Mathematics as a tool

“Mathematics as a tool” of science

Click to access 2015-2-Lenhard.pdf

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

by R. W. HAMMING

“The logical side of the nature of the universe requires further exploration.”

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Do you need to know math for doing great science?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/do-you-need-to-know-math-for-doing-great-science/

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

Science
there is a whole book wriiten on Quantum paradoxes

F. Selleri, Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality, Kluer Academic Publishers, 1990,

quote-from other scientists

Now even though quantum mechanics is paradoxical no experiment has contradicted quantum theory predictions and quantum theory is the most successful that has ever existed in science.

“Similarly there is ample evidence of theories giving the predicted results even though they collapse into absurdity i.E. Are self-contradictory or paradoxical such as those in quantum mechanics- just as there is in mathematics. 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.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/irrationality-is-no-hindrance-for-things-being-true-mathematics-and-science-examples

Science gets incapacitated in revealed religions

Thread:” Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 23:

D—–the-D—-n wrote: [Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1] This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims. That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea. Paarsurrey1 wrote: OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so “evidence” here means that could be “observed” physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science: The University of California, Berkeley snapshot  Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science. misconceptions  Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God. Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*. Science has limits: A few things that science does not do Science doesn’t make moral judgments Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations * https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 So, it is meaningless to ask for “evidence”, “proof” based on “observation” in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please?  Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please? Regards *science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.

“Science has limits”

Thread: “When science does not work What are some examples? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

Post 38:

When science does not work  Paarsurrey wrote: Sorry, I didn’t notice this thread earlier. Friend Rufus21 has brought my attention to this thread vide his Post 101: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:56 am in the thread :”Scientific search for what is God.” Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion: https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=890658#890658 I am neither against science nor against religion. I believe both are essential for human development and progress. Science with the grace of One-True-God has done marvelous things in its domain since the discovery of “Scientific Method” which I understand changes with the discipline of science and the problem/issue in hand due to the nature of the discipline it is being applied to. To start with it was applied in “Physics” properly and formally. Its father/mother is Mathematics and it Grandfather/mother is Philosophy where it is not applied altogether, or not to much extent. Right, please? Regards

Further reading/research:

	Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

	Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.Read more about it.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

• Science doesn’t make moral judgments
• Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
• Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
• Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

The University of California, Berkeley (also referred to as UC Berkeley, Berkeley, and Cal ^[7]) is a public research university located in Berkeley, California.^[8] Founded in 1868, Berkeley is one of the ten research universities affiliated with the University of California system and is ranked as one of the world’s leading research universities and the top public university in the United States.^{[9][10][11][12][13]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley

Past experience has shown that mathematical models of nature have tremendous advantages over the earlier, more appealing, models that use analogies to familiar everyday phenomena of our direct sensory experience. Mathematical models are less burdened with emotional baggage, being “pure” and abstract. Mathematics provides seemingly infinite adaptability and flexibility as a modeling structure. If some natural phenomena can’t be modeled by known mathematics, we invent new forms of mathematics to deal with them.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/method.htm

http://www.kangaroo.com.pk/blogs/mathematics-mother-of-all-sciences

Science does not support Atheism, does it?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=887315#887315

Post 9:  Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

paarsurrey1 wrote: Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please? Regards William wrote: Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things. It is not used to show the fact of existence, but to examine the fact of existence. In this, science can be used to provide some evidence as to how things on earth came to be but cannot be used to determine whether these things happened through a mindless process or a mindful process. Thus it cannot support theism or atheism because it cannot show conclusively that the process was or was not a mindful one. The evidence which comes to light through the process of science can be interpreted either way. The atheist can interpret the evidence as being a mindless process… because the implication of an intelligent creator behind the process = “GOD” and atheism by default is not having any belief in “GODs” … and the theist can interpret the same evidence as being a mindful process, because the theist by default has belief in “GOD(s)” – an intelligent designer or for that matter, a group of intelligent designers. Science itself is just a process and thus is not something that has an opinion either way. Opinions either way derive from those who interpret the same evidence in a different way. Science also is not capable of being used to determine what is or isn’t ‘the truthful religion’, even if there actually was one. Quote: Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things. Paarsurrey wrote: Thanks for poising believers and non-believers equally. As one agrees science does not provide a refuge to Atheism, and the like. Atheism is just a position of indecision having roots neither in Science nor in Religion. All the basics of the truthful Religion, the six Articles of faith* together with five pillars of observance are beyond the observable material science. The truthful founders of all revealed religions and particularly the founder of the Truthful Religion never spoke anything against Science, as a branch of knowledge, or the scientists. They did not want to hamper its progress so they left it open to be dealt with on material observation (belonging to the “seen” realm/s). Religions’ stress is on the “unseen realm/s”: [2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful. [2:2] Alif Lam Mim. [2:4] Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; [2:5] And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come [2:6] It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2 Regards __________ *Six Articles of Faith • Unity of God • His Angels • His Books • His Prophets • The Last Day • Divine Decree **Five Pillars of Islam (for its observance) • Kalima • Prayer • Fasting • Zakaat • Hajj https://www.alislam.org/

How to sift reality/facts from superstition/myth?

Paarsurrey Notes on:

Al-An`am Chapter 6 : Verse 117 And if thou obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie. Read More: Short English Commentary | Detailed English Commentary | Urdu Tafaseer اردو تفاسیر

Yunus Chapter 10 : Verse 67 Behold! whoever is in the heavens and whoever is in the earth is Allah’s. Those who call on others than Allah do not really follow these ‘partners’; they follow only a conjecture, and they do nothing but guess. Read More: Short English Commentary | Detailed English Commentary | Urdu Tafaseer اردو تفاسیر

Al-Zukhruf Chapter 43 : Verse 21 And they say, ‘If the Gracious God had so willed, we should not have worshipped them.’ They have no knowledge whatsoever of that. They do nothing but conjecture.

