Classical logic works just fine for a vast amount of the logic for the sciences — TonesInDeepFreeze

And "traditional" mathematics. But with over 26,000 topics in math it's getting harder to pigeonhole.

I haven't kept up here, so this may have been discussed upthread. As a child during and after WWII I identified with Cowboys in games of Cowboys and Indians. Imitation six shooters in the form of cap pistols were it seems everywhere. Boys were encouraged to engage in imaginary conflicts, popping away. A few years older and friends and I would have actual bb-gun fights, mimicking what occured in popular war movies. During the Vietnam conflict all kinds of plastic imitation weapons were available for kids - mostly if not all, boys.

Even today all those B&W TV shows of the '50s and '60s, like Gunsmoke, are available and have followers. But I think there's a trend away from games of gun violence, so there is hope a future America will be less inclined to imaginary and actual violence. There's even a chance the 2nd amendment wil be reinterpreted by a future Supreme Court. When little boys have other interests the entire culture might change.

Edit: Whoops, I neglected to include modern computer games that are more violent than the stuff of past generations. Guess we'll see.

A system that includes fossils, renewables, recycling is a possible answer. A bit like where we are now, but looked at as a system, not individual components in isolation. Good thread, Crank.

Look at the period at the end of this sentence. Now keep on staring at it. — Joshs

Look into this box of apples. They are all Delicious apples, a kind of apple. Now look closely at each one after carefully counting them - there are 24. Each apple is unique, being distinguished from the others in small ways. We see this as we contemplate these apples, a particular kind of apple. After a bit each apple seems to turn its best side toward our gaze, and we begin to contemplate what may lie on their opposite sides. In so doing we drift into a meditative state in which apples prevail, even those not Delicious.

Our mathematics begins only after we have concealed what happens within ‘kinds’. — Joshs

:chin:

The Schrödinger equation is linear and so linear combinations of solutions are also solutions. This is the superposition concept in its mathematical garb. The superposition principle leads to quantum entanglement, since a measurement identifies a state and illuminates a solution. Thus entanglement can occur, since otherwise an entangled pair would be nothing more than the common example of a coin split into a head half and a tale half. So the roots of this notion arise in elementary differential equations or linear algebra. Or so it seems to me.

Not that this solves anything.

So put in steps to make mass murder harder, e.g strict gun regulations — Michael

I wish. Apart from the over abundance of guns in the US is the fact that those guns can last for many generations. It's not like your TV set wearing out and being replaced or your car collapsing and being replaced. Each new gun produced does not replace one that is trashed. But a nation that cannot refrain from indulging in war is unlikely to stifle the production of weapons for its citizens.

Better than random. That's all? I would have hoped for better reliability than that. — noAxioms

:up:

Ergodic theory says you get the same distribution of walks — Jarjar

Surprised to see this thread resurrected. Yes, the math and physics definition of ergodic is technical about averages. Lem used this term to imply averaging out of incidents in strong social movements. More or less the opposite of the butterfly effect (SDIC) of chaos theory.

What can take most of the guns out of circulation? — TiredThinker

A miracle.

We are caught in a whirlpool of violence in which gang members are arrested for gun crimes, then processed and released back into the streets. Most gun ownership is not promulgated by a desire to keep the federal government in check, but for feeling a need to protect oneself and one's family from lethal criminal attacks. I know, all those statistics about suicide and accidental shootings. But the cops usually aren't there when the crime occurs, they can only pick up the pieces of carnage and seek the culprit.

Einstein did not like the quantum model. He still understood physics under the old deterministic model. — Jackson

What does that have to do with fishing?

There's something fishy about entanglement. Years ago, as a kid fishing in the gulf of Mexico I would experience it often. Why did Einstein make such a big deal of it? :chin:

Something's Wrong!? :grin: — Agent Smith

Your perspective.

What I see on TPF sometimes is a circular argument beginning with hypotheses and ending with hypotheses.

we're quite alike — Hillary

:cool:

I don't think that as has been said absence of evidence is evidence of absence. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but as you say it makes the supernatural implausible.

I can't see where this discussion is going.

In that view we are an incredibly complicated material particle with a mental charge (which, in fact, is an incredibly complex electric charge, running around on the incredibly complex neuronal network of the brain) — Hillary

Both electrical and chemical.

What's paradoxical about the twin paradox? Wouldn't it be a paradox if the twin astronaut returned with the same age to his brother on Earth? — Hillary

:up:

I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility. — Andrew4Handel

Lack of objective evidence - non anecdotal - I would say. But it's pleasant to think of ectoplasm slowly oozing from the aether.

