"math is NEVER applicable to the real world" split from is current day math flawed

[Strange]

...And I expected to be accused of hyperbole again.

 

Just repeating what you said. And, although you have backed away from that, the rest of your comments are equally ludicrous.

As usual people just aren't following my arguments.

 

People follow them perfectly. They are just nonsense.

[Gabriel Chase]

This sort of topic reminds me of this webcomic:

 

[cladking]

Most people do lose the ability to use math in their lives. Some of this is natural since most people become specialists and most specialties don't require any math. More accurately everything requires math but people simply don't know how to use it in everyday life so lawyers and doctors don't. They simply ask for advice from experts or others. Many doctors can't even do the simple arithmetic to calculate numbers of doses needed. But this is simply a different subject.

 

For instance if you need two pills per day you'll need 60 for the month. But if you cross the international dateline you'll still need sixty for the month as defined by the location that the first dose was taken. If you get on a rocket and cross the dateline repeatedly your frame of reference changes but you'll still need two pills every 24 hours of a fixed point. Even if the planet vaporizes and the word "day" is no longer defined you'll need two pills everytime the hand of your Rolex goes around twice. Walking around the north pole doesn't affect the dosing schedule.

 

I believe 80 time zones is probably a pretty conservative estimate because maritime laws are extremely complex. Ships at sea are required to keep a specific time that doesn't always correspond to the time zone or port in which they are. Having the wrong time can even be a serious offense in some jurisdictions.

 

Just because much of nature can be described mathematically doesn't mean that nature behaves by laws or that math is necessarily applicable to anything at all. Just because math is a large part of how we come to develop theory doesn't mean that nature behaves mathematically. Even if someday we find that all of nature does in fact behave mathematically it still won't mean that there's such a thing as one rabbit or two rabbits. I'm sure if we get to the point that nature can be shown to be strictly mathematical that it will be recognized that every rabbit is different and you still won't be able to step into the same river twice.

 

People might consider all this mere semantics but it isn't. It's perspective. From most individual's scientific perspective virtually everything is known and from the more realistic perspective almost nothing is known. From a religious person's perspective all moral tenents are factual and can be found in the Bible, Koran, etc but require interpretation. From some athiest's perspectives there are no moral tenents. There's as much difference between reality and some scientific perspectives as there is between religion and some athieism. Perspective is everything and people now don't even attempt to identify perspectives. Most scientists are not identifying their perspective nor considering the metaphysics that generates (or is supposed to generate) their perspectives. So long as you believe you can count things and manipulate them with equations you are taking what's known and applying things learned in the lab. You can make very fundamental mistakes counting rabbits because they aren't in the controlled conditions of the lab. What you actually see in the wild might have little or no bearing on the reality of what it means to be a rabbit or the way a rabbit exists in nature. A disease that appears to be decimating rabbit populations might be secondary to the actual cause of population decrease. Slower rabbits being eaten by foxes might not be indicative of the reason they were on the menu. We see what we expect and if our perspective is "wrong" then what we see isn't what we get.

[swansont]

 

For instance if you need two pills per day you'll need 60 for the month.

 

By what wizardry did you glean this information? It can't be math, because that NEVER applies to the real world.

[Strange]

It is also wrong in most cases. I assume that is because cladking is unable to apply maths to the real world.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Strange

[cladking]

 

By what wizardry did you glean this information? It can't be math, because that NEVER applies to the real world.

 

I think you're forgetting my original contention that math is never applicable in the real world. Saying you need 60 pills at two daily for a month is merely a shaort hand way of expressing the concept that many natural processes, logic, and patterns are harmonic and repeatable. Relativistic considerations will affect the number. If the doctor is computing the number of pills needed for the pilot of a speed of light ship to Alpha Centari then he'll be way off. If the prescription is the wrong one or the patient is allergic he will die and need no more pills. If the month has 31 days he will run short.

 

It's not only the terms and variables that aren't reflected in the real world but the application of them aren't.

[Strange]

 

I think you're forgetting my original contention that math is never applicable in the real world. Saying you need 60 pills at two daily for a month is merely a shaort hand way of expressing the concept that many natural processes, logic, and patterns are harmonic and repeatable. Relativistic considerations will affect the number. If the doctor is computing the number of pills needed for the pilot of a speed of light ship to Alpha Centari then he'll be way off. If the prescription is the wrong one or the patient is allergic he will die and need no more pills. If the month has 31 days he will run short.

 

It's not only the terms and variables that aren't reflected in the real world but the application of them aren't.

 

So you are saying that because you are unable to do simple arithmetic correctly, you think everyone else is equally incompetent and therefore maths is invalid.

 

That is quite an impressive argument.

[cladking]

 

So you are saying that because you are unable to do simple arithmetic correctly, you think everyone else is equally incompetent and therefore maths is invalid.

