB, 768x587, 1277933808732.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418678

>>4418537
>All of math and physics is based of formal logic
>Thinks math and physics isn't "logical"

STOP BEING FUCKING RETARDED.

\thread

>> No.4418682

>>4418667
Oh god what am I reading. nearly everything in that post is wrong.
>>4418675
Who are you then?

>> No.4418684

>>4418608
mathematics is grounded is axioms, not logic

>> No.4418687
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1270664214909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418687

>>4418596
>Maths is not a form of logic

Except that it is. All math is based off logic. You have no fucking idea what math is do you?

>> No.4418688

>>4418683
I no longer care.

>> No.4418689

>>4418654
What is your problem? Biased against debating?

Your going to lose that debate as soon as its put into english.

>> No.4418683

>>4418682
Who am I? Will you ever know?

>> No.4418691
File: 147 KB, 800x700, 1325097281227.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418691

>>4418684

>> No.4418695

>>4418688
You care enough to reply. Your sage shows insecurity.

>> No.4418696
File: 31 KB, 363x310, 1268777395368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418696

>>4418684
Do you know what logic is? I don't think you do.

>> No.4418698

>>4418678
Your not a real scientist.

Your just keeping the faith.

Like a christian.

>> No.4418690

>>4418671
What does that exactly say?
All i can get is that if something is seemingly random it doesnt mean it is absolute random.

Flipping a coin seemed random but if you calculated everything you can predicted, just because we are unable to calculate the conditions that doesnt make it truly random, only to us.

>> No.4418707

>>4418695
Stand back people. We've got a Freud here.

>> No.4418708

Physics is SCIENCE and SCIENCE is FACT.

>> No.4418712

>>4418689
No, I'm just pointing out how utterly clueless you sound.

>> No.4418714
File: 57 KB, 956x640, 167275421988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418714

>>4418537
There is only one thing that matters here.

WHO IS THIS GIRL? SOURCE? NAME?
NAME OF DEM TITIES???

>> No.4418716

>>4418707
You are still here and you are still replying. By denial you confirm my hypothesis.

>> No.4418721

>>4418690
QM says that even if you knew the conditions you couldnt predict the movement of particles.

Compare flipping the coin to the electron. Even if you knew the position and momentum you could only know the probabilities for where it is going to be next. As for where it appears is random.

>> No.4418722

>>4418678
>All of math and physics is based of formal logic
>Thinks math and physics isn't "logical"

I never used "formal", which is a significant difference.
And not i dont think that, your entire post is wrong.
I said that some of my friends think that math and physics are not logical, i said that anything with a structure is always logical.

Also, why are you so angry?
Even if you read correctly and you were actually right, there is no need acting like an angst teen that just learned somethign in physics.

>> No.4418731

>>4418708
And?

>> No.4418735

>>4418696
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Non-logical_axioms

Do you?

Suck my fucking dick.

>> No.4418736

>>4418708
I needed a good laugh. forgot how wrong scientist actually are in their beliefs about science

>> No.4418737

>>4418731
What "and"? No "and". SCIENCE is FACT. End of discussion. Your religion trolling has been debunked.

>> No.4418739

>>4418566
Debater here, Its not intuition,

There are two ways to collect and organise information. Quantitatively and Qualitatively.

While quantitatively is the best, when judging quality and how appropriate the ratios of something are to something else. You have to use collect and use evidence as a guide to the optimum quantity.

This means that you will have to specify your requirements based on gathering evidence.

As i have said, you have to input data to make an equation work the data is not integral to the equation.

Maths does not collect data, it merely processes data that you yourself have gathered.

For instance:

There are over 49 feral cats in our area. That’s too much.
40 + 9 = 49
How big is the area?
2miles cubed
Is that enough?
y/n?

>>4418605
Nope. You cannot exchange information in terms of maths.

You can use a cypher to decode numbers into letters making words.

But 42 is not a word on its own and never will be.

>>4418609
No its not.

If it doesn’t conduct its intended purpose then it is useless. And uselessness is illogical.

>> No.4418748

>>4418736
SCIENCE can by definition never be wrong. Don't you understand LOGIC?

>> No.4418753

>>4418748
completely unrelated, but I read Carl Sagan as Carl Sage'n

>> No.4418759
File: 31 KB, 265x350, 70870871094641.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418759

>>4418735
You truely are fucking retarded aren't you. Or trolling?

