# Thread: The Cosmos and mathematics.

1. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
I see much effort in the justification of a simple decimal quantative filter.
I hope my intellect is not summed up from 0 to 9.
More on this...the digits 0-9 are just symbols for some common integer quantities. There's 10 symbols, which is sufficient for a base-10 positional number system to represent most numbers as a finite string of digits. This is only relevant in mathematics as a way to represent a specific number, however. Mathematics can prove, for example, that n digits in base b can represent b^n different quantities. It doesn't care how you represent b and n. Mathematics can prove that no finite decimal representation can represent 1/3. This doesn't prevent mathematics from handling the quantity 1/3.

People doing arithmetic generally handle base-10 representations of numbers, but they could do so in binary, balanced ternary, using Roman numerals or tally marks, etc. People doing mathematics handle numbers and other more complex concepts symbolically using clearly and unambiguously defined rules and rigorous logical reasoning, and often go quite far doing so without explicitly referring to any specific numbers.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Cjameshuff said that logic is mathematics. Logic is the managment of 'No' , mathematics is the management of numerical representation - two very different contexts.
You can't even begin the simplest mathematical proof or justify mathematical operations without logic, and logic so naturally fits in a mathematical framework that it can only be called a part of mathematics. You can't separate the two.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
I am working on a symbolic system which represents the cosmic sequences observable 'today'.
This will be available soon. And it is non-numerical in its representaion of the physical universe.
Now we're doing science, and science is based on making rigorously defined predictions and then testing them against reality by means of taking measurements. If your theory is "non numerical", how does it make quantitative predictions? If your theory does not yield quantitative predictions, how is it to be tested?

2. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
8
Or see it as an opportunity to tell me your achedemic achievements.
Either way, i can assure, my qualifications are more than sufficient for the said job title.
The location of study is irrelevant and your asking implies a direction ' this place of study is more reputable than that' or similar - hence a somewhat childish direction.

To give you an idea of my backgound, at the age of 16, i was deemed over-qualified in joining many courses i had applied for and within that same year i was working as a private tutor/teacher, teaching people older than me how to program a computer in assembly/machine code.

Now, back to the matter in hand..
As of my 18th year, i have been a private student of Edward De Bono and while picking through the
dogma of this thread, i must defend his standing and just ask that one does a wiki search and check what it is
this man has done for the world.
Those people disputing my definition of mathematics and logic, i would have to assume you are not aware of Edwards work.

In the face of the dogma in this thread, i am borded to continue.
And any man or women who does not face one simple fact - human brains are limited information processing systems, are clearly deluded by the very limitations they deny.

Math is even more limited as it follows -this is logic and that did not rely on any mental numerical process.
Just because something follows does not mean it must take the mental form - 1,2,3. Its just infront behind - this is not maths.

Maths was created out of a desire to order the primitive mind.
As i said, why is there not one human mathematical brain able to explain these 'dark' phenomena via math?
And some offer names in respect of weather forecast models.......
Models follow a limited mind - inaccurate in the first.

Do not use math as a prop for ones intellect.
Lateral thinking is the only way for a brain to escape these restrictions & limitations.

My model will be testable in an appropriate context. Judge one not on their math but on their insights.
Math did not invent the electric motor - math only invents complex open ended formuli.

3. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
As of my 18th year, i have been a private student of Edward De Bono and while picking through the
dogma of this thread, i must defend his standing and just ask that one does a wiki search and check what it is
this man has done for the world.
Sigh. Why do some people insist on referring to the views of of people who disagree with them as "dogma".

I know nothing about this man whose "dogma" you are so keen on. I did a quick search and find he has written some fairly popular books.

Again, could you point us to the scientific research that supports his conclusions?

Those people disputing my definition of mathematics and logic, i would have to assume you are not aware of Edwards work.
I am not aware of his work/dogma. If these are his definitions of mathematics and logic, then I would have to say he is entirely ignorant of these subjects.

Could you provide a reference to his definitions of mathematics and logic?

In the face of the dogma in this thread, i am borded to continue.
In the face of your dogma, I am still willing to continue to engage in a constructive discussion. I am interested in what your replacement for mathematics is and why you are taking so long to tell us about it.

And any man or women who does not face one simple fact - human brains are limited information processing systems, are clearly deluded by the very limitations they deny.
I don't think anyone has denied that humans are limited. If you think they have, could point out where.

Math is even more limited as it follows -this is logic and that did not rely on any mental numerical process.
This does not make much sense, I'm afraid.
- Math is even more limited as it follows : as it follows what?
- this is logic : what is logic?
- did not rely on any mental numerical process : what did not rely on any "mental numerical process"
- and what do "mental numerical process" have to do with mathematics?

Just because something follows does not mean it must take the mental form - 1,2,3.
I'm not sure I understand (follow) your use of the word "follow" here; could you restate what you are trying to say?

Its just infront behind - this is not maths.
If you are defining an ordered sequence than that is mathematics.

Maths was created out of a desire to order the primitive mind.
Probably more accurate to say it was created to describe the world and make predictions. That plus accounting. But I'm not sure the history of mathematics is very relevant.

