What the hell is the application then? Numbers and calculations mean absolutely nothing but themselves on their own, naturally. With out any kind of application, a story as you put it, to go along with the numbers, BOTH are irrelevant.
: Blasphemous, eh? Now I know yours is not a scientific
: mind. :-)
My point is, you have delved into the abosolute insane if you believe all science is a guess, which is exactly what you said.
: So go ahead. Prove to me that the ball will hit the
: floor.
And prove what and how? What is proof to you? Proof is an explanation which is corroborated by the facts, as I've put it.
The ball will fall because of gravity. What is the proof? It will do this because we have discovered this is what the universe is like.
: It's science, sure, but it's not proven.
What?? What the hell is proof to you??
: The concepts can help create the equations. That doesn't
: mean the equations need the concepts. The structure of
: benzene may have been arrived at in a dream, but we
: don't all need to have the same dream to learn about
: benzene's structure now.
A written word is nothing on its own. It requires language, the sound that IT represents. What is lanuage without meaning to the words and sounds? Nothing. You see where this is going? Without the application or reference, I can calculate equations all day, but without there actually being something that they're about, they're nothing more than symbols without meaning; scribblings or scrawlings that have no purpose.
: You're repeating yourself. "Gravity causes spacetime
: to curve and bend." That still doesn't mean
: anything in itself. Where's spacetime?
Everywhere known to exist.
: What's
: spacetime?
The fabric of the universe of which everything is composed in one form or another.
: What does it mean for it to bend?
It means it is bent and curved. What do you mean by "what does it mean for it to bend?"? You know what bent is, right? Apply it to space.
We can determine with exactitude using math how it will bend and curve according to certain circumstances, but the what is established. Exactly how, without math, is not, and therefore, yes, useless, as useless as pointless numbers scribbled on a page.
: Yes, the events happen, and we can understand them
: through mathematics. So we don't need sentences like
: "Gravity bends spacetime" in addition.
E=mc^2 means nothing without meaning behind the variables.
: I'm not arguing that spacetime isn't curved by gravity.
: I'm saying that the sentence "spacetime is curved
: by gravity" doesn't mean much of anything without
: the math. Nor does "light travels along these
: curves."
Yes, just the same as equations mean nothing without understanding what they're describing. What use to us is a few alphanumberics written down? Nothing since it is the absense of discovery, the absense of science. The application of the equations is the point, to understand them, not to calculate without purpose.
: I happen to believe spacetime is curved by mass, and that
: gravity is an expression of this curvature. But that's
: not a scientific theory until I add the math in and
: take the sloppy human sentences out.
So, we have our equation; let's just stick with E=mc^2 for now since it's something everyone understands in one form or another. You know how to calculate it out. It will give you a series of numbers.
Now I ask you the converse of what you have of me: what do these numbers mean? Unless you explain how they describe something that IS, something that is tangible or conceivable, or that simply exists, what do the numbers tell you? They tell you what they are and how they relate to other numbers very well, don't they? You utterly self-defeat yourself if you believe there is only anything with math alone, for all you have is air with numbers floating aetherially in it.
: You're repeating me now. :-) We have the universe, a
: physical thing...it inspires images and verbal
: descriptions...these inspire the math. The original
: referent remains, and you have the end product. But
: the middle stuff only points the way, and it's not
: required by the end product.
The ends justify the means, eh? What good to you are a few numbers without reference or application to anything? The whole point is to understand something that exists.
: I think I must take a page from your book now: Please
: return to this discussion once you have read through
: least one quantum theory textbook-
Done.
:-or better yet,
: taken a class.
Unofficially, but yes, done.
: No offense, but if you don't believe
: that relativistic quantum mechanics is a viable
: theory, you really don't know enough to keep talking.
I admit well that I am very rusty on my knowledge of this subject in general, including on the concept of relativistic quantum mechanics. That's one of the reasons I wanted you to at least outline some of the basis. You're incabable of doing that? Fine.
: And how does reality prove this? You keep talking about
: proof, but you don't actually provide the proofs...
Again, give me your definition of proof, and also explain how there is no proof anywhere in the universe.
: I presumed you knew enough about relativity to figure out
: what E = 0 would mean by comparison with E = Mc^2, but
: evidently that was a mistake.
I know perfectly what it means. What it means, however, in relation to the real particles and matter of the universe and how it acts in the universe, is a "story" in your opinion. You say there nothing but math that is of relevance. I disproved you, and you disproved yourself too.
: That would simply mean that the kinetic energy of every
: particle--defined, let's say, in Newtonian terms as
: half the mass times the velocity squared--is
: calculable as zero. Is it true? Hell no. Is it simple?
: Hell yes.
Hell no—and this is a "story" you wrote, Sili—because no matter how simple you make an equation, the reality of the thing can be just as simple or extremely complex. In your case, you made it extremely complex, for you now have to explain and prove your statement. Disproving logic is an impossible, or implossibly, complex task. THAT is where the simplicity and complexity truly comes in; all else is trivial.
: You know, I've read a lot of philosophers who believed in
: the "best of all possible worlds"
: hypothesis, but until now, I never met anyone who
: believed that this is the simplest of all possible
: worlds...:-)
Keep in mind, the entire subject of simplicity is moot. Your arguments against it are not only invalid, it's a pointless subject.
: Again, I'm not going to bother. Look up "Hume"
: and "inductive principle" on the search
: engine of your choice.
Again, I already understand this. I don't give a damn right now what this guy said; I want to know what you think and understand what your opinion actually is. Don't bother, or provide me with any kind of explanation (which is an evil, in your opinion, as you've said, so I understand, in a way, why you won't explain)? Fine, I win, gg.
Ah…I get it. Your logic is indeed extremely beneficial to you, Sili. You make an outlandish proposal. You decline to prove it with explanation. You justify this by saying that explanation means nothing, that it is a meaningless task. This works extraordinarily well indeed! I like it. I should use this myself; I'd be right all the time too!