>> No.4418765

>>4418748
>SCIENCE can by definition never be wrong.
Of course not, its like an opinion. The conclusion itself can be wrong. Which is why science is not FACT.
>Don't you understand LOGIC?
Logic is not fact just in case you were implying that.

>> No.4418766
File: 43 KB, 351x345, 1277063088930.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418766

>>4418537
>>4418537
Nice troll OP

>> No.4418773
File: 19 KB, 469x304, 1269495923891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418773

>>4418537
>Someone said that math isn't logical.
>And that physics aren't either.

OP has no idea what logic is

>> No.4418774

>>4418765
Give me an example of SCIENCE being wrong.

You can't

>> No.4418775
File: 75 KB, 945x768, ohman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418775

>>4418759
>has proven twice that he doesn't understand the difference between logic and axioms

>> No.4418777
File: 8 KB, 320x240, 1269418354165.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418777

>> No.4418778

>>4418684

You should listen to this guy.
- base 10 system
- * / + -
- Cypher representation system

There are many things which you dont evidence as the best practice, but merely complete them from tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axoim is a form of presentation, not a logic, by its own definition.

>> No.4418779

>>4418775
Why does this picture make me so mad?

>> No.4418783

>>4418774
First give me an example of science being right
>implying an opinion can be right

>> No.4418787

>>4418537
Can any of you trolls tell me the name of her tities? Where can I find them?

>> No.4418790

>>4418783
SCIENCE is more than opinion, SCIENCE is FACT and FACT is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability makes it objectively correct in all hypothetical universes.

>> No.4418798

>>4418778
Yeah, it is all in the wiki. Many axioms are tautological, meaning they validate themselves. Non-logical are usually interrelated with logical axioms. An axiom is the starting point from which logic may be derived, but itself is not logical, it precedes logic.

>> No.4418801

>>4418721
But thats the point.
How can you assume such things if you dont know fully the laws?
There are tons of stuff out there we dont understand but we are CERTAIN that we will never fully understand randomness?

I know the theory.
You're just reciting it, i understand, i just criticize the theory itself.

It is very anti-scientific and ignorant to say such a thing.
Beside the textbook back up-ed anger do you, yourself think that it IS the correct view of the world?

Many great scientists said things about the world and they were wrong.
Some said that we knew everything about physics and we only had to make the measurements in more detail.

Or when hawking said that information is lost in black holes, only one person said otherwise because he though that wasn't sufficient, and he was right.

There are tons of things like this.
Every person in their era deifies their almost-contemporary people (feynman, heisenberg etc) and think their word is absolute.
It takes a patent clerk or a plumber to shake the grounds.
Am not absolute, i just think it is too hasty to say that it is "impossible" to know the exact position of a particle because currently is the only answer we have.

If we always answered to every question like that we would be in caves.
I dont want to idealize physics, random or determined, it wont change my life, but it seems so far that you just can't say such things.

>> No.4418802

>>4418790
Your kind-of right.

But its logic that is unfalsifiable.

Facts and evidence are quite falsifiable. Some things sound logical, but are later proved to be illogical.

>> No.4418804

>>4418790
>FACT is unfalsifiable.
Name a fact that is unfalsifiable

>> No.4418811

>>4418802
FACTS and EVIDENCE are by definition unfalsifiable because they are correct. Either they are or they are not (in their state of existence). If they exist, they exist and are therefore eternally correct.

>> No.4418820

>>4418802
falling for a blatant troll

>> No.4418822

>>4418804
Think of any FACT that isn't unfalsifiable. FACT has been observed. It exists. It cannot be falsified anymore, because it's falsification would be it's non-existance.

>> No.4418825

>>4418801
You completely missed the point. Knowing the position of a particle is based on our limitations. However even when you remove the limitations it is still random

>> No.4418830

>>4418790
>>4418783
You are both wrong. Science is an attempt to quantitatively define reality through empiricism. The key word is attempt. There is never 100% certainty, but it is not an opinion either. It is what ever remains true as validated by reality itself and observed/experienced through our senses.

It is tested through inductive probabilistic reasoning. It definitely not an opinion. You have opinion -> -> postulate -> conjectures -> hypothesis -> theory -> fact. In actuality, there is never a fact, and at best, science hovers in between theory and fact.

>> No.4418836

>>4418822
>implying facts exist
Facts are no different than opinions held by the majority.

>> No.4418848

>>4418836
While FACTS don't need to exist, EXISTANCE implies FACTS. Learn you're LOGIC.

>> No.4418852

>>4418811
What if the definition is wrong?

The definition could be wrong.