As i said, why is there not one human mathematical brain able to explain these 'dark' phenomena via math?
If you mean dark matter and dark energy then these only exist as concepts because of mathematics.

And some offer names in respect of weather forecast models.......
Models follow a limited mind - inaccurate in the first.
Of course models are limited. But the point is, you said that weather forcasting is not mathematical. It obviously is.

I assume your model/dogma will be equally limited. Or will you be able to tell us what the weather will be in Tokyo on the 3rd April 2013?

My model will be testable in an appropriate context.
Please stop telling us how great your dogma will be and just tell us what it is.
Last edited by Strange; 2012-May-04 at 02:52 PM. Reason: fixed typos

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,584
Originally Posted by dusthurricane
As of my 18th year, i have been a private student of Edward De Bono and while picking through the
dogma of this thread, i must defend his standing and just ask that one does a wiki search and check what it is
this man has done for the world.
Does this include teaching his private students to argue with appeals to accomplishment?

Those people disputing my definition of mathematics and logic, i would have to assume you are not aware of Edwards work.
Ironically, neither does he, in as far as you are faithfully representing his position, seem to be aware of the existence of actual mathematicians and logicians. I've heard many definitions of mathematics, the study of abstract structure, the study of patterns, the study of formal consistent languages, ... but never "numerical reasoning". Can you cite a source, by an actual mathematician, that defines mathematics as "numerical reasoning"?

And any man or women who does not face one simple fact - human brains are limited information processing systems, are clearly deluded by the very limitations they deny.
I don't think anyone has claimed that human brains have unlimited information processing. And mathematicians in general are very much aware of this. Take the 4-colour theorem, it was the first result proven needing computers because of the enormous amount of processing required. It has even sometimes been said, perhaps rightfully so, that it was the first non-trivial result ever proven.

But you see, this is completely irrelevant. Mathematics has nothing to do with how much information you can process, but with how you approach it.

Maths was created out of a desire to order the primitive mind.
And that statement was created out of a genetic fallacy.

As i said, why is there not one human mathematical brain able to explain these 'dark' phenomena via math?
I suppose you'll just conveniently ignore Strange's post giving you the schwarzschild metric?
As an aside, if it weren't for mathematical models, we wouldn't even know these "dark phenomena" existed in the first place.

Lateral thinking is the only way for a brain to escape these restrictions & limitations.
Psychedelics may be the only way for a brain to escape the restrictions and limitations of reality, doesn't mean i'd want the people designing the nuclear reactor in my town to be on them.

My model will be testable in an appropriate context.
Could you perhaps provide the model? That might be a better way forward.

ETA: i see i got beaten to many of the same points by Strange. I really have to learn to type faster

5. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
As of my 18th year, i have been a private student of Edward De Bono and while picking through the
dogma of this thread, i must defend his standing and just ask that one does a wiki search and check what it is
this man has done for the world.
Those people disputing my definition of mathematics and logic, i would have to assume you are not aware of Edwards work.
If your statements are an accurate representation of his position, he is wrong. Our awareness of his work can't change this.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
And any man or women who does not face one simple fact - human brains are limited information processing systems, are clearly deluded by the very limitations they deny.
Still no evidence. Is a need for evidence one of those limitations?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Math is even more limited as it follows -this is logic and that did not rely on any mental numerical process.
Just because something follows does not mean it must take the mental form - 1,2,3. Its just infront behind - this is not maths.
This got badly garbled and I think some parts are missing, but you appear to be confusing mathematics with counting.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Maths was created out of a desire to order the primitive mind.
Largely as a result of a need to keep track of things, actually. The beginnings of modern mathematics as a field of study came up as an outgrowth of formal logic, however, which better fits your claim.

And despite your assertions, the human mind still needs the constraints of logic. Humans are wildly irrational and highly prone to a variety of different types of reasoning errors.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
As i said, why is there not one human mathematical brain able to explain these 'dark' phenomena via math?
And some offer names in respect of weather forecast models.......
You were already answered...these phenomena are explainable, and in some cases (black holes, for example) were even mathematically predicted before being observed. Weather forecasts in particular are now made with ever-more-sophisticated computer models taking enormous data inputs from across the globe. How's "lateral thinking" going to do any better?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Models follow a limited mind - inaccurate in the first.

Do not use math as a prop for ones intellect.
Lateral thinking is the only way for a brain to escape these restrictions & limitations.
Evidence, please, that "lateral thinking" is anything close to a viable substitute for mathematical/logical reasoning.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
My model will be testable in an appropriate context. Judge one not on their math but on their insights.
Math did not invent the electric motor -
Geometry (a field of mathematics) and mechanics (a field of applied physics) were certainly involved in the construction of the devices Faraday used to determine the law named after him, as well as what existed of electrical theory at the time. Later practical electric motors used quite a bit of mathematics in their design. You can assemble an electric motor without much math, but you couldn't invent one.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
math only invents complex open ended formuli.
Wrong. The mathematical approach has led to the existence of virtually everything around you more complex than a wheel, and one of the main goals in mathematics in fact is to develop tools for simplifying complex concepts to constructs the human mind can reliably work with. While the concepts can be quite complex, the equations are often quite simple. Maxwell's equations, the Schrödinger equation, the Navier–Stokes equations...

6. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
My model will be testable in an appropriate context.

I have a model, too. It says the answer is always 3... in the appropriate units.

I kid, but am concerned that your statement is laying the groundwork for "moving the goalposts" once the model is actually presented.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2006
Posts
1,258
Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Maths was created out of a desire to order the primitive mind.
As i said, why is there not one human mathematical brain able to explain these 'dark' phenomena via math?
And some offer names in respect of weather forecast models.......
Models follow a limited mind - inaccurate in the first.

Do not use math as a prop for ones intellect.
Lateral thinking is the only way for a brain to escape these restrictions & limitations.

My model will be testable in an appropriate context. Judge one not on their math but on their insights.
Math did not invent the electric motor - math only invents complex open ended formuli.
How much of today's technology are you glad exists?

The computer you're using to converse with us? (Even an abacus employs mathematics.)
The power grid?
The satellites we use for worldwide communications, navigation, etc.?
Human and robotic exploration of the Moon, Mars, etc.?
Complex medical procedures?
The aircraft you travel on and its infrastructure?
The automobile?
All forms of architecture?
All manufacturing with any degree of complexity?
and on and on and on......

Or are you and your mentor against modern technology? I ask that because I don't see how any of the above achievements could exist without mathematics. We already employ lateral thinking in concept analysis, brainstorming, etc., where its use is appropriate. Inventors use lateral thinking to envision a better mousetrap; then use mathematics (with some lateral thinking still involved) when designing and building (and financing) it. Of course lateral thinking has value and probably is not used sometimes when it should be but entirely replace mathematics with it? Are you really seriously proposing that?

8. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2006
Posts
1,258
Dusthurricane, I want to add this: I've seen it before and I'm seeing it again here, where a concept that may have some merit is elevated to the status of being the holy grail of human thought and activity. Many pieces make up the puzzle called the human mind. In my 74 years, I have seen no single magic elixer for how we should think.

The best we can do as individuals is to be well-informed in the many philosophies claiming to have the answers and then incorporate aspects of them appropriately into our lives. This is one of them -- worthy of consideration as an aid to living but not as a cure-all for human limitation.

So please drop the quasi-religious fervor and present your model for improved creativity and problem-solving.

9. Originally Posted by Luckmeister
then use mathematics (with some lateral thinking still involved)
This is an important point. Lateral thinking is an important skill in actually doing mathematics (including logic), in working out ways of making a problem tractable and finding effective approaches. Mathematics in no way prevents you from using lateral thinking, in fact it exercises that ability.

The logical rigor of mathematics in turn makes it possible to avoid many, many traps of human intuition and informal reasoning. People are prone to many mental biases, flaws, and shortcuts. dusthurricane, if we have somehow "outgrown" the need for the formal framework of mathematics, how do you account for the entries on this list?

10. Good points. It could be argued that mathematics has extended the ability of human reason some way beyond the inherent limitations of the human mind. (Quite the reverse of the OP's dogma.) That is what makes it such a powerful tool.

11. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
To give you an idea of my backgound, at the age of 16, i was deemed over-qualified in joining many courses i had applied for and within that same year i was working as a private tutor/teacher, teaching people older than me how to program a computer in assembly/machine code.
So? Is this intended to sound impressive? Because it isn't, really. Unless you can somehow be more specific, programming in assembly or machine code isn't difficult. Just tedious. Especially if you're a young kid, learning quickly, and not having to unlearn other methods of problem solving.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
human brains are limited information processing systems, are clearly deluded by the very limitations they deny.
You ignored my question last time I asked it.. What is it that exempts De Bono's brains from this limitation? Or the other way around: if De Bono's brain has the same limitations as every other human, why should we pay more attention to what comes from his mind, than from countless mathematicians?

12. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
8
Like flies ( no offence ) in the mathematical web.

I have no time for maths when i employ creative/lateral thinking. It is a hinderance.
Idea conception/visualization - i do not use math during this phase.
I will sure need math when i design an electronic device. The component device characteristics must be respected and we do this by making calculations around the circuit - i wish everybody would stop tying to tell me the importance of math - i am fully aware.

Out of interest, has anyone in this conversation actually designed and constructed a hi-tech electronic device with ones own help & hands? It entails much arithmatic let me assure you.

I only make the point that maths has its limitations when solving problems.
It really struggles with serious astronomical questions.

I will release my model/system when it is ready. Details are missing.

However, i did present a top level down to a star 'cause and effect' question -

the symbolic model did generate an interesting result:
( my model relies on symbols representing objects in the hierachy of a finite universe with a central 'master pivot')

The master pivot is a crystal and is subject to a form of 'tectonics' causing cracks.

In the cracks are the next objects down - galaxies forming from the gas released during the cracking. ( magnetism was the clear winner in the cause of the formation of a galaxy - loops streching out from the crystal walls.)

Then stars - the model suggests stars migrate from the centre of the spiral lane where magnetic loops are not sufficient to lock the stars in. The jets we see are in fact the edge of a magnetic loop.( same principle for galactic jets). All solar systems ,it predicts , form in the spiral lane.

