It is not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Where do the mathematical laws of physics come from?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Fair enough. I think most mathematicians are, as are a large number of theoretical physicists.I am not a platonist about math.
If we still believe in cause and effect, I don't see how you cause a rationally organized universe to originate and inflate, unless caused by pre-existing mathmatical laws.
Every profession thinks they are the center of the universe.Fair enough. I think most mathematicians are, as are a large number of theoretical physicists.
If we still believe in cause and effect, I don't see you cause a rationally organized universe to originate and inflate, unless caused by pre-existing mathmatical laws.
gibberish
Only for someone who lacks education.
For sure. That troll is a waste of time
Funny how you can't answer a simple question about the whole topic. That's because you dont' understand what you are talking about but you want to SEEM smart.
LOL.
It's obvious to anyone with an ACTUAL education what you are.
trollFunny how you can't answer a simple question about the whole topic. That's because you dont' understand what you are talking about but you want to SEEM smart.
LOL.
It's obvious to anyone with an ACTUAL education what you are.
troll
So what do YOU think the nature of mathematics is?
Already stated it you stupid troll.So what do YOU think the nature of mathematics is?
Here's what you said:Already stated it you stupid troll.
Math is empirically derived.
That isn't actually defining the nature of math but it does bring us closer to agreement.
I don't necessarily agree with the claim since math is actually simply a description of relationships like 1+1 = 2 or F=ma.
BUT
I DO however, agree with you, that math is ACQUIRED through largely empirical means. It starts with the simple (1+1=2) and develops from there but is essentially the same thing.
The various relationships were probably all derived empiricly by people and then later explored more abstractly. However I don't necessarily disagree with every aspect of your view of math.
Last edited:
mathmatical laws.
Can you give us an example of a "mathematical law"? It might better ground your discussion.
Troll.Can you give us an example of a "mathematical law"? It might better ground your discussion.
Take an introductory physics class. I am not here to teach you physics, or to entertain your babble about giraffes and baboons, or to consider your ridiculous gibberish about one plus one
Can you give us an example of a "mathematical law"? It might better ground your discussion.
I'll throw one out: Pi=c/d
Is there any conception of any reality in which Pi is NOT C/D? Was it necessary for some agency to "establish" this relationship?
This is why I keep going back to simple math: 1+1=2
It is saying the same thing. It is telling you that the sides of the equation are equivalent. Equivalence would seem to define a NECESSARY relationship (in other words: one in which it is impossible to imagine a reality in which it did not hold) which seems, to me, to be a simple statement akin to "a thing is what it is". I don't see any need for this to have been "established" since I cannot conceive of ANY reality in which a thing is not what it is.
Troll.
Take an introductory physics class. I am not here to teach you physics, or to entertain your babble about giraffes and baboons, or to consider your ridiculous gibberish about one plus one
I know you are incapable of discussing mathematics in any real detail, but I'll be glad to help.
trollI know you are incapable of discussing mathematics in any real detail, but I'll be glad to help.
Troll.
I understand that you consider it "trolling" when someone discusses the TOPIC and doesn't just bitch and whine about other posters. But this is an interesting topic even if you don't actually understand your own position.
I'm able to talk about it. I wish you were as well. But I understand.
You're scared. Don't be.
get lost trollI understand that you consider it "trolling" when someone discusses the TOPIC and doesn't just bitch and whine about other posters. But this is an interesting topic even if you don't actually understand your own position.
I'm able to talk about it. I wish you were as well. But I understand.
You're scared. Don't be.
troll
I note that you are incapable of addressing any of my points. Honestly I didn't think it would be this easy to defeat you and @Cypress in yet ANOTHER discussion, but gosh.
I honestly don't think my point was THAT strong, it could use some workshopping but clearly it is well above you and Cypress. I'll still stick around to workshop it some more. Maybe I can even teach you guys how to debate a point.
get lost troll
It's not going to happen. I like this topic. Quite a bit. I like to talk about math and science.
If I am a troll it will be no effort for you to get me banned. But since you have NEVER BEEN SUCCESSFUL in this, we'll just assume you like having your failures rubbed in your face.
Now let's talk math.
Why does 1+1=2 scare Cypress so badly?
you are an idiotIt's not going to happen. I like this topic. Quite a bit. I like to talk about math and science.
If I am a troll it will be no effort for you to get me banned. But since you have NEVER BEEN SUCCESSFUL in this, we'll just assume you like having your failures rubbed in your face.
Now let's talk math.
Why does 1+1=2 scare Cypress so badly?
you are an idiot
Except I'm capable of discussing this topic.
In order to discuss the nature of mathematical laws one should probably start from a baseline in which one actually KNOWS something about mathematics.
If the question is: from whence does the mathematical rigor of the universe derive, then it must first be established as to what math actually "is".
That's something you and @Cypress never address or even seem to think is important. But I honestly don't understand how someone with even a modicum of education wouldn't be able to understand that in order to discuss the nature of something it is best to at least have a common understanding of what it is you are discussing.
Math is essentially a description of relationships. It relates quantities to each other (hence the "=" you often see in mathematical expressions). So, perhaps, the mystery doesn't lie in the mere EXISTENCE of mathematical concepts but rather in why certain quantities wind up being related.
If we go back to "Pi" for an example. It is a necessary feature that if you arrange a series of dots around a central point all equidistant from said central point that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is Pi. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to arrive at any other value since it effectively DEFINES a circle.
So it is a matter of definition. A circle is a circle. Is it necessary for this concept to have to have some sort of metaphysical aspect? Or is it simply the only way reality can possibly be?