Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[snqrls]

Originally Posted by moshe.

You must be touched in the head. Math was invented; it is a practice of manipulation and understanding. The only thing that exists is the math currently, future math is predicated on human invention of it, so it doesn't exist as of yet.

Here I thought we weren't gonig to talk philosophy...

[BalrogLord]

Originally Posted by moshe.

I joined this site to call you a moron. - infinity =/= + infinity. They are technically seen as a circle but not an actual one (topology), two separate poles that need defining. In essence, it is a compactification on a number line and that compactification makes both - oo and + oo different, not the same. Hit the drawing board idiot and learn real mathematics.

u mad bro?

Originally Posted by snqrls

But I have wet-dreams over calculus. For example, today, I went to the local coffee station and sat down. As you go from North to South (like straight down) you have to accelerate by a very small amount towards the east. In my first semester I took some time to get the formula that describes the relationship between velocity, latitude, and acceleration, and took it to my prof. to make sure I had it right. I did, though he had a simpler method; today I redidit for fun :D

that actually sounds fun, granted that kind of optimization isn't my thing.

Give me a plant's constraints and i'd be all down for telling you how to optimize production within relevant ranges while accounting for deviations in user performance.

Originally Posted by moshe.

You must be touched in the head. Math was invented; it is a practice of manipulation and understanding. The only thing that exists is the math currently, future math is predicated on human invention of it, so it doesn't exist as of yet.

You may know your math better but i know my philosophy. You're telling me that mathematics was a purely abstract creation of man kind? How prospesterous. You are telling me that things suchs as numbers, measurements and the laws of physics are purely products of the human mind. If this were true then the laws of physics would be completely arbitrary and have no bearing on real life.

Math exist in nature, we just found out a method to organise and work with it. Addition, substraction etc are all things that we can do physically with objects. We just converted it to script and from there on out it took a life of its own. Alot of physics is based on rectangle triangles. And guess what things like a triangle having 180 degrees or pythagorean theorem are a priori, not a posteriori.

"future math is predicated on us discovering it" im pretty sure the laws regarding to vector algebra were in effect way before homo sapiens started moving about the earth. Gravity was in effect before Newton was hit on the head by an apple. And relativity existed prior to einstein deducing it.

[moshe.]

You may know your philosophy but don't get all high and mighty on me about it.

Mathematics is based upon axioms, proofs, theorems, etc..., that all describe a relationship that we see in this world. Does a monkey know one banana and one banana = two bananas? You damn right it does, however that monkey doesn't know 1 + 1 = 2. All it knows is the basic, and rather primal knowledge that it has more than one banana. Humans have taken such a basic concept and invented a much more sophisticated system of describing those patterns that we see in this world (the damn point of being a human is doing such).

Mathematics, the act of measuring etc..., are based upon patterns such as steepness, velocity that if you are running down a hill, chances are you are going to move faster, etc... That wasn't discovered but was manipulated by us to describe and comprehend the world around us.

[snqrls]

Don't forget imaginary numbers!!

[BalrogLord]

Originally Posted by moshe.

Mathematics is based upon axioms, proofs, theorems, etc..., that all describe a relationship that we see in this world. Does a monkey know one banana and one banana = two bananas? You damn right it does, however that monkey doesn't know 1 + 1 = 2. All it knows is the basic, and rather primal knowledge that it has more than one banana. Humans have taken such a basic concept and invented a much more sophisticated system of describing those patterns that we see in this world (the damn point of being a human is doing such).

the dam point of being a human is to invent math? sounds like a rather droll existence if you ask me.
id also argue that the word to use isnt invent, but rather developed a system for expressing things such as sums. Sums exists and even a monkey can conceptualise sums. Its the method of expressing that concept that is key to human, that method being language, something that was developed over millenia from basic grunts to the forming of certain syllable.

Mathematics, the act of measuring etc..., are based upon patterns such as steepness, velocity that if you are running down a hill, chances are you are going to move faster, etc... That wasn't discovered but was manipulated by us to describe and comprehend the world around us.

wait so we didnt discover the effect of gravity on velocity dependent on slope, friction, air resistance etc? You're telling me that the effect of gravity is something that we invented.

