You can then count the rock dust, if you like, as a rock, or not a rock. It's the object being counted here who's definition is subjective, not the numbers you use to count with.

How do you know that they break into more than 4? Ah, yes, because 4 is not a subjective concept. 4 diamonds, and 4 french fries are similar in one very important way.

Science doesn't make any claims to perfection, so no problem there.

I don't have to believe in infinity. Again. It is an expression of the continuation of a system for describing things which we all agreed on to make communication of these sorts of concepts possible, and to reduce the element of subjectivity in the conversation to exactly 0. ( see how I used a number there to describe something in a manner which could not be misinterpreted?)

(September 29, 2011 at 7:48 pm)Pendragon Wrote: I agree with everything untill you say math is not subjective like other language. All language is subjective, and math is no exception.

This IS an appeal to authority, but perhaps you can argue it out with Einstein

Here is his take:

Quote:As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

pre-post edit: I've just read your reply to Rhythm. HOLY FUCKING SHITCOCK ASS DICKFACED WANK BASTARD HOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!. Are you a troll?

Okay, listen. Physics does not count rocks of sandstone, or diamonds. Generally speaking, we measure the total mass of sandstone or diamond. For the purposes of this post, when I talk about numbers of rocks, assume that either (a) each rock being referred to is a discrete logical element for the purposes of analogy which cannot be broken or make dust or be subject to surface vaporization, or (b) that the rock is the largest contiguous piece of solid rock from the original rock remaining after any decay event.

Original post follows...

I feel as if my blood may be about to boil.

Suppose you have a bag of sugar that weighs a kilogram. If you pour out all the sugar into three equal piles, then, all other things being equal, each pile will weigh 1/3 of a kilogram.
If an elephant has a pile of rocks that weighs the same as 12 tree trunks, and it divides the rocks into three equal piles, then, all other things being equal, each pile will weigh the same as 4 tree trunks.
If you drop something in a vacuum at constant Earth surface gravity, it will accelerate at 9.8m/s no matter what units you measure the 9.8m/s in. If you measured it in miles per hour, or parsecs per 10^-18ths of a second, or in 0-60 accelerations of a Toyota Land Cruiser, you would get different numbers, but the formulae linking those numbers would not change.

Quote:A small example: rock A we have measured to be 5 miles from rock B. Is there something in the real world that says this, or is it our arbitrary convention of miles that makes this true?

Miles are an arbitrary convention. You're confusing units and numbers. Units are what we use to interface maths with the real world.


Here's my own example of why maths is universal: Maths tells us that 17 cannot be divided by any integers except itself and 1. If you take 17 oranges, for example, and try to divide them evenly between any number of people other than 1 and 17, you'll have to cut the oranges up. You just can't do it any other way.

Similarly, maths tells us that a rectangle with the ratio 1:√2 will keep the same ratio if it is divided in half. There's nothing arbitrary here, just numbers, but if you use them to design sheets of paper for example you find that they still work.

(September 29, 2011 at 8:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You can then count the rock dust, if you like, as a rock, or not a rock. It's the object being counted here who's definition is subjective, not the numbers you use to count with.

How do you know that they break into more than 4? Ah, yes, because 4 is not a subjective concept. 4 diamonds, and 4 french fries are similar in one very important way.

Science doesn't make any claims to perfection, so no problem there.

I don't have to believe in infinity. Again. It is an expression of the continuation of a system for describing things which we all agreed on to make communication of these sorts of concepts possible, and to reduce the element of subjectivity in the conversation to exactly 0. ( see how I used a number there to describe something in a manner which could not be misinterpreted?)

Rhythm, I do not wish to battle with you, but this is an interesting topic. (at least to me, and I hope to understand it better. Thanks for indulging me.)

I only brought up the concept of infinity because there are ways of doing the same kinds of math without it. (and infinity is quite often considered an attribute of god)
That considered, how have you brought our level of subjectivity to 0? Can an irrational concept do such a thing? If so, our physics should be flawless.

Rephrase the question? (there's hardly anything in the known universe that hasn't been claimed to be an attribute of some god or another btw, and a great deal of things in the "unknown universe" as well)

(September 29, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Rephrase the question? (there's hardly anything in the known universe that hasn't been claimed to be an attribute of some god or another btw, and a great deal of things in the "unknown universe" as well)

No I am not a troll, but infinity is one of the more galling bits used by theists.

You are aware that math can be done without the concept of infinity? Calculus etc.) And it is most useful in computer programming for obvious issues.

Considering that, how have you reduced our subjectivity to 0?

(September 29, 2011 at 8:59 pm)Pendragon Wrote: You are aware that math can be done without the concept of infinity? Calculus etc.) And it is most useful in computer programming for obvious issues.

BAHA! Calculus relies on limit theory, which is the concept of "what number f(x) would approach were x to approach infinity"

I'm still not certain what you're asking me here. I'm going to take a crack at this anyway.

By using 0, instead of "a snowballs chance in hell" or "nothing" or "jack shit" or "nada", I removed the subjectivity of the concept in question, and the potential for mis-communication by way of removing colloquialisms, words specific to a certain langauge, or slang.

(September 29, 2011 at 9:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm still not certain what you're asking me here. I'm going to take a crack at this anyway.

By using 0, instead of "a snowballs chance in hell" or "nothing" or "jack shit" or "nada", I removed the subjectivity of the concept in question, and the potential for mis-communication by way of removing colloquialisms, words specific to a certain langauge, or slang.

You are saying math can reduce our subjectivity to zero. We must agree to disagree. It comes close. We still remain subjective in our awareness. No amount of math can change that. It is better than any approach we have I certainly agree.

Though you may not be interested, the branches of math not using infinity as does the currently classic approach, are here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructiv...ematics%29

You're never going to remove the humanity out of a human being. To use more language from mathematics; All things being equal,if all that is left of subjectivity is that we share a nearly identical genetic code, we're talking about a concept that is effectively objective (aardvarks would disagree).

Interesting quote from the wiki link:
"In its first forms it was called 'intuitionistic logic'" (page 31). "In this kind of logic, the statements an observer can make about the universe are divided into at least three groups: those that we can judge to be true, those that we can judge to be false and those whose truth we cannot decide upon at the present time" (page 28)."

This would leave things like russels teapot, just as one example, far too much validity for me to feel that it would be productive to the organization and advancement of knowledge. I prefer "pics or it didn't happen".

edk141 Wrote:

Quote:Miles are an arbitrary convention. You're confusing units and numbers. Units are what we use to interface maths with the real world.

No kidding? And in the "real" world" they will never match the perfect idea in our head. If you take a pound of sugar (you will never get a "perfect" pound)
but then you will never be able to divide it into 3 perfectly equal piles. Do you know nothing about the real world? You might get close, but that is not good enough for the idea of "3 equal piles" in our mind.
The real world will never match the subjective image in our mind.
By the way, I am holding one finger up. Am I saying Fuck YOU, or am I relaying the idea of 1?

---

(September 29, 2011 at 10:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're never going to remove the humanity out of a human being. To use more language from mathematics; All things being equal,if all that is left of subjectivity is that we share a nearly identical genetic code, we're talking about a concept that is effectively objective (aardvarks would disagree).

I guess I'm an aardvark But I am not big on the intuition aspect of this branch of math. It has powerful uses in computer programing, as computers tend to crash when asked to calculate infinity, or other irrational numbers. The floating point workaround is not adequate.

Damn! aardvark don't give a shit, is not as good as honeybadger don't give a shit!