# Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862 "2012-11-13T06:09:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/521 "2012-11-20T19:56:23Z")
Would I be right in thinking that the top 0.001% of pure mathematicians could use numbers and equations to prove almost anything they want beyond complete rebuttal, or am I overestimating their abilities? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/522 "2012-11-20T20:00:14Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Would I be right in thinking that the top 0.001% of pure mathematicians could use numbers and equations to prove almost anything they want beyond complete rebuttal, or am I overestimating their abilities? I would say that you have no understanding whatsoever of higher mathematics. ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/523 "2012-11-20T22:24:50Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > No. > > Analogously > > If you start at x=1 and go +1 positively (1+1), you’re facing the positive side moving in the forward direction 1 unit. If you start at x=1 and go -1 negatively (1-(-1)) you’re facing the negative and moving backwards 1 unit. You’re ignoring context. We can only SEE the positive. Atoms are most empty space, remember? That huge electron cloud which takes up 99.9999+% of the atom is negativity…hence it is invisible to us or at the very least NOT definable. All we can see is the teeny tiny little bit in the direct center, which is positive. Math is very clear on this issue, pancakes. I didn’t make the rules, but I do know how to read the manual. > [@](#): > > Further analogously, you’re saying if you walk down the block, you’re moving positively. However if you want to move there negatively, you’d have to go around the world in the opposite direction until you arrive back at the block from the opposite direction when in reality it just means you moonwalked your way to 2. If all you’re doing is WATCHING the person, then all you’re seeing is light reflecting off the outer surface…which is much like. If you’re _listening_ however, the story is quite different. People very often to do sound like they’re “moonwalking backward” when just walking forward. It isn’t just so simple as SIGHT. And if you only define sound by how it effects things you can SEE (particles), then of course the concept of “going around the ‘world’ in the opposite direction until you arrive back at the block” may seem confusing - but if you use your senses, it makes perfect sense. Strangely enough, sound works a bit like that very much of the time, and we hear the reverb. Ironically, _so does gravity_. Yes it’s easy to calculate how fast gravity pulls us back down to Earth, but being able to calculate the speed that bits of particulate matter fall to the ground does nothing to further your understanding of gravity. We see light, we feel/hear everything else. It’s simple, it’s accurate. Our reality is a composite of these concepts. And math agrees with me. ---
**Author:** ![JackieLikesVariety](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackielikesvariety/32/296_2.png) [@JackieLikesVariety](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JackieLikesVariety)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/524 "2012-11-20T22:32:01Z")
> [@](#): > > math agrees with me so why are you unwilling or unable to post any math? ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/525 "2012-11-20T22:39:19Z")
> [@](#): > > 1+1 is not the same thing as 1-(-1), despite producing the same answer. The reason is because they arrived at this answer via WILDLY different routes. One is visible and measurable, the other absolutely IS NOT. 1+1 is a direct route through all the infinite possibilities strictly between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2837, etc. 1-(-1) is a different route entirely, which starts at 1 then takes the indirect route through .974, .46735, then passes 0 and heads into the negatives: -1784, -8371876.496, then wraps all the way around infinity and heads back in via the positive again: 7247612.37864, 629, 6, 2.75, 2.000571, and finally halts at 2…which -1 away from where it began at 1. > > Needless to say, the 1-(-1) set is in an entirely different category of SIZE than the 1+1 set. > > You all can disagree with this interpretation all you want, but you’ll only exposing what I’ve suspected all along…that you don’t have a very good fundamental understanding of math. The NOTATION of 1-(-1) directly states what I just described using WORDS. That is a direct, literal translation. If you follow the actual NOTATION, rather than just shortcutting straight to the answer of 2 in both scenarios, skipping all the details in the process, you realize that those mathematical functions are not remotely describing the same things. In other words, if you DON’T ignore the context, you realize that the solutions are not only different, they cover completely different ranges. Both ranges are infinite, but one of those infinities is infinitely larger than the other because it is surrounding it. In fact, they only have two points of intersection… the integers 1 and 2…the starting point, and the ending point. THAT’S IT. Every other number in existence is covered in either the 1+1 set or the 1-(-1) set. But if all you’re looking at is the “=2” at the end, then you completely missed everything of interest. more takers please? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/526 "2012-11-20T22:40:58Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > more takers please? Where is this unattributed quote from, and what the hell does it have to do with the topic at hand? ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/527 "2012-11-20T22:42:21Z")
