Moral Absolutism your opinion?

[Max™]

I didn't say you put the equals sign between them.

I meant it like this.

Mathematics ... Physics ... = The Universe

I started from the right side, and have been working to the left towards pure mathematics.

I assume that you are coming into physics from the side of a mathematics background.

I envy your ability to manipulate equations as naturally as I can see what the limited equations used in physics represent about the Universe.

[Kaylia]

So, you went from statement involving the implication of sciences toward mathematics, to the inclusion of the universe as a subset of mathematics to:
"Mathematics ... Physics ... = The Universe"?

This last statement mean absolutely nothing, which is fine, since I don't believe it's possible to say anything about the universe


In your last statement, were you trying to say that the function U with mathematics and physics as parameter give the universe, or something along these lines?
U(m,p) -> universe

as naturally as I can see what the limited equations used in physics represent about the Universe.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here?

[Max™]

You can see how to manipulate equations and solve them in a manner which I truthfully am in awe of.

I can see a riemannian curvature tensor and tell the shape of the spacetime it is applied against, and thus infer the mass of the body which caused that curvature on spacetime.

It is where my "knack" lies.


I see from my studies of the Universe on the right side of the equals sign, the area near on the left side is physics, with a hazy cloud of philosophy floating around it.

Then as you dig deeper into understanding, you move through the other sciences towards a final theory of all, a theory of everything, which describes everything in physics.

What lies beyond that, is pure mathematics.

What lies beneath it, is pure mathematics.

It is there above and below anything we do, there is math out there, in there, on there.

Is perhaps the ultimate definition of physics, the one that sidles right up next to the equals sign, the one which says that everything is just math?

I think it would be a wonderful day. Max wouldn't be a name, it would be a description of a set with unassigned bounds!

I'm working on this, but it is still in a rough form, so I don't share it much.

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...imethreads.jpg

[Kaylia]

I'm godawful in mathematics btw, that's why I'm taking so many maths classes lately.


I don't know what you see in your head, but unless we can communicate using the same language (and mathematics is the only proper language for this kind of discussion), it's kinda pointless. I wish you good luck on your theory of everything, but I'm very doubtful it can happen. Even if you build such model, you will never be able to prove that it is indeed everything, and explain why this structured emerged over another.


About your maths, I will read that tomorrow and try to understand what kind of structure is implied through this. I don't see it atm, and I need to complete this paper.

[Max™]

A grid of spatial threads.

Gl on the paper, don't slack off in class!

[Aurara]

god dammit, what have i started -__-; this isnt even close to moral absolutes anymore ;;. Regardless, they dont exist because they cant since we aren't a perfect society :3

[Cantih]

perfect society

Society is comprised of people. Imperfection is part of the definition of human.

[bechyni]

perfect society= end of the world

[Kaylia]

Imperfection is part of the definition of human.
perfect society= end of the world

How, why?

[Kuya]

Why are humans imperfect? In relation to what?

[Maguspk]

I love reading these threads so much, always gets me to think of things in totally new ways. Credit to Max, Kaylia and Zosi.

[Kaylia]

^
I'm impressed that someone bothered reading the wall of text in this thread. I know I wouldn't if they weren't directed at me.

Or maybe it was a sarcasm that went above my head? They tend to do that a lot lately.

Why are humans imperfect? In relation to what?

In relation to perfection, if we want to remain on the topic of circular definition.

[Max™]

I never caught this before, which should be an example of how strange my mathematical background is.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/...dEquation9.gif

That still blows my fucking mind the way that works out.

[Kaylia]

I never caught this before, which should be an example of how strange my mathematical background is.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/...dEquation9.gif

That still blows my fucking mind the way that works out.

e^(iy) = cos(y) + isin(y)
e^(iPi) + 1 = cos(Pi) + isin(Pi) +1 = -1 + 0 +1 = 1

For the same reason,
e^(i0) = 1
e^(iPi/2) = i


It's the geometric structure we built with complex number. Y is an angle, it's not that surprising we get a "-1" when the angle is Pi.

[Max™]

Yeah, but it never even occurred to me to consider it that way before, so the relationship is like "whoa" still when I see it written out.

Funnily, my girlfriend helped me get a handle on complex numbers, she said "oh, it's like going another direction from the number line"... I was like 'well der Max', clicked fine then.

[Kaylia]

I don't know...it didn't make me go "whoa" more than i²+1=0. That said, if you could find a similar relation with e^(Pi), Pi^e, it would be more interesting.

I'm not sure if you know, but complex number get much less interesting when you start seeing them as R² with a different addition and multiplication operation

In a rigorous setting, it is not acceptable to simply assume that there exists a number whose square is −1. There are various ways of defining C, building on the knowledge of real numbers. Firstly, write C for R2, the set of ordered pairs of real numbers, and define operations on complex numbers in C according to

(a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d)
(a, b)·(c, d) = (a·c − b·d, b·c + a·d)
It is then just a matter of notation to express (a, b) as a + ib. This means we can associate the numbers (a, 0) with the real numbers, and write i = (0, 1). Since (0, 1)·(0, 1) = (−1, 0), we have found i by constructing it, not postulating it. Using these formal operations on R2, it is easy to check that we satisfy the field axioms (associativity, commutativity, identity, inverses, distributivity). In particular, R is a subfield of C.

Though this low-level construction does accurately describe the structure of the complex numbers, the definitions seem arbitrary, so secondly C can be considered algebraically. In algebra (the theory of group-like structures), this explicit definition of operations in fact turns out to be the mechanism behind the idea of constructing the algebraic closure of the reals, that is, adding in some elements to R to make a new field, of which R is a subfield, where every non-constant polynomial has a root. Finally, yet another way of characterising C is in terms of its topological properties. Details of these are given below.

[Max™]

Yeah, I did notice that.

Quaternion's got interesting all over again though, but even that just works out as a way to do math on vectors.

[Kaylia]

I never used quaternion, but isn't it just a redefined R^4

[Max™]

It's sort of like adding two more imaginary axis to the number line, except they facilitate rotation of vectors in a really interesting manner.

Quaternion -- from Wolfram MathWorld

[Aurara]

wish i could understand maths better @@; only in triganometry atm...so mmost of what you're saying is going over my head(that and im taking biology instead of physics)