The problem with reproducibility though is that it excludes many forms of science. It's a constraining methodological feature imposed on scientific knowledge. Like all methodologies are. No progress can be made if one sticks to the method. Feyerabend has seen this very well.

For expressing your ideas (?) accurately. — Olivier5

I'm not that accurate. It brings misery only.

Try and make an effort. Your mistake looks like a freudian lapse. — Olivier5

An effort for what?

You are not even able to present your own position accurately. Make an effort.
5m — Olivier5

Not even? What do you meaning? I am able, but made a mistake. As simple as that.

Above you wrote that "both pro- and anti- science rhetorics are helpful." I suppose you meant "NOT helpful"??? — Olivier5

Yes. Luckily there are bright minds like yours to correct mine! Thanks!

Sic — Olivier5

So where am I distorting your position? Maybe I'm distorting your discussion here.

Sic.

What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension — Olivier5

Dunno. But I know that pro-vaxers lack this comprehension too.

I was responding to GraveItty who was distorting my position, like you are doing all the time yourself. — Olivier5

Distorting your "position"? I haven't got the faintest idea where you stand. I merely said that both pro- and anti- science rethorics are helpfull. As are pro- and anti- rethorics about all approaches to a problem, Corona included.

A tesseract, as stated in the original post, cannot be sensed from all angles. — Varde

Why not? A tesseract can be viewed from all angles. Look at Dali's 3d view on it. The 3d part can be viewed from all angles and hence the full 4d one.

Can the Life-Form be visualized? You have a 4d cube in mind? Is the Life-Form a tesseract, or just a means for tesseract-life to live? Why do you write it with capitals?

The universe is a Tesseract Life-Form, the shape is the modus operandi. — Varde

Let's look at this. You think the universe is a lifeform. We are obviously part of it. How are we represented?

this must be a joke. — Varde

I wished it was. We could have a laugh at least. Your seriousness is depressing though. If you only had read what I wrote... I wrote that I would contemplate your "theorum". Just give me some time. First question: I assume you have the ordinary tesseract in mind. What represent the sides?

No. I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension? You cannot argue without distorting other people's position all the sodding time? — Olivier5

I'M SAYING THAT TOO! Just read. It's as unhelpfull as pro-science rhetoric.

Djezus man, relax! I didn't know you are that serious! Why you think I suffer? From your weird view maybe, yes! It reminds me somehow of David Bohm's view of reality being a hologram kind of structure, although he at least shows signs of intelligence (no offense!) and a sense of relativity (you sound quite absolute).

The female gender (the many even) a tesseract and the male a key, a consciousness? Sounds pretty mushroomy, or it shows a detachment from woman all together.

But if you want a serious response, let me contemplate your reality, which seems pretty detached though. What's the big deal with houses?

And you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias. — Olivier5

You think pro-science rethoric is usefull? Both the pro- ant anti- are as unhelpfull as can be. The scientific approach to Covid19, how the disease can be fought, stopped from spreading (the spreading could, as a matter of fact, not have been that global if science hadn't given the knowledge needed to construct high-tech airplanes, like aerodynamics and Maxwell's electrodynamics) is just as reliable/unreliable as the non-scientific one.

Are you serious, or on mushrooms? Though the same can be asked to defenders of a physics theory of everything...

Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed. — James Riley

Why should science be repeatable? Reproducible, to use a more experimental approach? God help us if this is really the case!

You address whether the claim was true (but why should that matter, right? we're on a spiritual quest here. — hanaH

I don't address that claim is true or not, that's another part of the propaganda. The search for so-called Truth... Aaaah, yes. The Truth. How much suffering has been seen in it's name! What "spiritual quest" in heaven's name are you talking about?