The inner galactic core spins in the opposite direction to the arms. The dense magnetic loops in the centre lock the star units in place. The model excludes planets from central galactic star systems.

The magnetism starts at the crystal and propogates between the cracks .

13. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,052
OK, well now you need to take that model and put it into a mathematical framework so that

a) you can make testable, numerical predictions
b) other people can understand the ideas and logic behind it

Because I just read that and it made no sense at all to me. It seems to rely on your personal mental pictures, have a lot of arbitrary cause and effect loops in it and so on. Maths, to me, is largely about communication. A model, some diagrams, some equations - the rules for interpreting them are simple, clear and internally consistent. What goes on in one person's head is rarely so easy to communicate.

14. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
I have no time for maths when i employ creative/lateral thinking. It is a hinderance.
Idea conception/visualization - i do not use math during this phase.
I will sure need math when i design an electronic device. The component device characteristics must be respected and we do this by making calculations around the circuit - i wish everybody would stop tying to tell me the importance of math - i am fully aware.
People keep trying to tell you because it's clear you don't truly understand it, as illustrated by this post.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Out of interest, has anyone in this conversation actually designed and constructed a hi-tech electronic device with ones own help & hands? It entails much arithmatic let me assure you.
Yes, I have. Your "less limited" approach would not get you very far. Why not? Why do you have to use an outdated mode of thinking like mathematics in order to design complex machines? If "lateral thinking" can replace mathematics for cosmology, why can't it do so for electronics?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
I only make the point that maths has its limitations when solving problems.
It really struggles with serious astronomical questions.
Like what? Why?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
However, i did present a top level down to a star 'cause and effect' question -
You've got very little in the way of cause and effect here, you've just spun out a series of vague claims that things are a certain way. At least some are testable...unfortunately for you, they are in severe conflict with observation.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
the symbolic model did generate an interesting result:
( my model relies on symbols representing objects in the hierachy of a finite universe with a central 'master pivot')

The master pivot is a crystal and is subject to a form of 'tectonics' causing cracks.
It's difficult to see what you're getting at here. Are you claiming there is a literal giant crystal somewhere in the universe emitting galaxy-forming gases from cracks? Where did this thing come from and why does it do this? What is it made of and why hasn't it collapsed under its own gravity? Why can't we see it or any signs of its presence, while easily being able to observe the galaxies that you claim formed around it?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
In the cracks are the next objects down - galaxies forming from the gas released during the cracking. ( magnetism was the clear winner in the cause of the formation of a galaxy - loops streching out from the crystal walls.)
Well, you've got a problem here, because we can actually measure interstellar magnetic fields using effects like faraday rotation, cyclotron radiation, etc. Such large and strong magnetic fields would have unmistakeable effects that aren't observed, and wouldn't come close to accounting for star motions in any case. And what about gravitation?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Then stars - the model suggests stars migrate from the centre of the spiral lane where magnetic loops are not sufficient to lock the stars in. The jets we see are in fact the edge of a magnetic loop.( same principle for galactic jets). All solar systems ,it predicts , form in the spiral lane.

The inner galactic core spins in the opposite direction to the arms. The dense magnetic loops in the centre lock the star units in place. The model excludes planets from central galactic star systems.
In reality, galactic cores don't do that. Again, we have actual measurements...such motion would be clearly apparent by doppler effects. And what mechanism do you have for for "dense magnetic loops" "locking" stars in position? And why does it exclude planets from these systems? Planets in the solar system aren't particularly influenced by the ambient magnetic fields, so what's different in star systems there?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
The magnetism starts at the crystal and propogates between the cracks .
...what?

Frankly, your "more appropriate system" appears to be "make stuff up". While this approach is quite unrestrictive to the person telling the tale, it is not at all new and is in fact quite limited in actually explaining the universe. What makes you think any of this has any sort of correspondence with reality?

15. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
the symbolic model did generate an interesting result:
( my model relies on symbols representing objects in the hierachy of a finite universe with a central 'master pivot')

The master pivot is a crystal and is subject to a form of 'tectonics' causing cracks.

In the cracks are the next objects down - galaxies forming from the gas released during the cracking. ( magnetism was the clear winner in the cause of the formation of a galaxy - loops streching out from the crystal walls.)

Then stars - the model suggests stars migrate from the centre of the spiral lane where magnetic loops are not sufficient to lock the stars in. The jets we see are in fact the edge of a magnetic loop.( same principle for galactic jets). All solar systems ,it predicts , form in the spiral lane.
[snip]
What evidence are your claims based on and how do you plan to test your claims? Are you claiming you don't need any quantitative evidence? What is your background in physics, astronomy and cosmology?

16. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
I have no time for maths when i employ creative/lateral thinking. It is a hinderance.
Idea conception/visualization - i do not use math during this phase.
I will sure need math when i design an electronic device. The component device characteristics must be respected and we do this by making calculations around the circuit - i wish everybody would stop tying to tell me the importance of math - i am fully aware.
No one is saying that mathematics is the only way of solving problems. That is fairly obviously not true. This is a "straw man" and, as such, a very weak form of argument.

