Because Mathematics is the "default rational scientific language" and understood by all scientists. That makes it the topmost language for providing scientific "proofs" of observed universal physical phenomena.
At the junction of bringing axioms outside of its self referential semantics, all the time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I take that as a "No". So tell me, what expanses have you miraculously shown that was without the aid of math?
Perplexed 6 year olds the world over share your enthusiasm http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...fficult-in-the-us.160567/page-30#post-3509205 Seems to be a pumping thread. But aside from saying things like its up to it's 31st page, the topic seems to be expansively progressing less so with the aid of mathematics and more so with the aid of conflicts of civil justice, liberty etc I guess that makes it a miracle ....
To a six year old.......perhaps....., but why would it appear miraculous to you?........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually, the answers are all correct, from a symbolic pattern perspective. 8 is all curly, 6 is not. I think that kid has a future in theoretical science.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In John 8:1–11, Christ says to those who want to stone the woman taken in adultery, “Let one who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone!” he is immediately hit by a stone, and then shouts back: “Mother! I asked you to stay at home!”
'twas borrowed from Žižek (he's a hoot) If viewing "god" from a judeo-christian perspective, it seemed apropos to the thread's title.
I keep telling you that I don't think that. Woo is not the default. But "ultimate truth" is woo. Mathematics may have its limitations but it remains the best connection we have with reality. The problem isn't that English can't describe everything. maybe it can. But the problem is that English can not describe everything as precisely as mathematics can. This discussion is a good example.
You are probably struggling with the religious connotations of "ultimate truth". Think of it this way ... Do you think mathematics can establish correct data (truth)? Do you think amongst all systems for establishing correct data, mathematics is "superior" (ultimate)? Can one talk of having the best connection to reality without relying on standard definitions of "true/truth"? How could such a problem possibly enter the mind of someone who thinks it can? That "precision" comes at the cost of dumbing down the subject matter and/or offering a greatly reduced scope for investigation. Thus, it's more accurate to describe it as an application suitable for a certain field, and not "reality". English (or any other spoke language) has scope for a vastly more precise and complex meaning in relation to reality than mathematics. A great part of the problem of this discussion is that you ignore the language requirements for discussing "reality". You want to throw mathematics in the arena as a contender for "the best", yet shrink away from the responsibility how and why it is so. Take the language requirements out of the discussion in any field, and yes, things lose their precision.
No one is doing MotG. Every theoretical cosmological mathematician acknowledges that the essence and functions of the universal physics are being "discovered", not just "made up" as mathematical possibilities. We have no TOE of which we know only MotG. We started from nothing and are "discovering" the mathematical values and functions of the universe, step by step. And the discovered mathematical territory is becoming larger and larger. The gaps are closing trough our ever increasing knowledge of universal mathematical functions.
I don't associate correct data with "truth" and I don't associate superior with "ultimate". Mathematics can represent reality in a reproducible manner. For that purpose, mathematics is superior to woo, just as a hammer is superior to a rock for inserting nails. But there is nothing "ultimate" about a hammer. Of course one can, just as one can talk about pandas without relying on standard definitions of ice cream. If something doesn't enter somebody's mind, that's a problem in itself. That's backwards. How would you describe the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter in English? How would that description allow you to do complex calculations? I think the problem is that you see woo as a requirement. You seem to define "reality" as something that only woo can understand. But for most of us on this forum, I think, reality means what we can agree on - i.e. if anybody can make the same observation, then it's real.
If you also don't associate it with "false data", then you are just playing with semantics. So what is superior to mathematics, iyho? So then you are saying the standard definitions are true ... otherwise you probably liked to eat pandas in the summer as a kid. No, its frontwards. Unless there is some perceived benefit or application in fiddling with shapes and numbers, no one would care, including you. If you can't explain or conceive of that benefit (in English, if thats your preference), you won't even move your own geometric ass off your lounge chair, not to speak of anyone else's. Geez On the contrary, given the broadness of the scientific field and the impossibility of being sufficiently proficient in all the specialized disciplines, I'm pretty sure you couldn't even hold most raw scientific data the right way up, much less take your position among the purported majority capable of affirming what it renders observable to the collective "anybodies". If you want to start making buoyant philosophical statements, sooner or later you are going to have to give up assuming pissweak indefensible positions and start paying attention to philosophy.
What would "false data" be? As I've said, I don't know of anything that is superior to mathematics for describing reality. On the other hand, hammers are superior to mathematics for inserting nails. There you go again again. Everything doesn't have to have a truth value. Definitions may or may not be useful but you don't have to equate that to "truth". But there is a benefit and there are applications, so we do care, including you. It isn't just about scientific data. We can all agree that gravity is a real phenomenon, whether we have any scientific data on it or not. But we can't agree on what "ultimate truth" would look like, if it did exist, so it doesn't have the same degree of reality.
If you can't answer that, you've got serious problems at the point of "correct data". If I offered you an ice cream by throwing you in a cage with a panda, would you be concerned? Why? Are hammers and nails somehow outside the purview of reality or somehow outside of the capacity of mathematics to describe? Or does the act of hammering a nail somehow magically incorporate a woo dimension outside the realm of reality or outside the ability of mathematics to describe? But many things do. In fact the more important the thing, the more important it becomes to define it according to the degree it is true or false. Our very survival depends on not confusing pandas with icecreams. I never suggested there wasn't and I never suggested I didn't. I am beginning to suspect you are purposefully writing silly things in order to make Newton spin so violently in his grave that his corpse opens up a wormhole to bring forth icecream bearing pandas. But I am prepared to suspend my disbelief and offer you the opportunity to write a different version of that paragraph with hopefully less obvious mistakes.
