andreasjva

You tell me what color it is Strange, and maybe I'll take your word for it, and maybe I won't. Are you color blind by any chance? To me though, it's an unknown until I see it, but I might take your word for it on something so pointless. Did you have some point to that statement?

I understand it perfectly. I'm not sure I agree with your explanation entirely. Might be the way you see it. For example, Dark energy and Dark Matter is sciences best guess at the moment. You call it a best explanation, I call it a best guess. What's the difference? Either way human beings are interpreting the information. And I'm not suggesting the theories are wrong, just to be clear, as I'm not suggesting the Big Bang is wrong. I'm just saying it's still a human interpretation of the available information. And they are definitely waiting on more information to confirm their validity.

The truth in science is the math, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. There is a whole lot of truth in science. The theory is the human interpretation of the supporting math (truth) and observations. If there's an error it's going to be in the theory because that relies on human beings. The math is what it is, and it can be checked for physical errors. I can't help it if you don't like me using the word unknown. I honestly don't know why you think it's such a big deal. Unknown is not a static definition, it's simply a point of reference to place a level of certainty on something. You obviously believe the Big Bang is solved. I don't even think it's close. What I think, by and large, is important to me. I'm too old to care about what others think. I didn't change anything. Truth is math. Theory is the human interpretation of the math and observations. That doesn't necessarily make a theory true. Even Strange agrees, there are no truths in science. Although, I think math is a definite truth, so I don't agree entirely with strange. Seriously, if something isn't considered true, and that same something isn't considered false, than what is it? Unknown.

I don't think I'm misusing theory at all. Theory is a probability of truth, not truth itself. That probability is weighed by human reasoning, which is fallible. As a general rule, the more theory involved in a concept the higher the probability for a flaw in human reasoning. Evolution has a fairly high probability of being correct for example, because its scope is very limited or focused. We also have very specific evidence that is tangible. It is a single theory based largely on hard tangible evidence. I would personally give it very near a 100% probability. Where something like the Big Bang stands though is entirely different, because the entire concept is built on many theories. The best we can give it is 50/50 in my opinion. Personally, I think the odds are much less though, because it relies on so much theory and speculation, and speculates about speculations itself. There simply isn't enough hard evidence to draw a conclusion. As I said though, as a basic rule of thumb in science there is only true (or facts), and theory (unknown), or as you say, we don't know yet. I personally feel science needs to spend a little more time saying "we don't know yet", and a little less time believing theory is true. I'm not talking about truth philosophically, I'm talking true/false reasoning. There are only 3 choices, true, false, and unknown. The unknown needs to be weighed and measured by human intellect. Math is not fallible, people are. It is very unlikely any theory is mathematically incorrect. There's simply too much rigorous scrutiny on the mathematics in the peer review process. If there are errors, it's going to be in the interpretation and/or a lack of information to make an informed decision.

I think the more obvious answer to Occam's razor is that no one is any closer to an answer, especially the guys in the video. Do yourself a favor and remove belief from your vocabulary for about 6 months. Don't believe anything (especially Geocentrism). Things are either true, false, or unknown. In science, all theory falls into the unknown category, including things like the Big Bang. There's very little "true" you can actually get a handle on in science once you start investigating. Science technically has no "false", because things are either true or theoretical. Some things could be false, but not intentionally. They just haven't figured it out yet, but it's certainly not a scientific conspiracy or mathematical laziness. That said, religion is completely unknown, with many "false". Religion relies totally on word of mouth over millennia and religious authority. You also have to consider this fact. The bible suggests Earth is the center of the entire universe, not our solar system, and everything spins around Earth. Clearly we are merely 1 planet out of 8 within our own solar system, and spinning around the sun. Geometrically speaking, there is no other way to interpret it. If we aren't even the center of our own solar system, how in the world could we be the center of the entire universe? I am more inclined to agree with the view there is no real center, but in that regard everything is center to everything else. That gets very complicated though, and not at all what geocentrism was or is about. Earth was literally the center of the universe. It's simply not possible. We're also seeing more and more planets spinning around stars. Common sense should be telling you the obvious. We are just like any other garden variety solar system we are finally able to see through our technology. We just happen to have a planet in the sweet spot. And our galaxy is merely one in 100's of billions that we can even see. There's nothing magical about it, and science isn't hiding anything or being lazy. Yes, there can be a majority consensus in science that fall pray to believing in some aspects of theory, but there is at least some logical basis for that belief. Beliefs are engrained in human nature, so it is what it is. Geocentrism is simply being peddled to support an erroneous/false biblical viewpoint, nothing more. Heck, the church wanted to execute Galileo for going against Geocentrism in the first place. You really don't need to believe anything. Most of it is unknown.

