An equation I derived with philosophical implications

[socktickler86]

One of the best mathematicians I ever met was the same guy who taught the philosophy classes I took. He had shoulder length hair and never wore any shoes but I learned a lot from him. About philosophy, science, math and life in general. Never judge a book by its cover and always keep your mind open.

That typically only goes to show you have soft of a subject philosophy is. Most philosophy classes and philosophers butcher actual science so much that it makes me cry. You'll NEVER find a philosopher teaching mathematics though.

As Sagan (I think) once said, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out".

Please, for everyone elses sake, let's not fool people into thinking the equation written by the OP makes the slightest bit of sense mathematically. Sure the words might sound like something decent, who knows, but the math is non-sense.

 

[socktickler86]

Sure you can mix philosophy and math. As a matter of fact, I've been thinking for quite some time that they parallel each other, in that, typically, research in either field involves taking principles and properties and carrying them through steps of logic, causation, and so forth, in a very abstract mode, to see what conclusions they yield. But, being as my most recent math class was Calculus 1, which I took in 1981 and got a C in, I'm lost when I read your syllogism. I'd certainly be interested in seeing how it translates into practical applications written in layperson's terms.

If your social work training is anything like some of the stuff I've been through, then at least some of what they're saying about race can be taken with a grain of salt. Speaking from the ivory towers, I can say that academics have a way of essentializing race and reifying ethnic pride in ways that have much less meaning outside the ivory towers than inside it. If social work is anything like education, you'll be dealing with situations out in the field that don't have the remotest resemblance to what your social theorists in the classroom say.

Oh WIP, come on! You were one of my only hopes when it came to someone else on the forum understanding how grievous an error this is! You of all people around here should understand the dangers of mixing subjects that people have no expertise on. From what I remember, you are in an environment where the intricate details of research and scientific proof are the most apparent and should be keenly aware of the non-sense people can put out there when they aren't aware of what they're talking about.

Would you allow your students to believe something someone working in the field claims is garbage?

But then again maybe that's just the theoretical physicist/instructor in my talking. Who knows.

 

[kurchatovium]

That typically only goes to show you have soft of a subject philosophy is. Most philosophy classes and philosophers butcher actual science so much that it makes me cry. You'll NEVER find a philosopher teaching mathematics though.

As Sagan (I think) once said, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out".

Please, for everyone elses sake, let's not fool people into thinking the equation written by the OP makes the slightest bit of sense mathematically. Sure the words might sound like something decent, who knows, but the math is non-sense.

Not sure what philosophy classes you took but most science is based on Inductive Logic.

No need to worry about my brain its not going to fall out anytime soon and I always keep an open mind for science and math I find it works very well. And I like Hawking much more then Sagan for the record. 😛

I was having a nice discussion with metal god. Just trying to see things from a different perspective and maybe learn a few things in the process. So far the math gods have not struck me dead. 😛

 

[metalgod]

And take it from a guy that knows a lot about more about philosophy than the average joe metal.

Philosophy diverges into physics (physical) and mathematics (abstract) which diverge into other sciences like chemistry.

The thing they all have in common is that they are all linguistic and contain syntax, content, and grammar.

 

[kurchatovium]

Hehehe what do I know I am just a wacko libertarian chemist hippie from California. Fer shure dudes. 😛

 

[metalgod]

If your social work training is anything like some of the stuff I've been through, then at least some of what they're saying about race can be taken with a grain of salt. Speaking from the ivory towers, I can say that academics have a way of essentializing race and reifying ethnic pride in ways that have much less meaning outside the ivory towers than inside it. If social work is anything like education, you'll be dealing with situations out in the field that don't have the remotest resemblance to what your social theorists in the classroom say.

What you are referring to here I think can best be explained in terms of an article I read about an idea called "concept extension." Every discipline has hot button words they like to use. In social work, these terms are 'culture' or 'oppression' whereas in psychology they might be "defense mechanisms." The problem is, when your perspective becomes limited and shaped by your particular field, you begin extending these concepts where they have no business being applied. If, for example, a psychologist looks at others, he will be able to describe every behavior in terms of a defense mechanism. Consider the following discussion between a behaviorist and a client:

A - "Why did you two get married?"
B - "Uh...cause we love each other?"
A - "No, you did it because of stimulus and response."
B - "Or...cause we love each other..."

Social workers fall into the same problem. They begin explaining everything in terms of culture. Politicians and economists obviously fall into the same trap.

I made the equation I did because it seems very fundamental to me at its roots. There are things (the 'x's) and we perceive each 'x' as having identifiable stability (theta). I then simply tried to see how these factors could be modeled mathematically.

