4 ms·

> It was proven with math How is anything "proven" with math alone? No observable evidence needed, really? Math may help model and explain things we can alrea

by _akhe 2y ago

> It was proven with math How is anything "proven" with math alone? No observable evidence needed, really? Math may help model and explain things we can already observe, but I've never heard of math discovering things that are not observed, and it being called "proof". Because obviously you can model a lot more than what's physically possible in a language like math, like for example the impossible case of an infinite number of oranges. In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. Doesn't mean it's real or "proof" of anything in the real world. Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed?

defrost 2y ago
I was more or less with you until > Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed? and feel the need to point out that math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look; that math for symmetry groups and permutations came first and then real world applications in crypto came later; that math for non Euclidean geometry was worked upon before physical observations suggested Newton wasn't exactly correct in his mechanics and Einstein got hyperbolic about lightspeed. Math can come along before any observations are made that might suggest the math has application .. there was at least one mathematician in history that expressed a dread that their work might find an application (eg: in war, etc).
- _akhe 2y ago
  > "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven until it was discovered.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.
    - _akhe 2y ago
      I was referring to the observational proof when I said that - the entire Higgs craze was about the proof - not about math as both of you guys are saying. The math part was thought of in the 60s, 2012 was about the actual discovery - did you think LHC was a math lab? The point was they said they could observe it in 2012. What that guy above said about E=mc^2 was random nonsense that has nothing to do with this story, like a lot of people on this site he's in Jordan Peterson fashion just randomly asserting like a know-it-all with no thought behind the statements or proof to back them up. Despite his high score here you can safely ignore what he said about completing the Standard Model (billiard ball hypothesis) it doesn't, Standard Model is still incomplete, and there's no proof that subatomic structures even exist as particles - let alone all the subsequent theories predicated on that. > Clearly this isn't always true In what case can you say there is proof something exists without having any observable evidence for it - even if the math "checks out"? What - dark matter? Ghosts?
drdeca 2y ago
You said “ > It was proven with math” But that is not what I said! Do not put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that the math “proved” it. I was saying that the molasses analogy did not matter to what they did, and that the math, not the molasses thing, is the relevant thing they did. Specifically, the math model described an origin for the mass of some things. > In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. No, actually. Adding 1 to an infinite cardinality (I assume you are talking about cardinality because you speak of a number of oranges) results in the same cardinality. That is pretty close (but not quite) the definition of a cardinality being infinite. (Specifically, a common definition is that a set is infinite if it is in bijection with a strict subset of itself)

by _akhe 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

I was more or less with you until > Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed? and feel the need to point out that math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look; that math for symmetry groups and permutations came first and then real world applications in crypto came later; that math for non Euclidean geometry was worked upon before physical observations suggested Newton wasn't exactly correct in his mechanics and Einstein got hyperbolic about lightspeed. Math can come along before any observations are made that might suggest the math has application .. there was at least one mathematician in history that expressed a dread that their work might find an application (eg: in war, etc).

_akhe 2y ago
> "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven until it was discovered.
- defrost 2y ago
  The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.
  - _akhe 2y ago
    I was referring to the observational proof when I said that - the entire Higgs craze was about the proof - not about math as both of you guys are saying. The math part was thought of in the 60s, 2012 was about the actual discovery - did you think LHC was a math lab? The point was they said they could observe it in 2012. What that guy above said about E=mc^2 was random nonsense that has nothing to do with this story, like a lot of people on this site he's in Jordan Peterson fashion just randomly asserting like a know-it-all with no thought behind the statements or proof to back them up. Despite his high score here you can safely ignore what he said about completing the Standard Model (billiard ball hypothesis) it doesn't, Standard Model is still incomplete, and there's no proof that subatomic structures even exist as particles - let alone all the subsequent theories predicated on that. > Clearly this isn't always true In what case can you say there is proof something exists without having any observable evidence for it - even if the math "checks out"? What - dark matter? Ghosts?

drdeca 2y ago

You said “ > It was proven with math” But that is not what I said! Do not put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that the math “proved” it. I was saying that the molasses analogy did not matter to what they did, and that the math, not the molasses thing, is the relevant thing they did. Specifically, the math model described an origin for the mass of some things. > In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. No, actually. Adding 1 to an infinite cardinality (I assume you are talking about cardinality because you speak of a number of oranges) results in the same cardinality. That is pretty close (but not quite) the definition of a cardinality being infinite. (Specifically, a common definition is that a set is infinite if it is in bijection with a strict subset of itself)