You wouldnt know withou evidence, which you have to test by logic.

>> No.4418855
File: 13 KB, 251x251, wtfamireading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418855

>>4418801
>>4418537

OP how old are you 12? 13? It is very obvious you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Quantum mechanics does not use the concept of randomness in any fucking sense. Some of Quantum mechnaics is probablistic not random. Please delete this shitty thread, and start a new thread on QM if that is what you are really asking about.

\thread

>> No.4418857

>>4418825
I believe that heisenberg said that no matter how good equipment we have, how good are the measurements etc we will never predict the particle movement.

Because there are limitations.
However no one said that if we break the limitations we AGAIN could not predict it.
But that is the huge hole in this reasoning, you DONT know further physics to safely say what would happen if you could break the barriers.

>> No.4418860

>>4418852
The DEFINITION is simply not wrong, it is given by REALITY.

>> No.4418862

>>4418836
>>4418822
God damn you guys really are a bunch of HS students. Don't know what axioms or facts are, jesus christ.

Facts are by definition falsifiable. Meaning there are conditions that if observed would prove a "fact" false. A fact being falsified does not mean that it is nonexistent, as has been the case in much of science, it just means that it is not UNIVERSALLY true (see classical mechanics.) Yet, the dominant paradigm does not even engage science through falsification. That is Karl Popper and his post-modernist/post-positvist crew.

Positivism is by no means using falsifiability, (which is most if not all of science), they use inductive probabilistic reasoning to validate their conjecture.

>> No.4418865

>>4418721
This is foolishness.

In Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:
Yes, within a closed system you could not tell both position and momentum without changing them and therefore are left choosing to use probability, instead of detection.

But it is not a closed system as has been proved recently, as a group of scientists did something i myself have thought of, which is lowering the temperature of the substance to close to absolute zero, and then measuring its position, as its speed is controlled.

While this is not true logic, as one of the conditions is controlled. It does prove that uncertainty can always be lowered, and theoretically, at absolute zero temperature, you would be able to tell its position and speed.

>> No.4418869

>>4418862
A FACT is a FACT, it holds always and universally. You CANNOT disprove a FACT.

>> No.4418886

>>4418855

Let me ask you something then.
Do you think that it will always be probabilistic and never deterministic?
I mean we can probabilistically predict something but never accurately, do you think this will always be the case? that no matter how better knowledge of physics we attain QM will always be probabilistic?

Also, am trying to understand physics, you insult someone who honestly tries to understand physics, i dont think am the 12yo here, no offense.

>> No.4418888

>>4418862
Im not sure i agree with positivism.

But i do know that while evidence may be inductivist, the inductivist argument is illogical, because it favours theory over evidence.

>> No.4418890

>>4418857
>we break the limitations we AGAIN could not predict it
At least take an entry level QM course before posting. The way an electron moves is completely different than that of your understanding.

>>4418865
Read the post. Whether or not you can know the position and momentum is not the issue here.

>> No.4418893

>>4418869
Tautology at its finest. All of science and math is founded upon axioms, which are not facts. Maybe in abstraction, if you wish your axiomatic principle to be that "FACTS ARE HURR DURRR" then you would be correct.

However, these facts you are referring to in science and math are simply what appears most probable after testing and observation.

>> No.4418901

>>4418893
FACT: you made the post I'm referencing. This FACT is undeniable and universally true. Good lucking finding a falsification.

>> No.4418903

>>4418721
>doesn't know any quantum mechanics

STOP READING POP-SCIENCE KID

>> No.4418913
File: 88 KB, 500x375, 1324772905572.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418913

>>4418903
Still thinks particles travel linearly

>> No.4418915

>>4418865
Why would it favor theory over evidence. What are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

>he objectivity of science lies not in the psychology of individual scientists, but in the process of science and especially in statistical methods, as noted by C. S. Peirce.[22]

>> No.4418919
File: 4 KB, 126x96, 1281830411742.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4418919

>>4418913
>posting unrelated comments

>> No.4418923

>>4418901
FACT: I didn't make the post you are referencing. This FACT is undeniable and universally true. Good lucking finding a falsification.

>> No.4418928

>>4418901

The "you" that you're referring to isn't explicitly identified, so your statement is incorrect for all "yous" who aren't the person who you're quoting.

Get owned.

>> No.4418932

>>4418919
that wasn't me.
I pretty much agree with him.

>> No.4418938

>>4418928
The "you" implicitly references exactly one person, i.e. the poster of said post. No universal quantifier included, it would have to be explicitly stated.