Sure, but half of the children dying is maybe a high cost to pay for your closer walk with nature ? (And chances are, if you survived childhood, you'd be illiterate and laboring in the dirt with gum disease?) — hanaH

Again the same babble.Half of the children dying? We're did you get that from? Why do you think people in the so-called third world (how presumptious!) ended up in that state? Western society (science-, technology-based, with an on and on going desire to inflate) has transformed the world in its own pitty-image Science won't make their place a better one, by the way. Of course you can use it to eliminate gum-disease. Or give people clean energy, if they want. Just place solar panels on every roof and use hydrogen technology to make it portable. But why should they conform to the scientific standard and Western democracy?
How many children suffer, and have suffered, from the scientific approach? What caused the atom bomb, which were already dropped and tested in far-away regions, to keep the children here safe. Their thread is still with us. Hildreth were taken away from their parents to teach them the "right" way (in Australia), Thousands of children are born with birth defects caused by the accidentally given right-handed form of a medicin that should have contained a right-handed molecule, look at Bopal. Look at the exploded spacecrafts with people on board. How nice it looked when it broke up in the atmosphere. Look at thousands of failures in hospital which cause thousands of people to die. Look at Corona even! How many suffer from the harm done to Nature? What about the fact that people are destroying it and the possibility is there that this will make human life very difficult in the future (it does indeed look very dim, so scientists tell us).
And the list goes on and on. You might say that science offers a solution for the problems it created. In the form of technology, "social engineering", or whatever, but isn't it better to stop the whole enterprise altogether?

I don't know that certain ultimate questions even make sense, let alone the answers to them. But certain "divine" answers to those questionable questions either also fail to make sense or look like childish wishful thinking. As in ordinary life, one need not know the final answer or solution of a problem to reject various candidate solutions from consideration. I understand that for others it's troubling to consider the possibility that the universe doesn't care about us, that we didn't come with instructions in the box, etc. — hanaH

Of course there are gods! It's not an "ultimate, questionable question" (again that science babble).. Again, the scientific stand. "An ultimate question"... Don't make me laugh. From a scientific viewpoint, which looks to creation only, the question makes no sense indeed. And scientists can't answer it. Not that I give a damned about them gods... The universe doesn't care about us, no, that's pretty obvious. Neither do the gods, for that matter.You call them gods childish wishfull thinking. What's wrong with that? I smell contempt. A big part of the poor parents of half the dead children you referred to earlier find consolation in religion. I kick at them gods too, but not in the mean way you do, declaring them non-existent. Or put them in the box of "unquestionable questions".

Eastern Philosophy may have been somewhat more accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth, but that won't fly on this forum. — Gnomon

Where is it written that the philosophy here should be western? It's called the philosophy forum. Not the western philosophy forum.

Essentially I'm now faced with a choice whether pursue path of learning in that direction that may ultimately lead me nowhere (Which I think is likely) and perhaps even won't be of use to me — DenverMan

You mean insofar money-making is involved?

You seem to overlook here that the constant is no rational number.

clever primates constantly trying to make their lives a little better. — hanaH

Now that sounds even more dramatic. In the litteral sense.

About half of humans died as children not that long ago. It also hasn't been all that long since we became aware of germs, learned how to make vaccines. The average person now lives better than royals did for centuries (neglecting of course the human tendencies toward vainglory and envy.) — hanaH

The usual propaganda babble in favor of the scientists claiming a way of thinking and acting to which all must comply. Claiming to have the only truthfully worldview. Ridiculing other kinds of cultures, which are so eagerly studied by anthropologists (Florina Donner is an exception, though I don't know all of them, of course), who don't give a damn if these ways of living were wiped out apart from the fact that their study objects are gone, like botanists wouldn't give a damn about the extinction of flowers and plants apart from the same fact. I have seen this written litterally! WTF is this eagerness for knowledge? To improve our lives? People in all cultures try to do that. Besides your list of advantages I could make a big list of disadvantages, like in all cultures. The difference is that the lists in the scientific world are so big (and inflating!) that Nature is done irreversible harm. How many species have gone extinct already? How much harm is already done to the bottoms of the oceans? How many storms and fires will blow heavier or burn brighter and more frequently. "Science will find a solution!" Yeah yeah, my ass... Fixing what it caused in the first place. Like the Hopi said, if continuing this way, ashes will fall from the sky one day, released from heavenly containers. How right they are! And they have (had, soon enough!), no science, no knowledge in the abstract western way. You would probably say their worldview is wrong... Like you are so sure there are no gods (if not, then where does our universe come from, even if eternal?).