 

[metalgod]

That typically only goes to show you have soft of a subject philosophy is. Most philosophy classes and philosophers butcher actual science so much that it makes me cry. You'll NEVER find a philosopher teaching mathematics though.

As Sagan (I think) once said, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out".

Please, for everyone elses sake, let's not fool people into thinking the equation written by the OP makes the slightest bit of sense mathematically. Sure the words might sound like something decent, who knows, but the math is non-sense.

The problem with science is that it is inductive. Science is about process (i.e. the scientific 'method') not about product.

By the way, if you have an open mind, your brain won't fall out. I'm pretty sure you'd need an open head for that.

 

[socktickler86]

*facepalm*

I'm going to be honest, I've NEVER seen a philosopher who was able to speak about physics in any way that made any sense (although I'm sure there are some who have at least a half decent idea of what they're talking about). They want to talk about these interesting things like gravity and quantum mechanics, but when they start talking, it's clear their education is at the level of your typical high schooler + a few shows on discovery (which are also typically garbage now-a-days). Philosophy and science may have similar thinking processes, but that's like saying a bear and a fish are the same thing because they both eat food.

One thing I've learned in life is the ability to quickly realize that people seldom have any interest in learning about anything from people who have spent years working on a subject when it conflicts with their own views. So I'm done with this nonsense, I just hope no one takes any real interest in the mathematical side of your idea.

 

[metalgod]

*facepalm*

I'm going to be honest, I've NEVER seen a philosopher who was able to speak about physics in any way that made any sense (although I'm sure there are some who have at least a half decent idea of what they're talking about). They want to talk about these interesting things like gravity and quantum mechanics, but when they start talking, it's clear their education is at the level of your typical high schooler + a few shows on discovery (which are also typically garbage now-a-days). Philosophy and science may have similar thinking processes, but that's like saying a bear and a fish are the same thing because they both eat food.

One thing I've learned in life is the ability to quickly realize that people seldom have any interest in learning about anything from people who have spent years working on a subject when it conflicts with their own views. So I'm done with this nonsense, I just hope no one takes any real interest in the mathematical side of your idea.

I can't tell if your 2nd paragraph is a valid point or projection.

With regards to your first paragraph, not really sure how any of it applies since I was never equating philosophy and math. I said math is a branch of philosophy in a "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square" kind of way. Math is philosophical but philosophy needn't be math.

Though it is funny you mentioned it, because I was trying to re-work E=mc^2 to define energy in a way that combines both classical and quantum physics. I acknowledge I'm naive in my ambition, but I also recognize that Socrates, Einstein, Da Vinci, Goethe, and myself have something in common; we're people and we can think for ourselves.

 

[kurchatovium]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein, On Science

 

[metalgod]

"What one knows, one cannot prove. What one proves, one does not know." - Me 🙂

 

[Bothersome]

One thing I've learned in life is the ability to quickly realize that people seldom have any interest in learning about anything from people who have spent years working on a subject when it conflicts with their own views. So I'm done with this nonsense, I just hope no one takes any real interest in the mathematical side of your idea.

That's called the living embodiment of ignorance.
No matter how differently someone may live from you, or how abstractly they present their ideas; having the thought that you can't learn something from them is absolute, filthy ignorance.

There are many, many people that I don't agree with in the world, but I am absolutely certain that I can (and often have) learn(ed) something from them. The thing may be significant or insignificant. It may relate to the subject in question, or it might not. None of that is relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the fact that you learned from them.

 

[metalgod]

Posts like this amuse me. Working in a university CS department gives me an opportunity to meet a ton of people, but I find that the most common denominator among students/young professors is every last on thinks they are a genius when it comes to philosophy. An army of amateur philosophers that all think they know more about it than the next guy.

This post, however, is a nice change of pace. In this case, it appears to be an amateur philosopher who thinks he knows math! While it is painfully obvious to the contrary... I give this post an A+ for the giggles it has brought. If it wasn't on a NSFW forum, I'd use it as an example in future studies.

Feel free to use it as an example. You can even call it your own. The peer-review process has turned into an abomination because people can slap their names on 'truth.' As a result, academics believe the only progress comes from tentative moves or adjustments of current theory rather than believing some random kid could come along and prove them all wrong (not that any of that applies to me). If you find it useful, by all means, plagiarize to no end.

If it means anything, my philosophy professor told me I chose the wrong major because I was the only student she's ever had who received 100% for the entire semester. To me, this means nothing, but apparently it's a measure of progress (if i received 100% in differential calculus for an entire semester, for some reason I bet you'd be more impressed).