 

That is quite an impressive argument.

 

 

No. Read the post again. I'm saying that sixty pills are way too many for a dead man or the pilot of a speed of light ship. It's far too few if you can't get a refill in a 31 day month and they are needed to survive. Math is correct but it's not applicable to the real world even though it seems to people that it necessarily is. I'm saying that your perspective is kaleidoscopic and prone to lead to error in some things. It causes an incorrect assessment and even an incorrect quantification of the real world to the degree it can only be seen from this perspective.

 

You act as though I'm doing the math wrong. 2 X 30 = 60 does it not? This simply doesn't and can't mean that all individuals taking two pills per day for a month need 60 pills. In real life the doctor might change the prescription or dose. In real life math simply isn't applicable which should lead us to examine the variables and the measurements to see that they fit the specific application. People don't do this so they design bridges that fail and Improperly ground mirrors. They get questions wrong on physics tests but never seem to notice the source of the problems. They simply don't notice that everything is perspective. Even physicists think planes can't takeoff from a conveyor belt. We see what we understand and can't see the vastness of our ignorance. We stumble blindly into the future certain of our destiny and status at the crown of creation.

[Strange]

No. Read the post again. I'm saying that sixty pills are way too many for a dead man or the pilot of a speed of light ship. It's far too few if you can't get a refill in a 31 day month and they are needed to survive. Math is correct but it's not applicable to the real world even though it seems to people that it necessarily is.

 

So what you are saying is that some months have more or less than 30 days and it is impossible to take that into account? So we could only use maths in the real world if all months had 30 days?

 

As I say, all you are demonstrating is your own incompetence.

 

 

You act as though I'm doing the math wrong.

 

You are indeed doing the arithmetic wrong.

 

 

 

In real life the doctor might change the prescription or dose. In real life math simply isn't applicable

 

So, in real life, how is the doctor going to change the prescription? Is he just going to randomly change it to 3? Or 4 billion? Or, maybe, just maybe, he will use maths to work out what is actually required, taking into account all those little details that you find completely baffling, such as how many days there are in a month.

 

 

We see what we understand and can't see the vastness of our ignorance.

 

You should stop projecting your ignorance onto everybody else.

[swansont]

I think you're forgetting my original contention that math is never applicable in the real world.

Obviously. It's not like I paraphrased you in my response or anything.

[cladking]

Obviously. It's not like I paraphrased you in my response or anything.

 

I don't believe that math is required at all to understand the world. Yes, science without math is almost like language without words but one doesn't need words to understand the world either. We use symbolic representations of concepts to think and mostly this is words. You paraphrased me but your paraphrase displays a perspective that suggests understanding is impossible without math. From your perspective this is probably true but a sixth grade dropout who never learned arithmetic can still understand the world from a perspective that doesn't include math. If he's sharp he can probably understand nearly any scientific theory in a non-mathematical way. Some people like this can easily picture a plane taking off from a conveyor belt. His model of reality can be more accurate in some ways than a physicist's. A scrub lady in the 1850's might have thought doctors could save more patients if they washed their hands.

 

Math works because it is logical. Any logical format should work for almost any task. If you assign numbers and quantities to a logical system then you have invented a mathematics and so long as the logic is correct it will be consistent. This math can be applied to learning about nature because it is logical and consistent like nature. The fact that it is logical and it works for understanding nature is neither indicative of it being the only means to understand it nor that all applications of math to nature are legitimate. Just because you can count rabbits and the number is usually meaningful doesn't show that we have any control of rabbits. If you stick ten random rabbits in a cage with plenty of food there is a very high probability that in a short time there will be many more rabbits. If there aren't it's because the rabbits are individual rabbits and by some chance you have ten rabbits that are not representative of other rabbits. Even if you use all female rabbits there's a fair chance at least one is pregnant and there will be male offspring because... ...they breed like rabbits.

 

Of course we apply math to the world all the time but this doesn't prove the world behaves according to the logic of math simply because the world is far more complex than math and has untold more variables and processes than we can even imagine (probably). This is why we get unintended consequences and experts don't agree on causations even after the fact. This is why we can't predict things. Many of the processes on which we rely in industry are very poorly understood. We explain phenomena based on observation and extrapolation from theory. Without the observation we'd be at a loss in many cases. Who would predict something like supercooling based only established theory?

[swansont]

 

I don't believe that math is required at all to understand the world. Yes, science without math is almost like language without words but one doesn't need words to understand the world either. We use symbolic representations of concepts to think and mostly this is words. You paraphrased me but your paraphrase displays a perspective that suggests understanding is impossible without math.

 

You didn't say math isn't required for understanding. You made a much stronger, and consequentially more ludicrous claim, that you CAN'T use math to understand the world — that it NEVER applies.