In short, it's good to remain humble, but it's absurd to pretend that we've learned nothing while using a near-instantaneous global information network. (We're like rich brats, taking our inherited wealth for granted.) — hanaH

Who pretends we have learned nothing?

:smile:

We might add an appreciation of the little we know, which has seriously improved things for the species so far — hanaH

The little we know? Mankind has never gathered that much knowledge in it's entire history! The urge for endless knowledge searching reigns Supreme on our planet. You sound like sir Popper with his urge for endless falsification and pursuit of new knowledge to falsify previous knowledge, giving a feeling of endless unrest. Your remark about the appreciation of the the little we know, humbling as it may sound, fits perfectly in this doctrine!

I think you mean beyond capability. Though capapability sounds nice too! Gay papa, bility? :smile:

Thanks! Another example is the formation of cosmological structures by gravity. The interacting field here is mediated by gravitons (instead of the photons). Due to the fact that these work on spacetime (through which they move at the same time, which makes the situation somewhat complicated, but that aside) they are 2-tensor particles curving spacetime by means of which the masses in the universe can interact. Now as in the case of the hydrogen atom, virtual graviton fields can "pull" masses in-formation (they don't really pull at the masses itself as they only work on spacetime, although they can emanate from them, which is not the standard interpretation, but alas, I'm not standard too!). Spherical structures are the most popular ones up there, although galactic spirals are wanted too. Elliptical orbits (containing a bit more information than circular ones) came into fashion late in the galactic evolution. The gravitational entropy became higher though because of the release of real gravitons during the structure formation. The mass of the structures decreased by a small amount though. Because of that very formation.

Likewise, all life on Earth evolved into structures after the first gravitational formed structures had formed. How could this happen? Well, massive structures formed by gravity are necessary in the first place. Ordered structures can only form if there is a non-equilibrium state and this was certainly the case on Earth. It faces the heat and the cold in the rhythm of day and night. So... Life condensed in formation by complex mediating field generated by the complex structures themselves (self organization!).

The information in a computer is not the information contained in the zeros and ones. That's just an interpretation we put on it, relating them (the zeros and ones, which are fundamentally different from the potential spikes in the neural network in our brainy world) to other structures and calling that information about these other structures. That's the modern viewpoint on information (bits) but it's not what in-formation actually is.

If I had read this poem last night it would have been even better! After I came back from a solitary nightwalk with my dog. There was absolutely no whirling wind though. But over the field where I walked hang a low blanket of autumn mist. Above it, the head of our dog was better to see than her body. Once in a while she playfully jumped out of the blanket, her full self appearing dark white and blue beneath the extraordinary brightly shining moon. The trees, from which drops and nuts fell sometimes, stood tall and black and frozen, without motion. The silence was screaming, besides the puffs of condensed breath coming from our mouth. What an atmosphere there was! Thanks for this poem!

My original opinion is that human logic has something evil to it and that I don not fully trust it. If you don't like the word evil for historic reasons call it destructive. — FalseIdentity

If you mean by "logic" "problem solving" then I don't see why it's evil or bad. Though people can use it in a bad way. I have had discussions with physicists who merely use their ability to solve problems to show of their ability to solve problems merely to show of and feeling superior to others. They are in general quite dumb people with no real interest in physics, talk like parrots, and behave like robots. They don't have too much imagination and have found their place in the system. Somehow I feel evil in these kind of physicists.