This whole rant isn't a variation of the old "scientists need to be more creative" trope is it? That is an equaly wrong idea that comes up pretty frequently (scientists, obviously, are extrememely creative).

Out of interest, has anyone in this conversation actually designed and constructed a hi-tech electronic device with ones own help & hands? It entails much arithmatic let me assure you.
Yes. You may have used some of the microprocessors I have designed. "Arithmetic"? I thought we were talking about mathematics. You do know the difference don't you?

I only make the point that maths has its limitations when solving problems.
Has anyone denied that? Another straw man.

It really struggles with serious astronomical questions.
As this is one of the areas where it works really well, perhaps you could provide an example where it "struggles"?

my model/system ...
Any such model, however lateral/creative/novel must in some way represent the real world in order to be useful.

The only way of testing whether your (or any other) model is relevant and/or correct is by making quantitative comparisons. Guess what that requires.

We have seen an awful lot of such models here. Nearly all of them are presented as "word pictures". We need some way to decide between all these different ideas - after all they can't all be right. Why should we consider yours over all these others? We wouldn't want to dismiss them all out of hand (that wouldn't be very "scientific" would it). The trouble is that it is unclear how such "lateral" ideas can be compared to anything in the real world. Because they lack a vital ingredient: mathematics.

17. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
8
slang , one minute people are asking me for childish justifications regarding my background, the next people such as yourself are being obtrusive and rude when i offer more detail on my background.

I do not say it to impress - i was asked, so stop your inappropriate behaviour.
And, fyi, living in a big city as a child you would have thought ( as you intimated ) i would have come accross
lots of kids in the 80's who program computers in machine code. slang, i don't recall any... not one - had that
been the case my teachers and peers would not have asked - how do you do that ?'

strange said - Yes. You may have used some of the microprocessors I have designed. "Arithmetic"? I thought we were talking about mathematics. You do know the difference don't you?

Did you design the early 6502 cpu? Did you play a part in the design of the x86 series?

Again, mathematics is a simple system. Zero through nine along with x,/,+,- are the only symbols one needs to grasp.
As i said to begin with - do not prop up ones intellect by using math.
Math is so simple a child can learn it with ease.

You may wish to dress math up with square roots and exponents. I see it for what it is:-
Limited due to the fact that the cosmos is not quantifiable. Likewise with the Brain neuron configuration.

Slang, your question will be answered in good time - calm down.
In respect of Edwards brain being limited also. He is human if you take the time to find out so must therefore
have a human limited brain.
All that impatience for a superfluous question.
The one thing that sets people appart is not mathematic ability but intelligence. This can help break limitations.
If you try, you may find it beyond all that mathematical rubble.
This is why i pay much attention to Edward De Bono - many world famous people/organisations, employ his model(s) everyday so i think i will listen to intellect.

To finish, i did not state my model 'outputs' the truth. I reported the output and that is that.

18. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
slang , one minute people are asking me for childish justifications regarding my background, the next people such as yourself are being obtrusive and rude when i offer more detail on my background.

I do not say it to impress - i was asked, so stop your inappropriate behaviour.
OK, full stop, everyone, before this gets out of hand.

dusthurricane was asked about his background and that has been answered; I think we have covered this and I don't want to see any more discussion from either side about it, it is becoming a serious distraction.

Second, dusthurricane, I have not see anyone being rude or inappropriate, however, it is possible I missed something. It is not appropriate for you to respond to that in thread or to bring it up. The appropriate response is to use the Report function - go to the inappropriate post, click on the black triangle in the lower left corner with the !, and describe what the problem is - the moderators will deal with it, not you.

Third, dusthurricane, you need to start seriously presenting your actual model, some actual evidence for it, and answering direct questions that have been put to you about it. If you model isn't ready, then maybe this thread will need to close until it is. It would also be very useful if you learned how to use the quote function - all you have to do is go to the post you wish to respond to and in the lower right click "Reply With Quote"

19. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Again, mathematics is a simple system. Zero through nine along with x,/,+,- are the only symbols one needs to grasp.
Once again...that's elementary arithmetic, which is only one minor branch of mathematics...and not even that if you treat it as a bunch of procedures learned by rote memorization. At any rate, it's not very relevant to physics, and certainly doesn't sum up mathematics.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
As i said to begin with - do not prop up ones intellect by using math.
Math is so simple a child can learn it with ease.
Why should we listen to your opinion on mathematics when you not only don't even know what it is, but actively refuse education on the subject?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
You may wish to dress math up with square roots and exponents. I see it for what it is:-
Limited due to the fact that the cosmos is not quantifiable. Likewise with the Brain neuron configuration.
Once again...do you have evidence? What justification can you possibly have for this claim?

And the existence and utility of artificial neural networks serves as a counterexample to your claim that they are somehow unquantifiable.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
To finish, i did not state my model 'outputs' the truth. I reported the output and that is that.
You "reported" a bunch of handwaving nonsense any child could have made up, with no internal consistency and no sign of a supporting framework of knowledge and reasoning. You're going to need to do a lot better than that.