 

And to complete the farce, you keep defending your position, usually with an example of math that is used in the real world.

 

My perspective is unimportant here, other than showing that your claim is utterly wrong, and the morbid fascination in watching this slow-motion train wreck.

[cladking]

 

You didn't say math isn't required for understanding. You made a much stronger, and consequentially more ludicrous claim, that you CAN'T use math to understand the world — that it NEVER applies.

 

 

People do use math to understand the world but to the degree the specific application of math is illegitimate it leads to a misunderstanding of reality. A concientious mother will count her children to assure she brings home the same number of children from the store as she took. If she's fastidious she will even assure they are the same children. But exactly as you can't step into the same river twice you can't bring the same child home whom you took. This is in no way to suggest she should just exchange her children, get extra kids, or leave some behind. It's merely an observation that the real world behaves outside the constraints of math. At least we have no way of knowing if the real world always behaves according to natural law. Since we don't know we should always carefully examine how we apply what we do know to the real world. Just because something can be described with an equation does not mean that the real world will operate in that way. Trains do wreck and sometimes it's not because the rail is defective or something gets in the way. There are millions of things that cause even the freight train coming not to get there.

[swansont]

 

People do use math to understand the world but to the degree the specific application of math is illegitimate it leads to a misunderstanding of reality. A concientious mother will count her children to assure she brings home the same number of children from the store as she took. If she's fastidious she will even assure they are the same children. But exactly as you can't step into the same river twice you can't bring the same child home whom you took. This is in no way to suggest she should just exchange her children, get extra kids, or leave some behind. It's merely an observation that the real world behaves outside the constraints of math. At least we have no way of knowing if the real world always behaves according to natural law. Since we don't know we should always carefully examine how we apply what we do know to the real world. Just because something can be described with an equation does not mean that the real world will operate in that way. Trains do wreck and sometimes it's not because the rail is defective or something gets in the way. There are millions of things that cause even the freight train coming not to get there.

 

You're cherry picking examples where there are failures, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum from saying that math is NEVER applicable to the real world. SOMETIMES math is misapplied. SOMETIMES there are failures. SOMETIMES factors that are ignored turn out to be important. SOMETIMES there are systems that cannot even be approximated with mathematical models. Those are far from the ridiculous absolute you claimed.

[cladking]

 

SOMETIMES there are systems that cannot even be approximated with mathematical models.

 

Perhaps my best strategy at this time is to retreat, regroup and plan to fight another day.

 

My point is merely that perspective is everything and most mathematicians or physicists will have a perspective that sees most aspects of their reality in terms of math. In the idealized model of their perspectives these applications of math will always be spot on and where they aren't they can be recalculated or examined to see new hypothesis or new insight. It's hardly my contention that any perspective at all is necessarily wrong, merely that the logic of theory and math apply perfectly only in the idealized world of models and technology. They apply in the lab and they are the result of experiment and theory but they are still a perspective rather than a reflection of reality itself.

 

I believe this is an important distinction because what we see is defined by our perspective and experience.

[Strange]

 

Perhaps my best strategy at this time is to retreat, regroup and plan to fight another day.

 

Maybe retreat and study. Come back when you know what you are talking about.

[John Cuthber]

 

Perhaps my best strategy at this time is to retreat, regroup and plan to fight another day.

 

My point is merely that perspective is everything and most mathematicians or physicists will have a perspective that sees most aspects of their reality in terms of math. In the idealized model of their perspectives these applications of math will always be spot on and where they aren't they can be recalculated or examined to see new hypothesis or new insight. It's hardly my contention that any perspective at all is necessarily wrong, merely that the logic of theory and math apply perfectly only in the idealized world of models and technology. They apply in the lab and they are the result of experiment and theory but they are still a perspective rather than a reflection of reality itself.

 

I believe this is an important distinction because what we see is defined by our perspective and experience.

Your best strategy is to learn to admit it when you make mistakes.

[swansont]

Perhaps my best strategy at this time is to retreat, regroup and plan to fight another day.

 

What you originally said will NEVER be correct. So no, planning to fight another day is not your best strategy.

[cladking]

Your best strategy is to learn to admit it when you make mistakes.

 

I'll try this one more time. It may fall on deaf ears but somehow it seems everybody can see the point.

 

The most basic and important distinction to all life forms is the difference between existence and non-

existence. This is the most basic thing that is needed to be known by individuals and it's the most com-

monly communicated concept. A bird needs to know if a hawk is in the vicinity. This is essentially the

same thing as the ability to count to one or the application of a mathematical concept to the real world.