From child on we are trained in problem solving and there are all kinds of logical formal systems (math, proposition logic, or whatever abstract problem solving strategy) let loose to enter the minds of the sweet child in time. From being playful, colorful, spontaneous human beings they are turned into serious, grey, programmed creatures. Nothing wrong with being like that, but it's forced upon us. Children are obliged to go to school. Science embraces problem-solving and knowledge-gathering. Ad nauseam. In the process of logic, destruction takes place in the name of science. Logic can have destructive outcomes if relentlessly applied or forced upon us by politics. This eagerness to know and investigate is a nice human quality. Like problem solving. It has always been strange in my eyes that for examining the smallest the biggest experimental equipment ever was built (luckily the 6-billion SSC was called of, although Lederman and the likes of course hammered on its "importance" while in fact it's not needed at all to look deeper because you can imagine the subject matter too, without disturbing the world or measuring whatever). How many Nature was destroyed because of this? A considerable piece, including underground. A formal and abstract system of logic can be applied to every worldview or culture besides the scientific view (constricting the sciences in a strangling way though, like sir Popper and the likes try(tried)) and forcing it, together with science itself, upon these cultures has been performed very efficiently and with power given by science-based weapons. It's the never-ending tendency of science to solve problems and investigate which causes Natural destruction. On top of this is the application in economy. Also there inflation (like in the sciences!) rules suppreme. With all destructive consequences (besides the destruction involved in the knowledge-gathering an Sich). Logic can be nice. So can be science. It can do evil, destruct, and constrict, like the so-called scientific method, and even the most logic formal system (mathematics) do (though in science the last is used in almost every area of it). It can do harm to Nature and other cultures. The people using and applying it, that is. Logic and science are human enterprises, with a base in the old Greek philosophers like Xenophanes (from who the now common western belief stems that there can only be one objective reality, which he expressed as his only super monster-god, like the one in Christianity or Islam, from which many science developed too; as opposed to the many ones on the Olympos), Plato, or Aristotle. What a difference between them and their present day descendents though! Like the difference between a sweet-smelling colored flower in the rain forrest and a plastic dull one in a designer vase (the last brings to mind, I don't know why, that despite all individuality of present day, there is a kind of uniformity in mankind as humanity has never faced before).

So. Is logic evil? Is it destructive? The last yes. It destroys the outer physical world as well as the full inner potential. Now, the destruction of the natural world isn't evil necessarily. But what about all kinds of experiments done on living creatures to gather knowledge in the name of science (and usually the link to medicin is made to justify it) and problem-solving in relation to it? What about the logic of Popper, Kuhn, Radder, Lakatos, who all try to rationalize, methodize, formalize, or standarize, the sciences, try to put it in an abstract formal system? Now math does that too but it's a part of many sciences (though it can be quite constricting to them too). Don't they (wannabe scientists?) restrict the sciences and their progress? Don't they destroy the process of evolving science if scientists would conform to their measures? I think this is so.
Of course logic can't be bad or evil. Neither good or halo-wearing. It's very restrictive though. Strangling even. It kills human qualities present besides problem-solving or non-logical qualities involved in that "solving". It causes misery in nature (which we try to "solve" by logic and science that caused it in the first place!).

Can you give an example of the destructive power of logic? What do you mean, by the way, by "stolen life energy" and "donated energy"? Brain electric potentials and external voltage supplies?

Hi Pop. So you are interested in the relation between mass-energy itself or in the relation between the both and information? I guess the last although they are all three intertwined. If an electron field interacts with a proton field by means of an interacting photon field, the both settle in-formation after having reduced their total energy (or mass). Some energy is sent away by means of a photon which possesses potential energy in the sense that it can give kinetic energy to matter particles or change the direction of their velocities (this last is achieved by virtual photons, which can possess zero energy but still 3-momentum changing abilities, so not changing the kinetic energy of the matter it acts on). So when a hydrogen atom is formed (a new integrated form!) the mass of this new hydrogen form is reduced by a tiny amount. Energy is set free by means of a real photon (or more). These new photons possess the potential to give kinetic energy to other matter fields, as long as they are electrically charged. That means quarks and leptons, and probably more basic ones (if the last are massless it would give a nice explanation for the equivalence between mass and energy, but that equivalence is not what you're after I guess, although it nicely fits in and has a relation to form too).

