So...guess I'm the new guy

[Reforged]

My question for this whole subject is how far down the foundation of the link between mathematics, logic, and science do we have to formally prove before we can deem it practical? If reapeatability can prvoide useable results that allow us to manipulate reality for our own benefit, is it so necessary that a formal proof of why it works be developed? At what point to questions like this simply become academic?

We would have to find some kind of unified theory that incorporates everything under one umbrella.

In physics, the unified field theory is the holy grail for this reason. It brings together all these various, diverse subsets into one coherent system.

A simple way to think of it is to imagine if monetary denominations could not be exchanged. So 100 cents can never be used in place of a dollar. These two denominations would be separate, inexchangable and we would really struggle. Finally facilitating an exchange between dollars and cents would be an amazing experience and become a Nobel-prize worthy achievement that would lead to economic growth (or rather stability) skyrocketing.

Unfortunately, physics itself hasn't accomplished this feat, and it becomes incredibly difficult for trans-conceptual unification to even be conceivable.

In theoretical physics this hump can sometimes be gotten over by just pretending, or imagining that there is a way to perform this exchange. But it's not real. It's just semiotic substitution. But it's a viable trick, like algebraic substitution of numbers and variables.

Until then, we are just pretending. And as long as the pretense can bring us LED TVs, hex-core CPUs, rocket ships and all sorts of neat little doodads, we can't complain.

But for people who are interested in the truth and reality, in metaphysics, and the foundations of science, this is a deep problem. Like waking up one day and realizing you don't love your wife anymore.

---

Repeatability may not be a measure of validity but this isn't a mere issue of repeatability. The fact of the matter is that we base almost everything we do on mathematics because we have not come across an instance it has failed.
To your knowledge as mathematics ever failed as a system?
Yes or no.

I mean how far do you take this? Do we start questioning whetherin normal circumstances extreme heat burns us? I mean after all there might be the one occasion when it doesn't. We've never come across it but we can't be certain it won't happen. The idea of using this as a standard to live by is sheer nonsense.
Until we do come across such an occasion and thoroughly test it we must be at least partially open to the concept it might happen but not assume it can or will happen.

So once again, do you have any valid examples of science relying on metaphysical assumptions?

I told you to look up the problem of induction. You're more interested in arguing with me than learning and growing your mind. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

Go look up the problem of induction. Go look up what I'm talking about. Learn something about em and challenge me on specifics. I'm honestly not interested in making a case for this.

It's like trying to argue for the belief that the earth is round. Or 2+2=4.

Not fun.

I already am aware and versed in that philosophical line of reasoning. Don't try to patronise me, you're not very good at it.
It implies that it is conceivable that might be the case, your statement outright declares it. You seem to think this type of philosophy has an absolute answer in terms of what is and you are sorely mistaken. There is no room for your type of dogma in any philosophical debate. Yes it is true we can never display absolute certainty about any one thing or any one system but to ignore evidence based on that is a ridiculous proposition. If you don't think so feel free to throw away your PC that relies on binary code to carry out its function due to the fact you can't be certain of its continued relevance. The fact of the matter is that the laws its design is based on hold true and continue to do so. Until we encounter a circumstance it does not your argument holds very little sway. If we did encounter such a circumstance it would be the subject of much study which would no doubt require us to re-evaluate our views, which is of course a very reasonable approach. Evalutating things based on the information we do have as opposed to the information we don't.
Mathematics is in no way, shape or form "metaphysical" and if you think so you badly need to look up the definition of metaphysical. Metaphysical is supposedly beyond our realm of reality or our reasoning which mathematics clearly is not, it is present in almost everything we do with self-evident results as is the reasoning by which we use it. Employing the problem of induction does very little to change mathematics definition to one that includes the metaphysical.


Now please stop embarrassing yourself with this rather see-through charade in which you attempt to shamelessly sidetrack the subject and retreat.
Come up with a valid example of a metaphysical assumption science makes. Mathematics is not it.