I was trying very hard not to Swansoot, but the thread took a turn towards the origin of numbers and mathematics. It seemed appropriate to consider where they came from in light of the questions being asked. How did 1 become 2, if 1/1=1? Seems like a logical question to me, mathematically speaking.

You seem to be changing the original parameters of the question. Everything does appear to be separated by a unique time and space. The only exception seems to be in quantum physics, where things can occupy the same space apparently. Although I am not qualified to explain it. Strange and Phi could probably explain it fairly well.

0 and 1 was more of discovery, if you'd like to call it that, but it's probably related more to an awareness than a discovery. 2, 3, 4, etc, were invented to understand 0 and 1, and 2,3.. are arbitrary in nature. We exist at >0 and <1 in reality, and that's why we had to invent 2, 3, 4, etc., because it is a lot easier to wrap our brains around. Although it was probably more a matter of commerce than anything else. You know, 3 seashells for 1 fish, and now you have 0 seashells to buy fish with. Just did. Thanks. The real challenge isn't the process, it's understanding the results. Pure math seems to lean towards speculation and generalization of those results. Looks pretty interesting. I tend to consider a very simple and consolidated view of all math and numeric values in relation to the universe. 0 = Potential for Nothing 1 = Potential for Something ∞ = Reality If math can show me how 1 = ∞, I would be thoroughly impressed. Math and science tends to approach it like this... 0 = Imaginary and sometimes ∞ 1 = Reality ∞ = Abstract Concept and sometimes a bunch of other stuff

As far as everything being unique on an individual basis, not likely. It's the large number of variables acting upon the many of the small that give the diversity of the larger. Much can happen over time that change the way things interact and combine with one another. Can science say with absolute certainty anything is precisely the same? No. But pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt most of these things they're talking about around here appear to be identical in nature. I've often looked at the universe itself as a copier of sorts, with no original required. It just does its thing over and over and over, and the complexity and diversity arises from sheer volume over time. The chance of a more substantial somethings being identical to another substantial something is about the same odds as everything being unique. That could be a little different when we're talking very large somethings. They could end up being a bit more identical in nature. I was thinking black hole in this instance, which is a critical mass point. Who knows though? I just enjoy a good debate. To answer the question though, no, it can't be said with absolute certainty. It would just be somewhat of a ridiculous avenue of research considering what they already know. The natural world was doing just fine before we invented numbers and then the mathematics to manipulate those numbers. The natural world is simply abiding by the laws of nature. Because nature follows rules, it follows the numbers. The universe came first, math came second. I'm not exactly sure what you even mean by "pure" math. Sounds a bit esoteric.

You could replace the adjective "absolute" with a number of alternatives, like: complete, perfect, pure etc... Probably should have opted for defined, specific, static, or fixed value. Absolute and non-absolute had a better ring to it. I took creative license in the writing. ab·so·lute ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/ adjective adjective: absolute 1. adjective 1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty. 2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol. 3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial. Why certainly. I use a spreadsheet to keep track of my personal finances out to about 2 years. It simulates my bank accounts pretty well. Although, it's hard to factor in the wife all the time, but I take my best guess on her spending habits based on history. Not sure what the comment has to do with the price of eggs in Egypt though....

