Terrence Howard on Reality

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

No (if by math we mean an axiomatic system), but that wasn't your question to him originally. Your question to him was specifically about your system where you presented specific operations.

So if a new math can be made consistent. Then why my model can't be made consistent? Just because it doesn't fit into a current system doesn't mean anything. Of course it won't fit. Because everything would have to be readjusted. 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

it's that it's debateble if the current math is the most accurate representation of reality.

So point to us where math is failing to represent reality accurately.

The sun pooping out planets really has nothing to do with inconsistency in math. That's just a different model of how planets form. You don't need to change math to have various models of planet formation.

Edited June 17 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Then why my model can't be made consistent?

I don't know what your model is, but as long as your model isn't defined in a way where you have two mutually exclusive axioms - I think you can create a consistent system.

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

So point to us where math is failing to represent reality accurately.

Imma take one gummy first and then give you an answer 

[josemar]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

1+1=2 (base 10), 1+1=11 (base 2)

So, 2 (base 10) = 11 (base 2)

However, in the same numeral system, they aren't the same.

Have people forgotten that numeral systems exist?

In base 2, 1 + 1 = 10, not 11 😁

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, josemar said:

In base 2, 1 + 1 = 10, not 11 😁

My mistake. Corrected it.

Edited June 17 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

25 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't know what your model is, but as long as your model isn't defined in a way where you have two mutually exclusive axioms - I think you can create a consistent system.

Bingo. 

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So point to us where math is failing to represent reality accurately.

Mmmmm... There is one place in mathematics where when something is undefined, instead of writing 0 or leaving a blank, they write 1. To make math consistent. Maybe the mathematician here could tell you more about it. When I've talked before with a mathematician, he was able to show me how mathematicians invent the number 1 out of completely nowhere. Just to make math consistent. It's debetable that was the only way to solve the inconsistency problem imo. But debetable doesn't mean I'm right. It just means maybe there's a better model out there. 

Edited June 17 by Salvijus

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

All I sayed, it's that it's debateble if the current math is the most accurate representation of reality. I think that's fair thing to say.

You want to transform math to become physics at this point. I don't know why you would want to do that.

Edited June 17 by zurew

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

You want to create physics from math at this point. I don't know why you would want to do that.

Why do anything at all?

[Salvijus]

Just now, zurew said:

You want to create physics from math at this point. I don't know why you would want to do that.

Physics from math? Rather math in alignment with physics. Why not? 

[zurew]

Just now, Yimpa said:

Why do anything at all?

Whats next? Will you guys demand math to give prescription drugs for you?

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Physics from math? Rather math in alignment with physics. Why not? 

You are still confused about this. Some parts of math can be used to describe physical reality but there is much more to math than just describing physical reality.

What do you specifically mean without being vague -   that math isn't in alignment with phyiscs? So far when pushed on this you couldn't deliver anything tangible or of substance.

Edited June 17 by zurew

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

What do you specifically mean without being vague that math isn't in alignment with phyiscs?

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but  x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent. 

Edited June 17 by Salvijus

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but  x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent. 

It exists in God’s mind, and so does the mathematicians. 

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but  x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent. 

x = x,

x = 1*x,

x/x = 1, x != 0

(x^1)*(x^(-1)) = 1, x != 0

x^(1+(-1)) = 1, x != 0

x^0 = 1, x != 0

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but  x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent

wait, do you even know the justification for  x^0=1?

But again even if I  grant you this, this doesnt really mean much to your original statement - the only conclusion follows from is that there are parts of math that cant be mapped onto physical reality, but it doesn't mean that current math is limited for modelling physical reality.

As I already told you math is more than just about describing physical reality.

Edited June 17 by zurew

[Salvijus]

18 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

  x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature

If you have two apples and rise them by the power of 2 you get 2^2=4 apples (makes sense) 

If you have two apples and rise them by the power of 1 you get 2^1 = 2 apples (makes sense) 

If you have 2 apples and rise them by the power of 0 you get 1 apple. (That never happens in real life.)

 

Edited June 17 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

wait, do you even know the justification for  x^0=1?

The answer must be 1 otherwise math won't be consistent. That's the justification. 

[Leo Gura]

I doubt that any finite system can truly be consistent. Such systems are fudged into psusedo-consistency through mental gymnastics and unholistic ways of thinking.

[zurew]

Just now, Salvijus said:

The answer must be 1 otherwise math won't be consistent

(x^n)/(x^n)=x^0=1. This is an easy way to 'prove' it. If you divide a number with its own self you get one - is that different in this physical reality ?