Amazon.com Widgets
  • Lol idk really

    Of course not, they are vital to our future. Unless you folks all want to be living in caves, you should be thankful for science and mathematics, which have provided our entire way of life. Our global economy is increasingly reliant on STEM fields, and they are absolutely necessary to the future of our race- whether it be our health, overpopulation, hunger, disaster relief, and more.

  • Science and mathematics end in meaninglessness

    This scholar shows Science and mathematics end in meaninglessness

    Mathematics
    quote
    "As Bunch states:

    “None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.E. The Skolem paradox].”B. Bunch, Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes, Dover, 1982, p.139

    Science
    quote
    "Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting.” F. Selleri, Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, Kluer Academic Publishers, 1990, p.V111.

    "In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.” A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184

    "“Dual pictures, dual language: linguistic analysis is the key to understand quantum mechanics Bohr told his protégée Heisenberg shattering his hard won vision of the micro world. The very words physicists use to describe reality constrains their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding” A, Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser Berlin, 1995, p.33.

    " Zajak notes that “we are limited by our language to lists of words much as our worldly experiences limit the concepts those words bring to mind.” With this in mind Zajak points out that we naively apply to the micro world concepts which only have applicability in the macro world. Electrons don’t behave like mini billiard balls and light does not behave like scaled down sea waves. As Zajak notes “particles and waves are macroscopic concepts which gradually lose their relevance as we approach the submicroscopic domain.” H.Zajak,. Optics, Addison Wesly Publishing Company, New York., P. 450

  • We can predict a vast amount of things because of math and science, so no.

    It is important to hold the fact int your hands - pretty much anything you use throughout your day (mostly technology, though), is because of math and science. The computer - or device - you wrote this question from is because of math and science.

    It is obvious that for us, math and science is just two categories of how we understand the world. Of course it could be made a little different, but as it is now, it's anything but meaningless. It helps us predict, find, search, understand, discover, scan, detect, locate ... You name it. Without it, we would be much more helpless.

  • Math and science are imperfect models, and necessarily so. This does not make them meaningless.

    This question seems not to understand the concept of map-territory relations. Of course math and science lead at some point to paradoxes, they are imperfect maps of the universe we live in. As such, at their extreme edges they often work off of approximations that are accurate enough to be indistinguishable from correct results relative to perception at normal scales. Working with a number unimaginably close to zero when you should be simply working with zero will give you results unimaginably close to correct, though they are very slightly inaccurate.

    This is why gravity is a good theory to describe the motion of planets but very poor at describing the motion of particles. Planets work with distances vast enough that the effects of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are lost in the overpowering effects of gravity. Thus, if you just calculate what gravity predicts, you get very, very, very close to being perfectly accurate even though you've ignored the effect of three quarters of the forces in play. If you're working with protons, however, the other three forces are much more important, and gravity becomes much more wildly incorrect by itself.

    What may look like paradoxes in math and science are really just points at which our models of the universe break down. And it's a good thing that they do this. After all, the only way to have a perfect, completely accurate map is to make it exactly the size and shape of the territory it is mapping. We sacrifice accuracy so that we get a piece of data small and simple enough for us to process while still being a generally good guide around the territory. In order to have math and science that fit the universe perfectly, we'd have to make them as complicated as the universe is, and that would defeat the point of having them because they are essentially theoretical tools used to simplify and check what we see.

    Saying "calculus sometimes uses zero and sometimes uses very very nearly zero," is like looking at a map and complaining that you can't see individual grass blades.

  • Of course not, they are vital to our future.

    Unless you folks all want to be living in caves, you should be thankful for science and mathematics, which have provided our entire way of life. Our global economy is increasingly reliant on STEM fields, and they are absolutely necessary to the future of our race- whether it be our health, overpopulation, hunger, disaster relief, and more.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.