I misspoke. Math is used as a tool to simulate and define natural phenomena; is more appropriate. Sorry for the confusion. I do not disagree with your post.

There never is Strange. Math is simply a tool in describing the natural world, and as such, has obvious limitations in precisely defining specific problems. The universe would work just fine without it, and us. That should be the simplest answers of all. Glad you were able to figure it out without a single mathematical calculation.

I'm not the one doing the hand waving, you are. Math is a simulation of nature, period. That simulation is only as good as the tool, and the tool we're using is limited to fixed values. We stop it at a certain point to continue the calculation. It's usable result must always be converted to a fixed value. We approximate by necessity. How tight we want the calculation depends on when we cut it off. I never disputed the worth or its useful accuracy. Science does some amazing things with the tools they've created. You knew exactly what I meant of course. And yes, I know what else it can mean in mathematics. It terms of writing it is much easier to use absolute and non-absolute. You understood and I'm pretty sure everyone else reading was smart enough to figure it out as well. Too old? Didn't know there were age limits on these things.

I don't know Swansoot. No matter how I look at it, math is only capable of simulating reality. It can get pretty darn close the further we advance, but it is always limited to absolutes, and because of that simple fact, the results will always be absolute. The universe itself may be based on non-absolute values. We don't know. Is everything unique? Well, from one moment to the next it certainly is. Right? So the poster is at least partially correct at this point. Unless someone wants to argue that point, but I think that would be a futile argument, considering I'm a minute older (and everything that makes me up) than I was when I started writing this post. Then you're approximating the answer with fractions. Same difference. Do you know the precise fraction for pi? If you did, I think you'd have a Nobel prize under your belt.

I think you're missing the point. We can only be as accurate mathematically, as the equipment we are using, or our patience in decimal places manually. Math can only simulate reality to a finite point. Yes, it does many things very well, but we will always be limited to certain number of decimal places. In 99% of the cases it is good enough. Math only handles absolute values. We have to physically stop a computer from trying to solve problems before it errors out or fills storage. And when it come to the speed of light, every decimal place becomes extremely significant.

I didn't say it was wrong Strange, I said it couldn't be proven conclusively mathematically, because math can't handle non-absolute values. The accuracy of the measurement is entirely dependent on the equipment one is using to take the measurement. The equipment itself is calibrated to an absolute standard, and will always yield an absolute result. They may be identical to that piece of equipment, but that certainly doesn't answer the question, does it? And to confound the problem, the more accurate we make the measuring devices, the less useful and less accurate it becomes in taking measurements, because it becomes too sensitive. Science approximates to an acceptable degree of accuracy and intentionally yields an absolute value that they can work with. You have to. If I used a bathroom scale to weigh ping pong balls, can I claim all ping pong balls weigh 0? Of course not. The only thing that has been proven is that science can make pretty damn accurate equipment.

It isn't? Well established and proven have entirely different meanings. There is nothing "clearly" wrong in the initial assumption of the poster. It's actually quite possible. For example, math is only capable of handling absolute values, so any answer determined by mathematics will always yield an absolute result. That could run contrary to reality. For example: 3.14 + 3.14 = 6.28 and 3.1415 + 3.1415 = 6.2830 but 3.14/3.14 = 1 and 3.1415/3.1415 = 1 1 doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in reality, although mathematically they may appear identical. Math only handles absolute values. Math itself can only simulate non-absolute values, and therefor can only simulate reality in absolute terms. Reality is not an absolute, so there is many different interpretations of the same problem. So, the assumption that everything is unique, cannot be proven either way. It is neither right, nor wrong. It is unknown to science.

Kind of a funny analogy, considering the institution of science assumes everything is wrong/irrelevant until proven right. Science is nothing like law in that regard. In law, innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. The only similarity is the lawyers arguing the case.