1. Given the continued success of mathematics in describing the universe, why should we abandon it? What does it matter how old it is?
2. Your actual focus appears to be on arithmetic. Logic is at least as old, and much more closely fits your claim of something created from a "desire to order the primitive mind". Why abandon mathematics due to its age, but not logic?
3. What can replace it? How can you give quantitative predictions with a non-mathematical model? How can lateral thinking possibly serve as any sort of replacement for mathematics? (as above, your given "output" does not at all qualify)
4. You've claimed evolution of new mental capabilities over the last few thousand years that make mathematics unnecessary. Where is the evidence of this?
5. Related to the above, how do you account for the entries on this list?
6. You have claimed weather forecasting supports your position. Weather forecasts use ensembles of mathematical models that require supercomputers to run and which give accurate predictions on a global scale up to 10 days out, limited largely by our ability to gather precise and high-resolution data to feed into the models. How can "lateral thinking" do better?
7. Why does designing complex machines require you to use what you claim is an outdated mode of thinking? If "lateral thinking" can replace mathematics for cosmology, why can't it do so for electronics?
8. What evidence do you have that the cosmos is not quantifiable? At what scale does it stop following physical laws?

20. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,052
Zero through nine along with x,/,+,- are the only symbols one needs to grasp.
Missing the point of mathematics quite dramatically there. It is rather like saying that in order for me to speak French I just need to know some of the alphabet. Mathematics is all about the relationships between those symbols, it is a set of rules and a syntax to enable a form of symbolic logic that is highly formalised to the point that computers and other procedural systems can easily manipulate the symbols.

21. Originally Posted by Swift
OK, full stop, everyone, before this gets out of hand.

dusthurricane was asked about his background and that has been answered; I think we have covered this and I don't want to see any more discussion from either side about it, it is becoming a serious distraction.
Sorry, I came into the discussion late, and I didn't see where on-topic background had been discussed.

22. I would still like answers to these questions:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn
What evidence are your claims based on and how do you plan to test your claims? Are you claiming you don't need any quantitative evidence?
dusthurricane, I don't see how you get from existing evidence to the claims that have been made, and no matter how you came up with the claims, you would be expected to show how you could test and support your claims.

23. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
And, fyi, living in a big city as a child you would have thought ( as you intimated ) i would have come accross
lots of kids in the 80's who program computers in machine code. slang, i don't recall any... not one - had that
been the case my teachers and peers would not have asked - how do you do that ?'

<snip>

Again, mathematics is a simple system. Zero through nine along with x,/,+,- are the only symbols one needs to grasp.
As i said to begin with - do not prop up ones intellect by using math.
Math is so simple a child can learn it with ease.
If zero through 9 are the only symbols one needs to grasp, how did you manage machine code which extends the symbols so that they run from 0 to F ?

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
Swift, i remember some years ago, Horizon covered the big bang and in America, they have a 'city' dedicated to big bang work where a number of scientists were each working on a model. One or two of these scientists did say mathematics is not the way to go.
I happen to have copies of quite a lot of Horizon programs dating back to the early 1980s.
The only one I have which relates directly to the big bang was an episode called "of big bangs, stick men and galactic holes" from 1991. I have just reviewed this program and have found nothing to justify your claims.

There were several scientists interviewed or quoted during the program including :
Carlos Frenk (Durham University)
Richard Ellis (Durham)
John Hoptra (Harvard)
Margaret Keller (Harvard)
Mark Davis (Berkeley)
Simon White (Berkeley)
George Efstathiou (Oxford)
Will Saunders (Oxford)
Bernard Carr (Queen Mary & Westfield College)
Peter Smith (Rutherford Appleton Lab)
Fred Hoyle (Cardiff University)
Chandra Wickramasinghe (Cardiff)

Not one of these people said that "mathematics is not the way to go".

Further, that statement was not mentioned in any way, shape or form in the entire program. The closest one could get to such a statement was something said by Carlos Frenk, when he stated that questions relating to a time before the big bang could not be answered at this time by conventional physics, and so they were confined to the realm of metaphysics.

Your statement that there is/was a city dedicated to big bang work was also not supported in the program. Various scientists met in various locations at various times to exchange ideas and data, but this is not unusual in science.

You should also bear in mind that Horizon, while being informative on scientific subjects, does not show the intense background activity that leads to the discovery of physical laws and development of scientific theories. To suggest it hasn't happened would be wrong. Being from a computing background, you should remember the old saying - "nothing is more convincing than a sufficiently rigged demo". This is not to say that things don't work as described, just that to the layman, a decent graphical demonstration is enough to get the concept across.

24. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
8
Originally Posted by cjameshuff
Once again...that's elementary arithmetic, which is only one minor branch of mathematics...and not even that if you treat it as a bunch of procedures learned by rote memorization. At any rate, it's not very relevant to physics, and certainly doesn't sum up mathematics.

Why should we listen to your opinion on mathematics when you not only don't even know what it is, but actively refuse education on the subject?

Once again...do you have evidence? What justification can you possibly have for this claim?

And the existence and utility of artificial neural networks serves as a counterexample to your claim that they are somehow unquantifiable.