By that logic things like kinematic equations for example, are something that came about purely through the imagination of the human mind and it just happens to explain movement by sheer coincidence.

I could go on but i won't. i get the feeling ill get more entertainment if i watch you stumble through more clumsy arguments and even clumsier counter arguments.

[snqrls]

Oh damn, now we're into epistemology

Do we manipulate the system or do we describe the system's manipulation. That said, I think he just meant that we collected the observable data and by drawing associations manipulated it into a relevant piece based on what we already knew of math. Displacement -> Velocity -> Acceleration in the example you give.

[BalrogLord]

Originally Posted by snqrls

Oh damn, now we're into epistemology

Do we manipulate the system or do we describe the system's manipulation. That said, I think he just meant that we collected the observable data and by drawing associations manipulated it into a relevant piece based on what we already knew of math. Displacement -> Velocity -> Acceleration in the example you give.

no we're not into epistemology, we're still into shoddy argument structure/. Should we ever get into epistemology ill be running since i could care less for it. I am not down for a debate on phenomenal vs noumenal/external vs internal etc. That and should he ever manage to get onto that level of debate i'd be tempted to give it to him.

+descarte, kant and hegel can blow me for all i care, existentialism is where its at.

[Fatstogey]

Originally Posted by moshe.

You must be touched in the head. Math was invented; it is a practice of manipulation and understanding. The only thing that exists is the math currently, future math is predicated on human invention of it, so it doesn't exist as of yet.

LMAO dude you gotta be trolling. You cant be so dumb.

Math is invented? Are you on crack?

Math is observed. Not created.

It is the practice of observation of patterns that exist in reality.
Future math is predicated on mans ability to observe it.
Not create it.

Pythagoras did not create the theorem. He was just the first one to observe it.

"god" created math. Math is the programming language of reality. ANd it was NOT EVEN CLOSE to created by us.

You need to contemplate a lil deeper. That the probelm with math, its not deep. Once understood? its understood. So lesser minds attach to that which they can "know" and ignore whatever they cant know for sure. This is not intelligence. Not at all.

[moshe.]

You're not smart Fatstogey so I am not going to respond to that ripe shit of a post.

wait so we didnt discover the effect of gravity on velocity dependent on slope, friction, air resistance etc? You're telling me that the effect of gravity is something that we invented.

We used our invention of mathematics to describe those relationships. My previous post outlines it very briefly.

Discovering the effects of matter in this reality is a natural observation, however, the creation of laws around those observations with a system of mathematics was invented to understand the observations we see in reality.

The monkey example is a good one to refer back to. Does a monkey know that when it is running down a hill, it is actually moving faster? Yes, in a sense. Reason being for the "sense" is, it may not know that gravity is playing a role in the accerlation of speed, but it does know it is moving faster as a result of the steepness of the hill. We created a method of explaining that relationship that is called mathematics. However, we humans invented mathematics at a rudimentary level of describing 1 + 1 = 2 but with tallys at first and built up from there to describe more relationships.

[snqrls]

Originally Posted by Fatstogey

LMAO dude you gotta be trolling. You cant be so dumb.

Math is invented? Are you on crack?

Math is observed. Not created.

It is the practice of observation of patterns that exist in reality.
Future math is predicated on mans ability to observe it.
Not create it.

Pythagoras did not create the theorem. He was just the first one to observe it.

"god" created math. Math is the programming language of reality. ANd it was NOT EVEN CLOSE to created by us.

You need to contemplate a lil deeper. That the probelm with math, its not deep. Once understood? its understood. So lesser minds attach to that which they can "know" and ignore whatever they cant know for sure. This is not intelligence. Not at all.

I don't know, if you rid yourself of a relevent time-scale the radio-wasn't invented either, it's always been and will always exist. If you consider that the radio (with all it's components) is just an idea, what's really been invented is a concept.

So can you invent ideas? I know it's a silly question, but it's what it comes down to.

Anyways, has it occured to you that this is a matter of semanticks...?