If you think that people have no internal psychology at all, then that's certainly something. If you think you do and nobody else does, then you're just a psychopath and I can understand that. If you yourself don't have a consciousness and you claim this, that would be pretty strange. There are a lot of problems in psychology, but there is no reason to dismiss the entire discipline. And there is no reason to dismiss it by calling it philosophy. Some study of philosophy could seriously improve your reasoning; especially when you try, as in this thread, to do some seriously poor philosophy of mathematics.
My point is that I wasn't describing a mathematical function! That things that have analogous processes have similar features does not seem to me to license any insight into metaphysics. Because I can find no evidence that physical processes are carrying out mathematical functions. I cannot identify the domain, range, or specific elements of either that physical processes supposedly process. And I am not prepared to beg the question in favor of a particular conclusion, just like I am not prepared to use equivocation to make some sort of sophist's argument for a particular conclusion. I'm not prepared to identify the specific mathematical functions of reasonable, but still limited, approximations of physical systems with the systems themselves. This is simply equivocation and begging the question. Instead of restating your conclusion, try offering evidence for it. Indeed. And this is why I reject your conclusion: in physics one uses approximations. Sure, we use them as if they held exactly, but we only expect them to be very nearly true. You want to skip the tentative nature of physics. Indeed, you are relying on the existence of mathematical physics that we have yet to discover, some exact science, and claiming that the universe exactly follows this unknown science. Our inabilities in creating science do not necessarily create limitations on the world itself. If this is the case, please give the domain, range, and values for a physical system in some state of change.
I am really surprised by your ad hominem assertion that I am dismissing anything. Am I allowed to say that Psychology is different from Physics and therefore does not belong in a discussion of Physics and Mathematics. That is not a dismissal of Psychology itself. Get a grip, man. Right, you are not describing mathematical functions, I am. Say that to the real scientists who observed, analyzed, discussed, tested and concluded that all physical interactions in the universe are in accordance to some kind of what we call a mathematical function specific to that interaction. Then why did you even use the phrase "mathematics-like behavior"? What is the difference between that and saying "in accordance to some apparent mathematical function". Look around you and you will see it expressed everywhere. Physics and the use of symbolic mathematical language is an unknown science? Are you dismissing Physics? Of course not. I don't know where you got the impression that I said that . OK, in a body of pure water (H2O), every molecule formed in exactly the same way in size, shape, mass, and functional potentials. It is a mathematical certainty that (all other things being equal) every H2O molecule is identical to another. There has to be some mathematical function which forces the molecule to form in one specific way. H-O-H (not O-H-H, or H-H-O). The values (potentials) of these 2 atoms only permits the mathematical structure of a water molecule. Wiki I hope this is correct, but if not please correct me.
Well said. Indeed, the physics came first. The mathematics came along to describe the physics. Physics is the word the rest of us use when we are talking about the fundamental forces that actually cause planets to follow orbits. What you are trying to is say that mathematics is the functioning of the universe, and we are saying we already have a word for that - the word is physics. We also have a word that for a system that describes (among other things) the physics, and that word is mathematics.
As do I. Not exactly. What I am trying to say is that physical functions are guided by some constants which are essentially mathematical in nature, that's why we can describe them in symbolic mathematical language in the first place. But I have never disputed any of that. Mathematics is a scientific discipline used to quantify values and processes. Thus if a process or a system functions according to the mathematics, it can be identified as a known mathematical process or function.
This MUH discussion on this thread, is a classic example why an otherwise meaningless argument cannot be shifted to cesspool. I am surprised at the argument that formation of same size H2O molecule is due to mathematics. It's quite likely that tomorrow someone comes and asserts that blood is red due to forcing by mathematical function. The list of adding insanity here is endless.
This MUH discussion on this thread, is a classic example why an otherwise meaningless argument cannot be shifted to cesspool. I am surprised at the argument that formation of same size H2O molecule is due to mathematics. It's quite likely that tomorrow someone comes and asserts that blood is red due to forcing by mathematical function. The list of adding insanity here is endless.
OK, i'll take that challenge. Red blood is caused by oxidation of iron in the blood. But I can also tell you that not all blood is red, because in some blood iron is not used as the oxygen carrier.
Alright, but process of oxidation is not caused by any mathematical function. It may be studied with the help of mathematical functions. Pl see the difference. Mathematics is not the underlying cause, which you are attempting to propagate.
Yes it is. You got that backwards. It may be studied with the help of mathematics. It's just values and mathematical functions associated with those values that are eventually causal to our physical reality.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! IMO, we kind of have discussed an aspect of "vacuum" and what the term means. The very subject is esoteric. But I have hogged the subject enough and am eagerly waiting for another possible aspect or property of a "Vacuum"
OK, I get it. You have never done any science. You have never even read a scientific paper in detail for the purposes of understanding a scientific point. You have never taken a university-level mathematics course and never studied the foundation of mathematics. You have never studied the foundation of physics. SO you substitute what you imagine physics is like. You substitute what you imagine mathematics is like. I am actually embracing the physics that you are ignoring. Look, I know that nothing you write here will have an impact on anyone, but it does bug my to see you imagine what physics is like, use this as a basis for dubious metaphysical claims, and then tell people that they are denying physics when they are actually talking about how physics is actually used on the basis of your own dubious metaphysical claims. Additionally, you are doing philosophy here. And you refuse to even consider anything that might actually be philosophy. One piece of evidence that you try to use is that there is no science that is not mathematical. If this is the case, it may be due to our limitations in doing science, not because of some metaphysical restriction on physical objects, as you suppose. Where do you get that? Seriously, please provide a citation for that claim. It is a mathematical certainty that (all other things being equal) every H2O molecule is identical to another. There has to be some mathematical function which forces the molecule to form in one specific way. H-O-H (not O-H-H, or H-H-O). The values (potentials) of these 2 atoms only permits the mathematical structure of a water molecule. Wiki I hope this is correct, but if not please correct me. [/QUOTE] Sigh. Why would you make all these claims about mathematics and functions in particular if you don't understand anything whatsoever about the mathematical nature of a function. Seriously! The above is nothing like an answer to my question. Nothing at all.
Trouble is, all this stuff about water molecules being identical in shape etc is a simplification and there is no mathematical function that yields the shape of the water molecule. If you want to calculate the shape of a water molecule you have to rely on approximate methods, because the system is too complicated to permit an analytical solution, i.e. no single mathematical function exactly describes it. In fact you cannot even calculate the behaviour of the bonding electrons in any molecule without making use of a number of approximations, such as the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, for example. And the shape of the molecule itself is not fixed. When people talk about it they mean the mean or undistorted shape - another simplification. Real molecules are always distorted from that shape by thermal motion. And the mass is only identical if you ignore that presence of different isotopes of the elements involved - yet another approximation. You can make approximate mathematical models of all these systems, sure. But the words "approximate" and "model" apply to virtually all mathematical attempts to describe the matter we see around us. Physical science succeeds by making simplified, idealised models and getting answers from those that are good enough. The history of science teaches us that we ought always to keep in mind that our models are likely to be incomplete representations of reality , subject to future refinement. Claiming to have discovered that a piece of human mathematics IS reality, is hubristic folly, in my view.