So, the hydrogen example showed how in-formation (litterally!) gives rise to a reduction in mass. This example (being simple and clear) can serve as means to understand more complex forms like a computer contains information. If it acquires more in-formation, potential energy is set free and the mass of the computer decreases. So storing in-formation in matter (or matter forming structures) generally reduces mass.

I have the feeling that the majority of people here (or at least a large number) don't believe it makes a difference if a thinking entity runs it's minds operation for example on donated energy like the computer or if that thinking entity runs it's entire operations by stealing life energy. — FalseIdentity

You mean sitting behind the computer all day or taking the dog for a walk? What on Earth is a "thinking entity"? You mean people or animals?

Ha, good one! My second loud laugh this morning. And behold! I woke my wife. Because of you! Damned... :smile:

I have made my mind up this night and I stay with my original opinion. — FalseIdentity

Which was? Sorry, I just woke up! Nice last comment. Gave me an early laugh! :smile:

Ah there is more! Sorry, just woke up! What's the big deal with science here? It seems everyone here is it's obedient slave and bows to it in awe!

Your poems lack humans. They are highly romantic and written nicely in metric, rhyme and use of romantic imagery, like in the poem about the loveaffair between the moon and earth, in which the physics between the both is vividly described, sometimes a bit with the pompous words of a teenager in love, It's also a love poem about the physics of the universe (which shines through a bit too much). It's like of physics translated in words. A whirly elliptical eppilectical dance on the infinity of the varying hidden in an endless rhythm of endless night, while a thorny kiss of death intervenes entropically (I'm not as good as you!) sounds nice but still is a translation somehow of physics into a poetic combination of words. It somehow reminds me of the imagery of Jim Morrison ("Mr. Mojo Rising"). though nowhere in your poems (I have read them all here!) I get the feeling I get when I read about couples running naked down by the quiet side beneath a cool jeweled moon while their wooly cotton brains of infancy suffer from the ghost that crowded it while Indians lay scattered along the highway while imaculately bleeding to death (it remains to be seen if Jim Morrson's poetry was good). Now physics is nice. Your poems are a welcome addition to it! Are you a physicist yourself? Of course your poems lack humans, as it subject matter is the universe. The Poetic Universe. There is reference made to human affairs. It's one big praise of the physical universe and the infinite wonders and things in it. It reminds me of a poetry booklet an old physicist gave. He too wrote about the miracles and wonders of the scientific universe but his poems were scary at the same time (unlike yours!) in the sense that it litterally condemned other ways of viewing. Imagine what would happen if he rose to power... (though I think that it is fair to say that nowadays the sciences rule supplements on this planet, with all the sad consequences for Nature, including the people). Keep up your nice work!

I now will fetch some examples and discuss them in a next comment.

So we've settled on waves now? Interference happens when the behavior is waves. Is this right? — Caldwell

If you ask so, then we can settle on them. Fasten your seatbelts though for some heavy destructive interference can be expected. Which basically answers your second question.

The way I see it is - when two wavicles interact they integrate their information. — Pop

That's undeniably true! The interaction (by massless potential energy gauge fields like the photon field) takes care of the formation of the massive matter fields by redirecting and adding massive matter kinetic energy. You can see here already somehow the equivalence between mass and energy (massive matter energy has a kinetic energy of 1/2mvexp2 while energy is equivalent to mcexp2 (how can you write math here? LaTex code). From this you can maybe see how the equivalence comes to be. I'm not sure what the connection with art is here. I haven't read this thread and mainly responded to your last comments.

