mathematics vs. economics and physics

No description available.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• mathematics
• mathematician
• string
• theory
• quantum
• mechanics
• physics
• general
• relativity
• special
• einstein
• economics
• austrian
• murray
• rothbard
• freedom
• liberty
• quantity
• space
• universe
• science
• modern
• large
• hadron
• collider
• electric
• thornhill
• halton
• arp
• hannes
• alven
• kristen
• birkeland

[lucidmaze]

There really is no way around using mathematics. If you want to use the scientific method to arrive at knowledge, then you have to test a “hypothesis.” In order to test a hypothesis, you need math. That is not necessarily modeling. It’s statistical testing.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@lucidmaze

define "knowledge."

in the course of presenting a physical explanation you do not need to invoke a single equation.

[junior00bacon00chee]

i can make all the observations and measurements of a basketball that i want, but until i actually define "basketball," ie, model it, then i cannot produce any explanation regarding the behavior of the basketball. as i stated earlier, newton himself admitted that he had an equation which could accurately predict the quantities associated with falling bodies, but that he had no explanation for the mechanism behind gravity. that requires defining what exists and showing how these behaviors arise.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@XXX

so you are 100% correct to assert that in science, we do not assume anything to be true. forgive my misleading usage of terms. i am saying that a definition is formulated absent of any considerations of its truth or falsity, or of its application to reality. the first thing i do is conceive of it, and just from that the test of whether or not it can be used consistently can be applied, regardless of the evidence.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@XXX

fair enough, indeed the term "assume" implies that one is assuming something to be true. so let me choose my words more carefully. when one defines something, one is first and foremost not concerned with whether or not the definition applies to reality. firstly one is concerned with whether or not the definition itself can be used consistently. if not, then it fails regardless of the evidence or experiments.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@X

all knowledge is derived ultimately from our experience, right? so necessarily it follows that any model i create will be something i imagine, something i experience. the model comes into being when i conceive of it, when i have an experience which is supposed to represent something outside of that experience. for example, i can conceive of a shape which is rounded and discrete, and then say THIS is what exists and what partially accounts for my observation of, say, a basketball.

[XXXMRcoolkidXXX]

@junior00bacon00chee Taking a definition at face value for understanding a theory (in my book) is taking it to be true. From what you wrote, I understood that we should assume your definition of space to be true for mere arguments sake. Let me make perfectly clear, there are no assumptions made in (good) science. I have never heard the word assume applied to definitions absent the context which I personally assumed to be true, not to say this use was incorrect, I appalled English classes :)

[junior00bacon00chee]

@XXX

models of existence are necessary to explain the data. if you can make observations, or experiments, or measurements, and use pattern recognition to make predictions or design things then that is wonderful. all i am saying that these activities do not constitute explanation. what accounts for these observations, experiments, and measurements? what exists, and how does it behave, such that these experimental data can be explained?

[junior00bacon00chee]

@XXX

when you assume a definition you are NOT assuming that it is "true," you are simply taking it at face value for the purpose of understanding the theory. my definition of space is objective, clear, and consistent regardless of the empirical data. Now, if scientists find energy, or w/e, in what was previously thought to be empty space, then obviously they should cease to categorize what they discovered as "space."

[XXXMRcoolkidXXX]

@junior00bacon00chee Elaborate on models of existence please. I just have never personally heard the term... models always agree with evidence via the experimental method. (I don't like to say empirical, its too vague). I can tell you this because the models I construct as a chemical engineer are entirely based on scientific concepts (and mathematical ones) which agree with "empirical data" derived from experimentation and investigation.