So...guess I'm the new guy

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

---

See the part I bolded? That's the important part. Repeatability is NOT a measure of validity.

You might observe 100 white swans every time you look at a lake. You may observe one million white swans every time you look across a lake. You may observe a quadrillion white swans wading across a hypothetical lake.

But that IN NO WAY justifies an assumption that the very next swan will be white, nor does it justify an assumption that there are only white swans in the universe.

This is precisely the problem I am referring to. The problem of induction. Look it up.

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.