How can a vase change into a fork? It truly can't, lemme tellya! — Hillary

You, as Creator of your World, have a chunk of modelling clay in front of you. You think, I must have a vase, so you carefully mold the clay into a vase, without pulling out chunks. You are pleased as you examine your creation. But then you think, I would like a fork now, the vase has served its purpose. And you carefully mush the clay into a lump and start anew, fashioning a large fork. And you are pleased with your creation, saying, Let there be a fork!

This is all done as an exercise in topology, a mathematical topic that studies continuous transformations from one thing to another, roughly. You are pleased with this tidbit of knowledge. :smile:

I was a professor of mathematics at a state university for a number of years, but as a graduate student there were courses I didn't like and had to push myself through them. When I focused on my chosen area and delved into research, well, that was fascinating. So even professionals don't necessarily love it all. One of my first grad courses was in foundations, the central area of philosophy of mathematics, and I was happy to get through it, but never returned to it.

But how [do] you glue two points together — Hillary

Gluing schemes in mathematics

I thought I remembered something about gluing in math, so I looked it up. Maybe not precisely what you ask, but interesting nevertheless.

Points come in sizes? — Hillary

In the real nos, no. But a "point" in a vector space or simply space in math frequently is a function of some kind, like a contour in C, and these might have "sizes".

Applied linguistics.

jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere. — Tobias

I gave him as an example of someone who has tried in a fairly sophisticated way to do something new in philosophy related to science, not as one who has succeeded in doing so. When he described coding all facts in the universe I quietly arose from my seat and left the theater. :cool:

Thanks for your summary. What he did and didn't do makes more sense now. :up:

Funny in science, the why overlaps the how and in an attempt to satisfy questions of the why, they would proceed to again explain a phenomenon in terms of how. — L'éléphant

Yes. Lines of demarcation are vague.

There are many competent mathematical philosophers reading the forum who aren't necessarily proficient in a system of logical symbolism — alan1000

If you are speaking of philosophers of mathematics I suspect most if not all are conversant with this sort of symbolism. I doubt many read this forum.

Oh, mr. Gill, this is a philosophy forum — Hillary

Yes, you are correct. It's easy to get deflected into science or math. In any event you and I are talking past one another, so I'll cool it. :cool:

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. — Tobias

I wasn't familiar with the math he used but it looked OK as far as I got. Hillary (or a previous incarnation) is a physicist and seemed to think there was some merit there, other than the fatal flaw of not being about physics in the original form. What turned me away was the notion of virtually everything being Turing machines. It seemed more an exercise in CS from my perspective. But I think the author is very smart and could be onto something.

But of all the crimes Trump has committed, his continued refusal to acknowledge the falsehood of his claims about the last election has to be the greatest. — Wayfarer

Holding an irrational belief is not a crime itself, but could encourage a crime.

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

Are "dimensions" perpendicular to one another? Is two dimension perpendicular to one dimension? What is a "large" dimension in this context?

The mathematical description is not too difficult. — Hillary

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3175854/finding-perpendicular-vector-to-an-arbitrary-n-dimensional-vector

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/733264/can-four-lines-be-perpendicular

Orthogonality is a generalization of perpendicularity. When one goes up in dimensions usually one speaks of manifolds, most frequently differentiable or Riemannian manifolds. Inner products arise in connection with orthogonality.

You lost me... Why you want that? — Hillary

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

You need to brush up on what "perpendicular" might mean in higher dimensions, minus the hand waving. How can we understand the notion in our human context.

Back in Euclidean 3-space I see. I want "perpendicular" to refer to an object in 5D relative to an object in 3D.

If this is perpendicular to 3D . . . — Hillary

There you go again.

If the particles are circles on a cylinder, how close can they approach. Whats the distance between two circles? — Hillary

I'm getting dizzy going around in circles. What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

Here is An Example on this very forum.

The mystery deepens but the Planck length is made Lorenz invariant! :nerd: — Hillary

My spine tingles at this revelation! I can carry out my experiments on Mars.

Still stumped at "perpendicular" eh? :cool:

Well, on a cylinder the cylindrical length and circumference coordinate lines are locally perpendicular. If you approach the SoL in the length direction, the circle òn the perpendicular dimension doesn't Lorenz contract. — Hillary

And the mystery deepens. No cigar.

Whoops, forgot to read the fine print. Makes more sense. :yikes:

Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it? — Skalidris

Interesting tidbit from Harvard: To apply for admittance to the PhD program in philosophy one must submit (roughly) fifteen pages of writing. No particular subject. Draw your own conclusion.

Physics, e.g., is about "hows" rather than "whys". Philosophy can dabble in the later, but not the former.