Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.Iloveyou said:According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not.
Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...bob012345 said:Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.
Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.Iloveyou said:Mathematical structures don't exist in the world, they are useful tools describing the world. Math does not act on the world. With that in mind, it is not without meaning, just as electrons are not without meaning. It is meaning itself, but meaning doesn't act as a physical object in the world.
No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.Iloveyou said:Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...
For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.DaveC426913 said:No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.
They have been doing that since long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans came along to describe what they're doing, and would have done so for a long time to come even if we had not invented math to describe them.
Never said you are. Not pointing to new knowledge.Dale said:Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.
That's exactly what I said.Iloveyou said:For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.
Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?Iloveyou said:Never said you are.
We are capable of both having a mathematical description of a thing and recognizing the thing itself acting in nature.Iloveyou said:For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occurred. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.
That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.Iloveyou said:Mathematical structures don't exist in the world
The context of my question and the implications that I have mentioned.Dale said:Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?
Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.Iloveyou said:mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.
Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.malawi_glenn said:That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.
This thread is not a scientific discussion, it is a (pseudo)philosophical discussion.
If want some reading material about the philosophy of science and physics and the scientific method, I am happy to give you some. Not that I am sure that would change your mind but it might help you understand why physicsts work the say they do.
Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.Iloveyou said:The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.
How is that a proof that mathematical structures do not exist in the world?Iloveyou said:Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.
Wondering the same.phinds said:Jeez, how long is this <expletive deleted> going to go on ?
Exactly.malawi_glenn said:This guy is not here to learn about science that's for sure.
And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.Iloveyou said:mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.
If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons.Drakkith said:Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard, just harder to see and easier to describe with math. And note that math is simply a very refined language, so any problems you have with math being used to describe something you should also have with english, french, or any other language.
And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.
He did accept that trees exists, but not electrons. Hard to imagine that he will change viewpoint due to squirrels..Drakkith said:Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard
This has been already discussed. It is sematincs.Iloveyou said:the electron is an invention and not a discovery
Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.Iloveyou said:If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons..
Squirrels are inventions for sure. Never seen one.Drakkith said:Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.
And with that we are done here.Iloveyou said:the thingness does not apply to electrons