You "reported" a bunch of handwaving nonsense any child could have made up, with no internal consistency and no sign of a supporting framework of knowledge and reasoning. You're going to need to do a lot better than that.

1. Given the continued success of mathematics in describing the universe, why should we abandon it? What does it matter how old it is?
2. Your actual focus appears to be on arithmetic. Logic is at least as old, and much more closely fits your claim of something created from a "desire to order the primitive mind". Why abandon mathematics due to its age, but not logic?
3. What can replace it? How can you give quantitative predictions with a non-mathematical model? How can lateral thinking possibly serve as any sort of replacement for mathematics? (as above, your given "output" does not at all qualify)
4. You've claimed evolution of new mental capabilities over the last few thousand years that make mathematics unnecessary. Where is the evidence of this?
5. Related to the above, how do you account for the entries on this list?
6. You have claimed weather forecasting supports your position. Weather forecasts use ensembles of mathematical models that require supercomputers to run and which give accurate predictions on a global scale up to 10 days out, limited largely by our ability to gather precise and high-resolution data to feed into the models. How can "lateral thinking" do better?
7. Why does designing complex machines require you to use what you claim is an outdated mode of thinking? If "lateral thinking" can replace mathematics for cosmology, why can't it do so for electronics?
8. What evidence do you have that the cosmos is not quantifiable? At what scale does it stop following physical laws?

Your questions - perhaps one should learn how to count - there are 13 questions, not eight.

Your questions - perhaps one should learn how to count - there are 13 questions, not eight.

1) why abandon - parsimony.

And if continued success, why was this letter sent out to the scientific community?
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Is math lacking solutions ?
But you state it has continued success - please list the pertaining phenomena.

2) It matters how old it is because of evolution - it is a superfluous question because i have covered this in a response.
Another attempt to waste my time. I have explained how the brain is bound by maths hence halting our progress.

Will you please explain via math, the local conditions prior to the big bang happening 'there'?
And, the mathematic model explaining the reason for the big bang event itself?

3) Regarding logic, logic is to do with 'no' not '0' - are you confusing natural logic with boolean logic? - very different.
Again, superfluous . I have covered this above. Please stop recycling questions.

4) It will be replaced by a new thinking model. The textbooks will be rewritten. Do not enquire as to the whats and the whens. Evolution takes time. Has it occured to you that to 'feel' one does not rely on math.
The cosmos is the same - i feel when i look at the stars - the new model will be emotional to a degree.
If nature intended us to 'feel' then this must follow for the cosmos - a universal emotion as such.

5) quantitative predictions are based on filtering out most of the information.
Similar to digital audio analogy - highert sample rate / bit rate - more accurate representation.
So we see the effect quantizing has on information.
A better approach would be a 'pictorial representation' model - this works well for pattern establishment.

6) Lateral thinking replacing maths - why, should it need to?
If people took note - i said i use lateral thinking during the initial phase of idea development.
My model was developed with the use of lateral thinking - does not mean it forms part of the models functionality.
If one uses a boat to cross a river , does one carry the boat inland also.

7) Evidence for mental development ....evolution. mmmmm....
do you think brains do not evolve ? Anyway the answer is 'me'.

8) How do i account. I account for a simple reason... new cosmological phenomea are popping up every other day.
Mathematics if failing to address these phenomena. This is proven by my first entry of this list
Many billions of pounds are being thrown at this big bang model - for what i ask in light of all the contrary evidence.

One question for you - do you support the big bang model and if so why?

9) Weather forecasting - you supply 2nd hand information. I do not argue the forecasting process.
I argue the method. Nature is not predicted by decimal stupor.
Lateral thinking... again you assume it as a replacement. Where do i state it should be used as a replaement?

10) Complex machines you say. I say all primative technology. Hardly moved on from the mindset of the steam engine.
All your mathematical power has afforded us what ?
An aminal approach to discovery and then apply math for a better understand of the discovery.
Animal approach being - how do we get the nut out of the shell? Could a monkey do this?
This is also the human method of problem solving. E.g.
Steam power - brute force method.
guns and weaponary - brute force method.
Petrol engine - brute force method.
Necleur energy - need i say.

Electricity is the same - a magnetic force is discovered to induce electron flow accross/within a conductor.
So rather than understand the magnetic energy - brute force methods are adopted the induce electron flow.
Today, all our technological progress can be summed up by the above. The system is fixed and follows brute force
methodology. Even atomic particles are under brute force bombardment to this day. And their little brains
do not even understand - they are destroying the very thing which they wish to observe - futile.

So, math is build on top of this poor foundation.

11) Because electronics relies on math for predictable behaviour of componets within the system.
Electronics is manmade - the cosmos/nature is not. Simple logic, yet you feel the need to ask.
You are again recycling questions i have covered above.

12) Evidence it is not quantifiable? Because quanifiable implies human intervention. The cosmos created man.

What right does man have to impose his rules on the cosmos?

13) You mean physical laws invented by humans - these, i am sure have no resemblance to true cosmic laws.

Can you supply some math evidence to me , explaining the recent finding of water in the sunspots of our star?

And one last question from myself

Do you have a math model explaining how the brain functions on a neural level with regard to maths itself?

and.....