Originally perhaps. Not so much these days. Abstractions and generalizations abound. After many years I have concluded that math is both created and discovered. When I define a new (but tiny) math object, that is more creative than discovered. Afterwards one can discover what follows from such a definition. — jgill

I can remember that Mandelbrot said in an interview that his realization of the set named after him (stemming from the iterations in the complex field of the simple zexp2+k function, giving rise to these colored pictures on which you can zoom in ad infinity, or ad nauseam) felt more like a discovery than an invention. Well, if that's the case for him then why not. I just don't think this is so. Math can't be discovered (say I indeed, but not holding it for an absolute truth). The field of math is of course very rich. I don't think it is. And of course many mathematicians don't throw it on the physical universe. You can find mathematical models (say the different quantum field models) that have no counterpart in physics. These models obviously don't have a physical counterpart, but they describe the same physical structures with non-existing parameters. All math corresponds to physical structures, though they are abstracting them to a high level. The spin 1/2 of the farming can be represented by a spinor or a vector traveling twice around a Mōbius band, but this isn't what an electron truly is. Neither is it a mathematical point or a collection of charges on a 4d curved Planck-sized structure seemingly 3d in our 3d universe (though the last comes close). Even "the great Feynman" said that the cause of the electrons spin is a mystery, though we'll described by physics. How the hell can an electron 's spin rotate once if you rotate the electrons twice (which is closely connected to anti-symmetric wavefunctions), a fact I have seen beautifully illustrated by rotating one of two interfering electron fields once, which resulted in an inversion of the interference pattern. Somehow the anti symmetry and the spin half are connected. Of course they are connected by math (like spin 1 vectors and symmetric wavefunctions are connected) but what happens in reality remains a mystery. I have a gut feeling about that though. But this is not the place to get into that. A Mōbius band is a form that can be realized in the physical world. Certain properties of it can be described by math. But if we make the band sufficiently erratic (while keeping its overall form) math can't describe anymore (like the erratic line I mentioned earlier, without a functional form can't be described by a mathematical formula and as such doesn't exist in the mathematical world. You can of course measure the line's distance to a n origin but it still can't be described by a formula, though you could of course claim that it can be described by an infinity of real numbers, though not being calcuable). However it may be be, for me math is a human invention and it can reasonably be applied to the physical world. It would be far more unreasonable if it couldn't. It certainly is not an inherent property of Nature but can sometimes describe it very well. Again, the simple example of a physical line form, say a long sewing thread, can't be calculated. Measured yes.

I don't think you can escape this circularity, which is why I say information = interaction. — Pop

Interaction (gauge spin 1 or 2 fields) is necessary to let information form, embedded in matter (spin 1/2) fields. The difference between these two is that gauge fields carry massless, pure potential energy while massive matter fields carry pure kinetic energy. The masslessness of gauge fields and basic (the massive W-and Z-bosons are not fundamental and the constituents of quarks and leptons are massless, in bound states giving rise to the massive quarks and leptons; I know, highly speculative, but that's the way it is), their pure potential energy, and the pure kinetic energy of matter fields, gives rise to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence.

So interaction is not information, but a prerequisite.

What's nonmathematical about man? — TheMadFool

They can't be represented by a formal math system, whatever the system. Just like the line that can't be represented by a math expression has no correlate in the mathematical world, a man thinking about math expressions and pondering upon non-math-expressable or non computable forms like a random but non-random line, will have no correlate too.

Math is just a language and certainly not the language of Nature, as is so commonly claimed by physicists. And like all languages it has limitations. It's also called a universal language by many scientists (and the parrots, quasi intelligently, reciting their words). BS! It's a constraining and confining net thrown on physical reality, thereby darkening many facts, though in some situations it fits perfectly and with reasonable effectiveness.

So Big Sister Pig asked:

"Oh Piggy Pigly on the wall
Who is ugliest of them all?"
After heavy, steaming snore
It replied to Sister Soar
"Oh Big Hog, behold
That's where the beauty lies
The ugliest are you, I'm told
By my hideous eyes
But beware that in time
Beauty too can rhyme
Upon your dirty slime
As on every random swine"
"If that's the case"
Growled Sister in delight
"On will be the chase!
Thanks Oh Pigly Bright!"
Every eye was asked with force
To collect with every other
Devourng them, wild like horse
She didn't care to bother
Every eye, her own ones too
Cracked by her tombstone teeth
Filling her with ugly foo
From her pighead big to teeth
So her ugliness was frozen
Beauty was no more a but
Feeling lucky to be chosen
She wallowed ugly in the mud