I don't think my equation proves anything. It has meaning to me and if it has meaning to you, that's great (that's why I shared it). But, if you're going to use subtle ad-homs to debunk an equation, I think we both know you can do better than that. Casting doubt upon anything is easy. I can cast plausible doubt on anything...gravity, evolution, you name it, and you can cast plausible doubt upon it. Actually, that's kind of what this equation is about; the ability to always and forever cast plausible doubt upon any condition.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I was really enjoying the exchange of concepts in this thread until socktickler came to poop on everybody's face.

Let me guess, this is an area of expertise for you as well, yet you'll refuse to deign your own contributions aside from attempting to refute what everyone else is saying?

Pseudo-intellectuals really rub me the wrong way!

 

[Bohemianne]

could take the original equation an say "An apple plus the sum of all conditional events minus an apple equals all conditional events."

For example:

If
Grue is Green until 2050 and then becomes Blue after 2050
and
Bleen is Blue until 2050 and then becomes Green after 2050

(a + sum a) - a = sum a
(Grue + Grue Bleen) - Grue = Grue Bleen
Thus:
(Grue - Grue) + (Grue Bleen) = Grue Bleen
Grue Bleen = Grue Bleen

I wuv @pplied M@th. *&^%$#@! 😱

 

[kurchatovium]

(a + sum a) - a = sum a
(Grue + Grue Bleen) - Grue = Grue Bleen
Thus:
(Grue - Grue) + (Grue Bleen) = Grue Bleen
Grue Bleen = Grue Bleen

I wuv @pplied M@th. *&^%$#@! 😱

The Grue/Bleen thing was actually taught to me my first day of college. Far out hey. No wonder I am so silly. 😛

 

[Bohemianne]

The Grue/Bleen thing was actually taught to me my first day of college. Far out hey. No wonder I am so silly. 😛

When I saw you post this thread, I already knew where it is heading, unless we have close encounter with the color blinds and they start making (very serious) rebuttal in this tickling forum!

 

[kurchatovium]

When I saw you post this thread, I already knew where it is heading, unless we have close encounter with the color blinds and they start making (very serious) rebuttal in this tickling forum!

Silliness^3 = kurch 😛

Despite the apparent craziness there is some method to the whole Grue/Bleen nonsense and that is to get people to think about what things might change and what things might not.

For example it was thought that time was more or less immutable but that might not actually be the case.

😀 😛

 

[Bohemianne]

Silliness^3 = kurch 😛

Despite the apparent craziness there is some method to the whole Grue/Bleen nonsense and that is to get people to think about what things might change and what things might not.

For example it was thought that time was more or less immutable but that might not actually be the case.

😀 😛

Oh yes, I see you delineated the boundary where bleen appoaches but never touches (the axis) of grue, which actually makes sense! 😱
And that at this point in time, all principles and equations are evolving...

....

Anyway, I can see that the OP has a working theory in his mind expressed mathematically, needing to be fleshed out further and be presented in a practical manner...

 

[kurchatovium]

Oh yes, I see you delineated the boundary where bleen appoaches but never touches (the axis) of grue, which actually makes sense! 😱
And that at this point in time, all principles and equations are evolving...

....

Anyway, I can see that the OP has a working theory in his mind expressed mathematically, needing to be fleshed out further and be presented in a practical manner...

I get worried when I start making sense. 😛

-------------------

It is good to think on things that need to be thunk on.

 

[Bohemianne]

I get worried when I start making sense. 😛

Quote of YEAR!

 

[metalgod]

If I make the statement "You can finesse a computer with a yak" and expect any sort of feedback, all I will get is "wtf? That makes absolutely no sense. That was pointless". Why? Because there is NOTHING you can do with that sentence. It is so far off into left field that you really aren't even sure where to begin fixing it, much less have any clue as to where it is intended to end!

Math is a language as well, and the OP mutilated that language, much the same as my above example. Expecting socktickler to come and "fix" something that is meant to be, at best, comedic nonsense is simply asking too much. His reply is truly the best that can be offered for it, outside of equivalent joking along a similar topic.

If you can point out how I mutilated the math (i.e. mismodeled the equation according to what it was supposed to represent), I would appreciate the input. I'm quite proud of the fact that this is an equation that I can truly call a purely original idea -- not because I want the recognition for it, but because I like knowing that I thought of something that was never influenced by outside opinion (e.g. reformulating someone else's idea or existing equation). So, any input would be very helpful to me.

Edit: I also believe I pointed out that I wasn't a mathematician...

 

[Bothersome]

The unfortunate thing that I've discovered about life, is that 'purely original ideas' are abysmally rare these days.

Personally, I've never tried to think up anything original. Mostly because I realize that I don't have the brainpower for it. We've been a species long enough that most 'average' ideas have been thought of already.

But hey, you never know.

 

[venray]

42...

 

[desdemona]

42...

John Adams was a genius....