If a bird were to continually an alarm that there is a hawk in the area when no hawk exists he will prob-

ably be ignored like the boy who cried "wolf". If a person points at a plastic daisy and says it's a flower

it remains a piece of plastic., It might mean nothing to the person to whom he is communicating or to

the individual who pronounced it a flower but he has declared the existence of something that doesn't

exist. He has misapplied the concept of "one". A rabbit can't eat a plastic daisy and bees won't be drawn

to it. If the purpose of the flower is to attract bees then this misapplication of math will result in a poten-

tially serious deficiency. One and zero can't be any more different than night and day or life and death.

The difference can result in life or death, and even night and day are undefined at 12 o'clock. We live in

a world where math is far more often misapplied than people notice. We live in a world where rivers are

forever changing as are all other things. You can add the Mississippi and the Amazon and divide by the

Volga to get the Ganges. Reality simply doesn't work this way. If you use a sufficiently broad definition

of "flower" to include a plastic daisy then the ability of the word to identify something is decreased. If a

painting or drawing of a flower is also a flower then you get to the point that no utterance has any mean-

ing. Only a part of the problem of applying math to the real world is language but the fact remains even

each daisy is distinct. At what point is a decaying daisy no longer a flower at all? One or zero?

[Greg H.]

 

A concientious mother will count her children to assure she brings home the same number of children from the store as she took. If she's fastidious she will even assure they are the same children.

 

By fastidious, do you by chance mean normal? Because that's what a normal person does - makes sure they bring home the same children they left the house with. It's not even that hard - it's not like they are invisible or something.

[Mad For Science]

"Math doesn't apply in the real world" is something school children say when they can't do math. It is way up there with "this is stupid".

[cladking]

"Math doesn't apply in the real world" is something school children say when they can't do math. It is way up there with "this is stupid".

 

 

Yes. Exactly.

 

But what I said is math doesn't apply to the real world which has a completely different meaning and you must first know math to know it doesn't apply.

[Strange]

 

I'll try this one more time. It may fall on deaf ears but somehow it seems everybody can see the point.

 

The most basic and important distinction to all life forms is the difference between existence and non-

existence. This is the most basic thing that is needed to be known by individuals and it's the most com-

monly communicated concept. A bird needs to know if a hawk is in the vicinity. This is essentially the

same thing as the ability to count to one or the application of a mathematical concept to the real world.

If a bird were to continually an alarm that there is a hawk in the area when no hawk exists he will prob-

ably be ignored like the boy who cried "wolf". If a person points at a plastic daisy and says it's a flower

it remains a piece of plastic., It might mean nothing to the person to whom he is communicating or to

the individual who pronounced it a flower but he has declared the existence of something that doesn't

exist. He has misapplied the concept of "one". A rabbit can't eat a plastic daisy and bees won't be drawn

to it. If the purpose of the flower is to attract bees then this misapplication of math will result in a poten-

tially serious deficiency. One and zero can't be any more different than night and day or life and death.

The difference can result in life or death, and even night and day are undefined at 12 o'clock. We live in

a world where math is far more often misapplied than people notice. We live in a world where rivers are

forever changing as are all other things. You can add the Mississippi and the Amazon and divide by the

Volga to get the Ganges. Reality simply doesn't work this way. If you use a sufficiently broad definition

of "flower" to include a plastic daisy then the ability of the word to identify something is decreased. If a

painting or drawing of a flower is also a flower then you get to the point that no utterance has any mean-

ing. Only a part of the problem of applying math to the real world is language but the fact remains even

each daisy is distinct. At what point is a decaying daisy no longer a flower at all? One or zero?

 

More of the same irrelevant drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. And possibly nothing to do with the real world. It sounds like the incoherent ravings a wannabe surealist writer.

But what I said is math doesn't apply to the real world which has a completely different meaning

 

How is "Math doesn't apply in the real world" completely different from "Math doesn't apply to the real world"? I fail to see any difference.

 

 

and you must first know math to know it doesn't apply.

 

Then it is hard to see whether you can make any such judgement.

[Mad For Science]

 

 

Yes. Exactly.

 

But what I said is math doesn't apply to the real world which has a completely different meaning and you must first know math to know it doesn't apply.

I may be wrong about your thinking here but I think you may just be referring to the fact that for math to apply to real world problems you may have to make some simplifying assumptions to keep the math from getting too complicated to be practical. For example the Ideal gas law; PV = nRT is practical if you want to know how much gas to safely put into a storage tank but the equation does not take into account that the gas molecules have mass, size, interactions with other gas molecules etc. You can make it more accurate if you include correction factors but the complexity of the calculations increases.

[Strange]

And sometimes the complexity is such that the problem is intractable. For example, there is no analytical solution to the three body problem, or the merging of two black holes. Or many other realistic problems. But we can address these by numerical methods and simulation.

 

But, of course, that is not what cladking is saying. He is saying it is impossible to do anything ever.