Are you trying to say that, for instance, Brad Pitt, Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, (basically men) are not men? — TheMadFool

I'm not sure about Brad, and coming to think about neither about Einstein. Of course they belong to mankind. Though coming to think about it... No, seriously, that is not what I am trying to say. They are men without a mathematical equivalent somewhere because their mathematical equivalent doesn't exist, as it doesn't for the soundwave pattern. That is, not expressable in mathematical terms. For example, a sinus function can be expressed graphically as a wavy line in the plane. But what about a line that can't be functionally expressed? It simply doesn't exist in the mathematical realm. Nevertheless, I can draw the line. It exists physically.

Why can't it be the other way round? The physical seems to be obeying mathematical forms. — TheMadFool

This question is exactly the reason I argued like I did and I answered it already. If a physical form (the drawn or imagined line) can't be expressed as a math formula, there is no counterpart of the form in the math space.

I see, a Platonic point of view as far as I can tell. Did — TheMadFool

Not at all. Plato imagined a rmathematical heaven, like the math formalists. The place of math is simply the mind. Like intuitionists think. Approximations don't have nothing to do with being a Platonist or not, although Plato indeed thinks that real physical forms are approximations of the mathematical ones (which are not the same as physical forms).

Why would physical structures not possess mathematical structures. When I look at an ordinary die, I see a cube and when I look at the sun/moon, I see a sphere. — TheMadFool

Of course. No doubt about that. It is their mathematical formulation and their abstraction in the mathematical realm (a mathematical sphere is a different sphere as a physical one) that they don't possess. There are in fact
no structures in the physical world corresponding exactly to mathematical structures unless prepared in a very precise way as to accommodate a precise math form. A temporally finite piece of music (its sound pattern, that is), an arbitrary pulse of sound, or an infinite periodic pattern, can be written, but only approximated as an infinite sum of sine waves of sound with appropriate coefficients (a procedure like the one used in the epicycle approach to the motion of celestial bodies). There corresponds no exact mathematical form in the realm of math. Only an approximation. If the piece or pulse become too extended then the pattern can't be approximated by math. Though the pattern is actually there. Only single sine soundwaves and finite combinations of them have exact correspondences in the mathematical kingdom. You can question if an approximation corresponds to the exact pattern of the piece of music. There is no exact or even approximate mathematical structure of the musical sound pattern if the piece is too long. So eventhough there is a physical pattern, there is corresponding pattern in math. Of course you can transpose the non-functional, non-approachable sound pattern of the piece of music to the realm of math as a form. But this form can't be expressed as a function (other sets of base-functions could be chosen, but this doesn't change the argument). There is in fact not much you do with the transposed form. You can construct tangent lines (or planes and volumes if the sound pattern is 2- or 3-dimensional. But that's about it. The pattern is non-reducible.

So what's my point? My point is that forms in the mathematical realm owe their existence to the physical reality.

I think we talk about different things here. Science use Logic of course, but aren't the same. Science itself isn't evil at all either but of course the use we make of some scientific achievements can bring evil indeed. — dimosthenis9

I don't say there is a fault in logic. If people wanna think logically, why not? If they wanna arrange their lives accordingly, why not? But if this way of living becomes the standard for everyone and every creature on the planet, then I raise an eyebrow. You state that science itself is not evil. Of course knowing things does no harm. But science claims something else too. Something far more dangerous than just doing bad things. Most scientists claim to have the only possible right worldview, the one and only Truth so to speak. An idea started in ancient Greece (by Xenophanes and the likes). Now it's only natural to see your worldview as a true one, but science claims it's the only one. This attitude, together with science's bond with politics and economics, shows itself in the decline of non-western cultures (which can be very logical!) and the decline of Nature. Non-western beliefs, the soul, religion, etc. are being regarded as superstition. Once colorfull societies were simply wiped out of existence. Aboriginal children were taken away to "properly educate" them (and excuses always come after the deed). On top of that, knowledge about the physical world as produced by scientists can be used in a variety of ways. Especially in the realm of economics and politics, this leads to harm.