>>4418932
You agree to suck cocks? Good for you. I like gay people.

>> No.4418945

>>4418938
>The "you" implicitly references exactly one person, i.e. the poster of said post. No universal quantifier included, it would have to be explicitly stated.

Define every single thing you just said. I assure you that we can deconstruct all of it to meaninglessness.

>> No.4418952

>>4418945
Go deconstruct yourself into meaninglessness. I have SCIENCE to do.

>> No.4418968

>>4418952
>still doesn't understand what science is

>> No.4419027

Ahhhhhhhh the paradox of randomness.

It is funny actually.
I have developed my own theory on randomness.

Now pay attention as this literally proves that you can never prove pure randomness, that is, an action with no cause or completely unrelated to the cause:

If in a system something goes on that can't be determined precisely that could mean 2 things.
You either dont know everything about the system or it is just naturally random.

Now, he's the trick part:
In order to define something as purely random you have to know all laws of the system and adjust them, if again the system behaves randomly (or probabilistic or in any way that isn't exact determined) then it is pure random.

The paradox comes with the following:
As long there is something you can't determine it means you can never prove or safely assume you understand all the laws of the system.
In other words if something random happens that means you dont fully understand the system thus you can never think you know all the laws which in turn will never allow you to prove that the system is random.

Even if it was purely random at core you would never be able to prove it, cause that would require to know all the physical laws which brings you back on the randomness of the system.

Can you see the circularity of this?
It is impossible to prove randomness even if it exists.
You either stop when you can explain everything or continue forever and never be certain because by definition it is not provable.

If you disagree am all ears.

>> No.4419030

>>4419027
>2012
>still bothering with randomness

Leave randomness to the uneducated pop-sci virgins and go do some work.

>> No.4419039

>>4419027
I read none of it, but this is way too long for a sage poast. It's not hard to see waht you did there.

>> No.4419063

>>4419039
I just like the look of the sage post.
Its actually a quite interesting perspective, you should read it.
Well, mainly cause i prove the eternal physics argument, no biggies.

>> No.4419082

>>4419027
>I have developed my own theory
That's never a good idea.
>As long there is something you can't determine it means you can never prove or safely assume you understand all the laws of the system.
This is only true if you're talking about a physical system which we can only observe. If I made wrote down a system using mathematics I would know all the laws but it could have an intrinsic randomness put in it (Like our current models of QM).

>or continue forever and never be certain
Which is the ultimate fate of science anyway.

>> No.4419096

>>4419027
I have experiance with this sort of paradox argument.

I all them an appeal to "never being able to know".

Because prooving every law as you say here:
>In order to define something as purely random you have to know all laws of the system and adjust them, if again the system behaves randomly (or probabilistic or in any way that isn't exact determined) then it is pure random.

Will take a very long time. But only then will we know the truth and it is best not to be apathetic.

>> No.4419197

>>4419096
Will never happen.
Universe is not a closed system, as it has been recently proven.
And since we're unable to observe the "outside" we will never fully know everything.

>> No.4419254

>>4419197
*just giving karl popper all of my hate, now im back*
Actually,

Based on my experiance, a closed system would prevent us from understanding, but an open one would actually aid our experements.

btw, how exactly was this 'prooven'... i have to be sceptical i dont know what your referencing.

>> No.4419267

>>4419254

Just google multiverse evidence

>> No.4419320

>>4418537

This is the single greatest sex doll I have ever seen. I want it.

>> No.4419327

>>4418779

Because he's a real scientist and you're a boring retard.

Have fun fucking balls of socks to pictures of your mother.

>> No.4419845

>>4419063
>Well, mainly cause i prove the eternal physics argument, no biggies.

Wow -- you certainly don't require much of your 'proofs'

You not only didn't prove that, you didn't define it, provide evidence, or make more than one argument.
You wrote around the topic and barely described it at all.

Here's a tip: if you spend less than a few years on any argument that has a name, you didn't 'get it,' let alone prove or solve it.

>> No.4419867

>>4418537
Math is logical. From what little I know some of the bigger discoveries within mathematics have actually come from cutting out difficult to explain concepts rooted in metaphysical bullshit in favor of rational ideas. Math can sometimes give the illusion of being illogical when it's usage or limitations are misunderstood, though.

>> No.4419897

Who is the biddie OP posted?
-/b/

>> No.4419939

>>4418787

From left to right
Carla, Megan, Steve

>> No.4420889

"An internally consistent system can still be insane" said the ghost of Gödel.