> [@JackieLikesVariety](#): > > so why are you unwilling or unable to post any math? I post math…people ask me to post math. I post math again…people ask me to post math. … I explain the math I’ve posted several times in fairly explicit detail…people ask why I am unwilling or unable to post math. And I’m the one being accused of trolling? ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/528 "2012-11-20T22:42:24Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > You’re ignoring context. We can only SEE the positive. Atoms are most empty space, remember? That huge electron cloud which takes up 99.9999+% of the atom is negativity…hence it is invisible to us or at the very least NOT definable. All we can see is the teeny tiny little bit in the direct center, which is positive. An electron cloud is an abstraction. Electrons are definable. I don’t know what you think the word “negative” means and the statement that “we can only see the positive” is so vague it hurts, but we understand electrons. That’s why we have things like tunneling microscopes and transistors. We can predict what electrons are going to do and verify those predictions empirically. > [@](#): > > And math agrees with me. Keep saying it until it’s true, eh? ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/529 "2012-11-20T22:43:37Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Would I be right in thinking that the top 0.001% of pure mathematicians could use numbers and equations to prove almost anything they want beyond complete rebuttal, or am I overestimating their abilities? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I would say that you have no understanding whatsoever of higher mathematics. Sorry **dd** but Czarcasm is right. When you make statements like this one: > [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > I’m with the OP in that it doesn’t matter how fancy your maths is, if you cannot verbalise what it means, it may as well be numerology. You fail to realize that math IS a language. It’s used to describe complex relationships. Those mathematical equations could be spoken in English but unless you understand the language of mathematics it would be like instructing you in submarine construction in Swahili, you just don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/530 "2012-11-20T22:44:08Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > I post math…people ask me to post math. I fear I might be stepping over the line here, but you’re lying. I don’t know any more delicate way to phrase it. You’re simply lying. You’re not posting any sort of relevant recognizable math and you habitually ignore all such requests. ---
**Author:** ![JackieLikesVariety](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackielikesvariety/32/296_2.png) [@JackieLikesVariety](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JackieLikesVariety)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/531 "2012-11-20T22:46:40Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re not posting any sort of relevant recognizable math number salad? or, word salad plus numbers? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/532 "2012-11-20T22:54:33Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > You’re ignoring context. We can only SEE the positive. Atoms are most empty space, remember? That huge electron cloud which takes up 99.9999+% of the atom is negativity…hence it is invisible to us or at the very least NOT definable. All we can see is the teeny tiny little bit in the direct center, which is positive. Pretty sure this is factually incorrect. When you look at a hunk of metal, it’s the electrons that are reflecting the light to your eyes, not the atomic nuclei. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/533 "2012-11-20T22:59:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I would say that you have no understanding whatsoever of higher mathematics. I understand it’s very hard to understand, unless you are one of these people who understand these things. Do you have full understanding of say, the top 100 mathematical minds currently active? It must be very satisfying if you do. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/534 "2012-11-20T23:03:07Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Sorry **dd** but Czarcasm is right. When you make statements like this one: > > You fail to realize that math IS a language. It’s used to describe complex relationships. Those mathematical equations could be spoken in English but unless you understand the language of mathematics it would be like instructing you in submarine construction in Swahili, you just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter. The information still has to be translated into a language that can take advantage of the knowledge and build shit. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/535 "2012-11-20T23:03:09Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > I post math…people ask me to post math. > > I post math again…people ask me to post math. > > … > > I explain the math I’ve posted several times in fairly explicit detail…people ask why I am unwilling or unable to post math. > > And I’m the one being accused of trolling? As I and other have said upthread, any equation that would be relevant would include Gravity Space Time Infinity 42 These are the the things you claim to know about, please include these in any further “math” **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/536 "2012-11-20T23:03:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Where is this unattributed quote from, and what the hell does it have to do with the topic at hand? Not sure if serious? That IS the topic at hand. At least that’s what I’ve been saying for pages. And even if it wasn’t the topic at hand, it certainly SHOULD be immediately identifiable as relevant if you’ve actually been following the thread. Methinks someone hasn’t been actually reading anything, but has been replying negatively all the same. I understand I’m a punching bag, but at least try to give it a serious response. You all are the ones linking youtube videos and posting quotes from other people arguing against concepts I’ve spoken nothing of. You all are the ones clinically diagnosing me with Kreuger Graves Syndrome or whatever the bloody hell, then simultaneously demanding academic accreditations from me. How many times has someone said “so what you’re saying is…” then followed it with a well-articulated argument against _something I never said to begin with_? You guys believe the tone was set by the OP, and have made your gut reactions well-known. But I’ve done this many times before, and I’m still patiently waiting for at least one of you to attempt to be serious. Several of you have the potential, but you’re too busy framing my arguments for me. Understanding is requisite for honest disagreement, and your responses are making it pretty clear that you’re (for the most part) not understanding what my argument even is. So THUS, I repeated the post with the intent of being very clear what my argument is - and with the hopes that there will be at least one serious taker. I do love to debate the subject of MATH. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/537 "2012-11-20T23:13:37Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > It doesn’t matter. The information still has to be translated into a language that can take advantage of the knowledge and build shit. Right, and that language is mathematics. That’s why scientists and engineers are required to learn math. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/538 "2012-11-20T23:16:15Z")
> [@Anthem\_0](#): > > But I’ve done this many times before… That alone should tell you something. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/539 "2012-11-20T23:19:42Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Right, and that language is mathematics. That’s why scientists and engineers are required to learn math. At some point that mathematics has to be translated into instructions that don’t involve maths. You aren’t going to get a washing machine built by spouting equations at the people tasked with making them. ---
**Author:** ![Anthem\_0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Anthem\_0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anthem_0)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862/540 "2012-11-20T23:22:31Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > You fail to realize that math IS a language. It’s used to describe complex relationships. Those mathematical equations could be spoken in English but unless you understand the language of mathematics it would be like instructing you in submarine construction in Swahili, you just don’t get it. Math is a language, but it’s not a contextual, logical language - it is formulaic and nothing like actual spoken languages for these reasons. Yes it is terribly useful and we’re all very glad to have it, but there’s no need to resort to hyperbole. For instance, math certainly doesn’t DESCRIBE complex relationships, it merely DEFINES them. This key bit of context makes all the difference in the world. And even still, math is woefully inefficient in describing the vast majority of _actual_ “complex relationships”. Many a divorced mathematician will attest as much. Also, I’m not sure where this myth arose of English and Swahili physicists communicating through math. Very little math is able to understood by mere variables alone. The relationship between the variables is all that really matters. When explaining mathematical concepts to people, mathematicians especially will use words whenever possible because they convey so much more information. We all see pictures of great physicists and mathematicians balancing equations across comically-large chalkboards, but what the picture doesn’t show is these people are _talking the entire time_. Two physicists who spoke different languages can’t sit down and explain unfamiliar concepts to each other using only math. It absolutely does not work like that. I don’t say this to be funny, but equations like E=MC^2 are the products of tremendous labor, the vast majority of which is verbal (or written) communication…don’t be fooled by the simplicity of the conclusion. You cannot \*explain \*math to a person using math. Math is incapable of translating itself without context. I have no idea how anyone could convince themselves otherwise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-great-minds-the-theory-of-everything/640862.md?page=28)