Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

[zoid]

@dimmy_derko

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.

Now you’re talking 2 different things, assembly and design. No you don’t need math to say “screw these together”, but you sure as hell need it to design the parts being screwed together.
The difference is that the guy doing the assembly had someone else do the math already but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. Anyone can snap together leggos, that’s not what we’re talking about.

[Capt_Kirk]

@Anthem_0

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.

Balderdash, Bullhockey and Fiddlesticks

I am done with this thread because you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about. Math is a universal language, hell we put math on the Voyager disc so aliens would know we are intelligent. IMHO this whole fantasy is chemically induced.

Capt

[dimmy_derko]

@zoid

Now you’re talking 2 different things, assembly and design. No you don’t need math to say “screw these together”, but you sure as hell need it to design the parts being screwed together.
The difference is that the guy doing the assembly had someone else do the math already but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. Anyone can snap together leggos, that’s not what we’re talking about.

Describe a bicycle using math’s alone.

ps. I’ll make it even easier for you - it can be a unicycle.

[Czarcasm]

@dimmy_derko

Describe a bicycle using math’s alone.

Math’s what?

[zoid]

@dimmy_derko

Describe a bicycle using math’s alone.

ps. I’ll make it even easier for you - it can be a unicycle.

What’s your point? I din’t say spoken language wasn’t useful. I said math is also required. You convoluted the point completely, almost as well as the OP.

[Mangetout]

@dimmy_derko

Describe a bicycle using math’s alone.

ps. I’ll make it even easier for you - it can be a unicycle.

Maths includes geometry. That sounds too easy.

[Dr.Colossus]

@Anthem_0

so what you’re saying is…

…a great heap of misunderstanding of physics.

we *get *it.
what you don’t get is that you could maybe be wrong.

can you fathom that?

can you fathom even the possibility you might not be understanding things?

is there even a slight possibility you’re willing to entertain that perhaps the reason no one has been able to agree with your theory is because your theory might be flawed?

is that a possible thing you are willing to concede?

[dimmy_derko]

You seem to have trouble with quoting a post, but go on, I’ll let you have a bash.

[Anthem_0]

@trabajabamos

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.

2+1 dimensional isn’t recognizable math? Then how is 3+1 dimensional? 4-1 is at least subject to confusion, but I’ve explained even that part now, and STILL the requests continue.

The problem is you all want me to post a simple equation that you can immediately identify as incorrect. But you’re all so intent on “winning an argument” that you haven’t even realized that I’ve done just that MULTIPLE TIMES and no one has addressed it AT ALL. I can’t even tell if your’e being serious at this point with the requests. I’ll do it again now.

Our three-dimensional reality is a composite of 2+1 dimensional physical reality (the particles we SEE), 2-(-1) dimensional “metaphysical reality” (the effects we FEEL, which we measure by the effect on the particles. I usually shorthand to 4-1 dimensional, but no one asked for an explanation so I didn’t bother explaining).

If the math isn’t recognizable, then perhaps you should asked for an explanation rather than arguing for 11 pages about a subject which is unrecognizable to you. What have you been doing all this while if you didn’t even know that I’ve posted this 10 times already? And if you did see it and didn’t understand it, then why haven’t you said a word about not understanding it? Seriously, man.

[zoid]

@Anthem_0

2+1 dimensional isn’t recognizable math?

No. It isn’t. It’s a descriptor you made up that has no relationship to actual mathematics.

[Anthem_0]

@Capt_Kirk

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

why would 42 be relevant as anything other than a shortcut to proof yourself once you understand the concept? I clearly labeled it as such and even qualified it with a statement of “once you understand…”.

This is the kind of blatant dishonesty I’m talking about. If you don’t even understand the concept, why are you still talking about 42?

Time, space, gravity, infinity, there is plenty of math on these subjects already and nothing i’m saying is invalidating it (I’ve stated this several times now). What specific part do you want to discuss and how do you think doing so will help whatever argument you’re making?

[Dr.Colossus]

@Anthem_0

2+1 dimensional isn’t recognizable math?

why did you say you were going to start a new thread with nothing but math?

…were you lying?

seriously. YOU said you were going to start a new thread and hoped we could keep it all to basic mathematical discussion.

…now you are saying your math is 2+1. how could you fill a new thread with 2+1?

i ask again:

is there even a CHANCE your theory could be flawed?

and where does “love” fit in? you said that’s all we’d need…

[trabajabamos]

@Anthem_0

Math is a language, but it’s not a contextual, logical language…

Actually, math is the most logical language that can exist. That’s kind of the point.

For instance, math certainly doesn’t DESCRIBE complex relationships, it merely DEFINES them.

Are we going to torture other words now? How do you define something with describing it? Math absolutely describes the world around us. Tell you what: Describe Coulomb’s law w/o using any math or referring to mathematical abstractions.

Very little math is able to understood by mere variables alone. The relationship between the variables is all that really matters.

The irony of you acknowledging this now… Do you recall a post in which I tried to explain to you that “1 + 1” is not an equation because there is no equivalence? That it expresses no relationship between quantities?

…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.

Anyone can look at E = MC^2 and immediately understand the relationship between the variables w/o any knowledge of what those variables represent. And nobody is saying that contextual information like, “M represents mass in that equation!”, is extraneous. People are asking you to produce an equation and explain it’s significance to your theory. That’s all.

[MDKSquared]

Anthem:

1. Are you a solipsist?

2. Are you a proponent of Intelligent Design?

[trabajabamos]

@Anthem_0

If the math isn’t recognizable, then perhaps you should asked for an explanation rather than arguing for 11 pages about a subject which is unrecognizable to you. What have you been doing all this while if you didn’t even know that I’ve posted this 10 times already? And if you did see it and didn’t understand it, then why haven’t you said a word about not understanding it?

I haven’t been asking for clarification? Are you kidding?

Sanity Check:
Is anyone in this thread besides Anthem under the impression that I’ve been reticent in my demands for elaboration on his “math?”

[MDKSquared]

Anthem: How old are you?

[Capt_Kirk]

@trabajabamos

I haven’t been asking for clarification? Are you kidding?

Sanity Check:
Is anyone in this thread besides Anthem under the impression that I’ve been reticent in my demands for elaboration on his “math?”

Er nope,

Anthem you are the one who brought up 42, in the OP remember the shortcut? One could reasonably assume that 42 would appear in the math, 42, infinity, gravity, time and space.

I cannot believe I am still here

Capt

[Capt_Kirk]

@MDKSquared

Anthem: How old are you?

42? :eek:

[Trinopus]

@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?

If you mean putting forward an intentionally dishonest “bluff job” using higher math, then, yeah. It’s been done! Leonhard Euler once confronted a non-believer.

“Monsieur, (a + bn)/n = x, therefore God exists. Reply!”

The poor non-believer didn’t have anything with which to rebut, and Euler carried the day.

[zoid]

@trabajabamos

I haven’t been asking for clarification? Are you kidding?

Sanity Check:
Is anyone in this thread besides Anthem under the impression that I’ve been reticent in my demands for elaboration on his “math?”

I’m as shock at this accusation as I am at the opinion that if a complex concept has any value you should be able to clearly explain it to someone using no math at all.