How does one sift reality facts from superstition/myth, please?

Commonality in all religious scriptures, reasonableness, secure and pristine word of Revelation

Believe it or not, stress makes people “more superstitious”.

Superstition is the religion of feeble minds

Superstitions are irrational beliefs

Superstitions are myth not reality, actually, we have firm belief on superstitions and just because of this we consider them as real.

Our mind has great power and if we believe enough, we can create what our mind believes. The history and development of myths, superstitions and ceremonies are extremely interesting.

• Valeed 7 years agofrom Pakistan

You are very right John these false beliefs have become so much rooted in our minds and societies that it is hard to get rid of them. Fortune tellers had made a fool out of millions of people and are on their way to do so in future also. Your wife is facing the same scenario as millions have faced before and continued to… I hope so she understands the true reality of life. May Allah bless her and give her health…

DREAMS WICCA & WITCHCRAFT ASTROLOGY THE PARANORMAL MAGIC FORTUNE TEL

The Science of Superstition

Parallel Sessions: Scientific Superstitions and Scientific Temper Myths, Superstitions and Propaganda in Scientific Age

In fact, “pattern finding” and “order seeking” mechanisms form the basis for nearly all existing myths

The same mechanism also makes us extremely vulnerable to all kinds of deceptions and manipulative techniques that impair our critical faculties. We may imagine things that don’t exist, make false judgments, accept uncritical claims, misinterpret facts and arrive at conclusions that are completely at odds with reality.
https://www.researchgate.net/

Can we remove the dogma from science?

#1 paarsurrey

Please
Regards

OOOOO
https://www.quora.com/Has-science-become-too-dogmatic

 

Is eulogizing science out of proportion a symptom of scientism rather than science?

#1 paarsurrey

Is faith in science out of its limitations a symptom of scientism rather than science? Please
Regards

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?—-(2)

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum 

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#31

P….. said: ↑ (in response to post #27 of S.…. ↑ )

You have not presented a *theory*. You haven’t even presented a coherent hypothesis. You have presented a collection of vague ideas and rather fantastic claims.

If you want to actually present a *theory* that includes a changing gravitational constant, you would first have to describe *in detail* the effects on the dynamics of standard situations under your theory. For example, you could claim that the gravitational constant is decreasing over time: G=a-bt. Then, you could apply that to the gravitational force: F=(a-bt)Mm/r^2 and, with F=ma, see how that would affect the dynamics of, say, planetary orbits. This would allow you to give estimates (at least, maximum values) for your parameters a and b. In particular, the value of b would be significant.

Then, you could compare the results you get with the observations we have of galaxies that are, say, 200 million light years away. Since the dynamics would be quite different 200 million years ago (by your hypothesis), the differences in the dynamics of such galaxies should be quite clear. Have you done this? What were the results? How do you deal with the fact that a galaxy only 200 million light years away is a very close galaxy on the cosmic scale?

If you want to claim that the changing gravitational constant affects something like the speed of light, you will have to extend your basic theory to include such effects *and* test the results of such an extension.

By the way, to even get started on this program would take learning at least a bit of mathematics. Differential equations would get you in the door, but probably a bit of perturbation theory would also be required to give definite predictions. If you want to include a changing speed of light, you would also have to learn special and possibly general relativity and formulate the changes in those required under your program.

Have you done ANY of this? No.

So you do not have a theory.

Click to expand…

Paarsurrey wrote: #31

“a changing gravitational constant”

Is it because it helps the humans to have some perception of the Ever-Eternal-God, His Oneness does not change, is ever-constant , yet His attributes change all the time, so other things created by Him always keep changing/moving/orbiting, cannot stop unless He commands them to stop, and they finish? Please
Regards

Is faith the backbone of Science?

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum 

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

#3 l.……. wrote:

No. Science uses the scientific method of repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith. When a “scientific theory” is presented, scientists scramble to do their best to disprove it.

Paarsurrey comments: #20

“repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith.”

1. Does repeated “experimentation and observation” make it immune from the errors or blunders?
2. After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?
3. Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?
4. The word “repeated” shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the  exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.
5. It is not a “battle” with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and  progress .

So, it is faith and faith alone in the “experimentation and observation” that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science “works”  and continues its endeavors. Please

Right? Please

Regards

OOOOOOOOOOOO

Search/Research:

*1 .

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

 

Hot Debate : When science goes gibberish!

Post #426

ben d said: ↑

What understanding of the theory is necessary when the bottom line is that the theory theorizes that there was no cause of the universe exploding into existence…no reason at all…it just did.. Don’t ask how the sum total of all mass and energy came from….it just did so drink the kool aid and line up with all the other true believers and accept it in faith.. That is not the scientific method….it violates the laws of physics…oh…I forgot the dogma…..it can;t violate the laws of physics because they don;t apply to big bang theory until after the explosion….

The sum total of mass and energy in the universe in all there is, was, and ever will be….it did not just come into existence for where would it come from? ….it can never ever be made to disappear for where would you put it?….it does not require a cause because there was never a beginning nor will there be an end…

Paarsurrey wrote:

Is it another aspect when science goes gibberish?
Regards

Post #427

paarsurrey said: ↑

Is it another aspect when science goes gibberish?
Regards

ben d wrote:

Indeed…..when people hear the term ‘big bang’, many do not understand that according to the theory, there was no cause or reason involved in the miraculous explosion that created existence from non-existence…they think that science understands, or will eventually understand how it happened….

Discussion forum <www.religiousforums.com>Thread: “Which existed first “something” or “nothing”?”.

Please click the post #426 to view, to comment and or join discussion on the topic.