You "reported" a bunch of handwaving nonsense any child could have made up, with no internal consistency and no sign of a supporting framework of knowledge and reasoning. You're going to need to do a lot better than that.

And you need to learn how to count and stop recycling questions for the sake of an egotistical platform.

25. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
8
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
I would still like answers to these questions:

dusthurricane, I don't see how you get from existing evidence to the claims that have been made, and no matter how you came up with the claims, you would be expected to show how you could test and support your claims.

It does not follow that theory relies on math to be a theory of truth and substance.

I will also ask you, if math has all the answers - please describe via a mathematical model, the local conditions of where the big bang took place prior to the event ?

My model employs a non-mathematical orbital law - based on natures law, not human.

My model treats rotation as the primary cause of magnetism which is the primary propogated energy throughout the cosmos.
'space' conducts all electrical charge from bodies, back to the crack where it is dissipated. Magnetism propogates with no hinderance from space.

The crystal rotates - the birthplace of all magnetism.

Star formation - my theory puts all solar systems near the galactic centre, at birth. The arms are solar transport mechanisms. The galactic cores magnetic loops cut through gas clouds here ( hence the jets ) forming star systems.

Galaxy formation - the same principle. Within the cracks is the source of all hydrogen which gets caught up in the
high magnitude magnetic loops, coming from the crystal walls. The crystal 'quakes', release giant volumes of gas and turbulant energy also.

My model is a pure alternative to the bigbang - a seed crystal dropped into a multiverses ocean.

Yes , this is a theory. Please do not ask for quantitive analysis ? Observation will prove me correct or the contrary.

I am happy for the thread to close. I shall post a new thread when i have more.
I appologise to the moderator for my earlier conduct and thankyou for the portal.

26. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
1) why abandon - parsimony.

And if continued success, why was this letter sent out to the scientific community?
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Is math lacking solutions ?
But you state it has continued success - please list the pertaining phenomena.
Oh, just little things like THE COMPUTER YOU'RE TYPING THIS ON! The mathematical approach is responsible for effectively everything more sophisticated than stone age technology.

You have answered none of my questions satisfactorily. You have explained nothing substantial, and simply responded with more unsupported claims and bizarre fantasies that, so far as they have any discernible relationship to reality, are often in direct contradiction to observations. You've just confirmed again that your "more appropriate system" is nothing more than "just make stuff up", with no predictive or explanatory power whatsoever. That's not logic or lateral thinking, and it has no relationship with science of any sort. It's not even good fiction.

Originally Posted by dusthurricane
10) Complex machines you say. I say all primative technology.
And you say so on a global computer network full of machines executing billions of instructions per second, with satellites orbiting overhead and space probes on their way out of the solar system, all done with "primitive" technology designed using mathematics, while you can't even sharpen a stick with what you've got!

27. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
... I shall post a new thread when i have more. ...
No, you get one kick at the can. Any new thread needs to be substantially different or new.

28. Originally Posted by dusthurricane
It does not follow that theory relies on math to be a theory of truth and substance.
What's your alternative? How do you test your claims without using math? What established scientific theories can you name where math plays no role?

I didn't say math has all the answers. However, it is an extremely important tool and I don't see how you could avoid math if you wish to validate your claims, so I'm asking you what your alternative is.

My model employs a non-mathematical orbital law - based on natures law, not human.
That appears to be an unsupported assertion.

My model treats rotation as the primary cause of magnetism which is the primary propogated energy throughout the cosmos.
How do you measure rotation? How did you tie it to magnetism? How do you measure energy propagation?

'space' conducts all electrical charge from bodies, back to the crack where it is dissipated.
"Conduction" based on what? What crack? What's your observational evidence?

Magnetism propogates with no hinderance from space.
How did you determine this?

The crystal rotates - the birthplace of all magnetism.

Star formation - my theory puts all solar systems near the galactic centre, at birth.
Why? Do you have any supporting evidence? By "galaxy" and "star" do you accept conventional definitions, or do you mean something different?

I think I'll stop here with the specific questions because it isn't clear to me that you're using terms conventionally, so I don't know if we even are discussing the same concepts (like that "crystal" argument), you haven't established any supporting evidence or even how you expect to test your claims, and my questions are all going to be about the same (like "What's your evidence?" "How do you define this?" or "How will you test this?").

Yes , this is a theory. Please do not ask for quantitive analysis ? Observation will prove me correct or the contrary.
I will ask, though, how do you think observation could prove you correct without any quantitative analysis? What useful non-quantitative observation do you think can be done?

29. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2006
Posts
1,258
Dusthurricane, I have gone back and reread every post in this thread. You started off by proposing your idea specifically for cosmology and then it became a discussion of how it affects all thinking. I feel we should narrow the discussion to just what was stated in your posts #1 and 7 because I think you got in way over your head by expanding it beyond that.

I hope you will address Van Rijn's cosmological questions in post #58.

30. As Van Rijn points out you are providing no evidence to support your assertions. Please take some time to read the rules for posting in this forum and the advice for ATM Posters, both linked at the bottom of this post.

By starting this thread you are undertaking to provide support and evidence for your claims and answer questions.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•