It's probably one you should become familiar with. The universe cannot possess a value of 0, because that would imply nothing. The universe cannot possess a value of 1, because that would imply a state of equality. 1 is also a rational number. No rational number can ever resolve an irrational value without becoming infinite. An irrational number can determine a rational value, and that value must be considered virtual because the universe cannot be simultaneously 1 and infinite, or rational and irrational. There's your proof. The universe is irrational. Therefore, the expression -∞/+∞=-1 is true. -1 is a virtual rational number. -1 is a relative perspective of an irrational state, and that relative perspective is finite

I said it is a virtual rational value of 1 or -1. It is as close to real as it can ever be, because reality itself is relative, exactly as Einstein imagined it to be. It is.

Fair enough. I will concede money as an irrelevant factor in scientific progress. Mostly the system works. However, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude science is exempt from corruption. My experience in life tells me otherwise. Where's there is money, there is temptation, and there is always someone willing to exploit an opportunity for more personal reasons. I am not being cynical either. It is merely a fact of life. And that's all I have to say about it. We are way off topic now. I did want to go back to my original assumption of -infinity/+infinity=-1, I think science is putting a little too much weight in pure mathematical logic. By doing so, they leave out the most obvious and simple solution to the problem. Personally, I think the answer to the universe has been hiding in plain site all this time. Why? Because science demands rigorous mathematical proof for an irrational problem, which cannot be solved using a rational process like mathematics. Math can only approximate irrational numbers, because math itself is a rational process. In my mind, the answer becomes self evident. -pi/+pi=-1. Although we might consider -1 a static rational number value, logically the result would be more of a virtual rational number, because the answer doesn't quite represent reality. We know this because there is no true physical static value for pi. It rises infinitely in value. I think that's a dilemma that needs defining. I'm sure I'm not the first person that's thought about it. So, I'm going to consider infinity the primary irrational number, but it can only be expressed in terms of a + or - value because the true value is indeterminate. I'm also going to suggest that any irrational number divided by itself will always yield a virtual rational value of 1 or -1. What that means for an irrational universe in my view, is that everything is bound by a relative or virtual perspective. Nothing can escape it. We don't know how big we are. We don't know how much we weigh. We don't know how fast we're going. And we don't know what time it is. We can however, determine all these answers when comparing it to other elements within our relative perspective. It should be understood that our perspective is a bit more fluid than it appears though. Strange, your arguments in thermodynamics are irrelevant to the problem. You're basing the physics on a static state of mass or matter. Of course it's going to behave in a static manner based on your static viewpoint. The underlying reality of that state though, is relative. The scale of the universe is a relative perspective, like time and motion. There is nothing in physics to suggest an entire universe couldn't fit into a thimble. It's just utterly weird to imagine it could from our relative perspective. If however, you stepped out to the furthest reaches of infinity and looked back, that's exactly what it would look like. And no, this is absolutely not philosophy. It takes an irrational processor to solve an irrational problem. Human beings by nature are irrational processors of information. Computers and mathematics are rational processors of information. They can only simulate irrational processes in a rational manner.

I'm not sure I agree with that 100%. Money is what makes the world go round, and there's nothing wrong with that. These experiments take millions and billions of dollars at the current level, and investors want to know the science is sound before coughing it up. Politicians also want votes when using tax dollars, and they certainly don;t want a loser on the front page. They don't want to bet on the dark horse. It's just reality. I'm not even saying it's all that bad. Yes, mostly I would say you are correct, but people do tend to flock around the idea with the biggest bank roll.

Okay, let me put it another way. Once the observation was made, a majority consensus built, and all other theories were pushed into obscurity. Science follows the money, and there was no stock in competing with it. Everyone has to make a living. Thanks.

My view of time is a bit different, so I'm not sure it would be compatible. I am also very heavy on GR. It's more like GR on steroids.

Yes, my experience in life says there are very few new ideas, but many ideas simultaneously and independently considered. Evolution at its finest I suppose. Has anyone ever considered matter and time contracting simultaneously, with all perspectives relative? Just curious.