Mathematical science doomed ?

[IgorTesla]

When i think of any theory that has it's origins by using calculations i can't ignore the fact that math itself is an imaginary tool to explain the real world.

Why would i say this ?

Well the best way to explain this is by giving an example :

We all know that 1+1=2 but if you ask a programmer what the outcome would be he would surely say 1+1=0 (binary model).
If you would ask a biologist the same question then he would say 1+1=1 (1 spermcell+1 fertile egg = 1 newborn)
And so on.

So you see the implications of the different uses of mathematical solutions on a real world.

The Universe explaind by either a Math scientist, a programmer or biologist would have a very different outcome when their ('proven') science is adepted as such.

Using a standard formula is impossible just because there is no standard model to start with.
All the above mentioned formulas depends on agreements of the different fields of expertise.

In other words :
Calculations can't not be used to predict the outcome of an event (in some cases it can but that should be considered as an exception in my opinion) even if those calculations seem to fit reality.
Actually math itself is contradicting just by looking at the seemingly neverending number we call Pi.

P.S.: as programmer i know for example that it is impossible to create a perfect circle, so any attempt of creating a computer model of the universe is doomed to fail simply because of incapability of equipment to create a perfect sphere or circle. Even the 3d models created by the latest high-tech 3d technology are not perfect when zoomed in, although we come close to achieving it.

[chrimony]

When i think of any theory that has it's origins by using calculations i can't ignore the fact that math itself is an imaginary tool to explain the real world.

This is along the lines of the philosophical question of whether math is real, or whether it's invented versus discovered, etc. Philosophers argue about questions like this while others use the tool to get stuff done.

We all know that 1+1=2 but if you ask a programmer what the outcome would be he would surely say 1+1=0 (binary model).

As the joke goes, there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. The answer to 1+1 is 10 in binary, unless you only have one register.

If you would ask a biologist the same question then he would say 1+1=1 (1 spermcell+1 fertile egg = 1 newborn)

A biologist would say 1+1=2. A biologist would also tell you that a sperm can combine with an egg to produce a zygote.

So you see the implications of the different uses of mathematical solutions on a real world.

Well yes, you have to use the math correctly, and use the right tool for the job.

Calculations can't not be used to predict the outcome of an event (in some cases it can but that should be considered as an exception in my opinion) even if those calculations seem to fit reality.

Uh huh. So mathematical science is "doomed" because even if it seems to fit reality, you have a philosophical objection to it. Science is about building better and better models to match reality. I'd say it's been pretty successful so far, and without math science would be a paltry parlor game.

Actually math itself is contradicting just by looking at the seemingly neverending number we call Pi.

Pi isn't a contradiction. Is 1/3 a contradiction because you get the seemingly neverending number 0.33...?

P.S.: as programmer i know for example that it is impossible to create a perfect circle, so any attempt of creating a computer model of the universe is doomed to fail simply because of incapability of equipment to create a perfect sphere or circle. Even the 3d models created by the latest high-tech 3d technology are not perfect when zoomed in, although we come close to achieving it.

This is the most relevant example you've given so far, but the irony is that the idealized math gives better answers than the computer model. That's not to say we'll never come up with a non-mathematical model of the Universe or that we won't ever have to rework the math, but I think you've gone a bit too far in disparaging mathematical models.

[IgorTesla]

Thank you for your reply espescially the way you summarize the different aspects i wrote.

I agree i made some mistakes there but i think you agree that isn't really a thing to be bothered with.

Exept for one thing i disagree with you, namely the binary model.
As you said a programmer would say 1+1=10. which is impossible simply because that's not a binary outcome but a decimal.
The flaw is : the binary model of a programmer is based on electricity where as zeros and ones represent the state of the electical circuit. (1=power on, 0=no power) And since it's impossible for power to be On and Off at the same time, the outcome is dictated by reality : On+On=Off (1+1=0) and On+Off=On (1+0=1) and Off+Off=Off (0+0=0)
Also you mention the use of 1 register while i can not see where 1+1=10 would fit in there.
A register consists of 8 combinations of zeros and ones (like 11010111) which makes up 1 character. So you actually had to say that 00000000+00000001=00000010 which is 1 byte where as i was talking about 1 single bit which can never be anything else then 0 or 1 !
This is an example of how reality dictates maths and not the other way around. Although it's theoretically possible to just keep adding numbers to the formula, reality simply doesn't allow any outcome other then zero or one.

Nevertheless, i still believe maths are nice to play with but to explicitly use it as a base to explain reality seems too farfetched to me.

You might be right about the succes of maths, but hey, even Einstein didn't agree with some of his own calculations yet his theories are being used for decennia and now we see things in the universe that utterly smash all of his theories,

I rather put my money on real facts rather then depend on calculations that leave no room for discussion (see what happened with the Big Bang theory)

Furthermore i like to say that the number Pi surely is a problem but i'm not going into all the details since that would take a couple of pages to explain.
But to give an example : Every computer will crash due to the inablity to make calculations without end (Pi). To prevent the crash they made a computer that could calculate numbers up to a certain range, but definatly not endless. When a calculation would be endless then a computer would never be able to end his calculations thus causing a system crash (the electrical circuits would eventually even burn out, which really happenend in the laboratory at INTEL)

Please forgive me my English, i find it difficult to translate my thoughts in the right manner. (i am Dutch)

Again, thank you for your detailed response

Btw, if you like i can make a detailed explanation on how the binary model is (was) used to make it possible to use electricity to be programmed by humans at the binary level. (machine language) But on the other hand, you can probably find that on the internet somewhere allready.

[IgorTesla]

As the joke goes, there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. The answer to 1+1 is 10 in binary, unless you only have one register.

Before pinning the outcome of 1+1 you might wanna read :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_binary_codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code
https://sites.google.com/site/qeewiki/b ... /registers

and then perhaps :

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =6&t=15191

P.s.: i made another mistake in the previous post : 00000000+000000001=00000010 should be 00000001+00000001=00000010

[chrimony]

Again, thank you for your detailed response

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15191

I started writing out another detailed response, but you went from thanking me to threatening me with the banhammer over an innocuous joke, so I decline further discussion.

[IgorTesla]

It's your right to end any conversation at your discretion although being it premature i'd say.

If you feel threatened by my post then i'm sorry.
On the other hand, if i read your response back it seems to have actually one goal namely : to scrutinize my post in search of errors.
Nothing wrong with that ofcourse (criticism is good) but i haven't read any constructive idea in your post.

I am a person who is always open for new suggestions and ideas, provided they are realistic.
Since i'm convinced that math is a wrong turn in science you have to come up with something better then just a simple 'Joke'
What seems to be a joke for one person can be an insult to another, that's why i always try to stick to the facts.

The link towards the article (grow up or leave) was actually my solution to prevent myself from getting angry at you, espescially since you were wrong a bout it. (my anger was of a short time btw because i realised that the binary model is a tough piece of math to work with, even professionals avoid it as much as possible.)

Let's just agree to disagree and leave this behind ...
Btw i really do like the way you summerized my post and also the fast response, i wasn't sarcastic about that in any way.