Andromeda Galaxy 3 Times Bigger than Thought

[Gonz]

Because it's not 5.

The singularity allows for creation. Since all non M-theory physics stops there.

 

[BeardofPants]

You wouldn't be carbon dating universes - carbon dating only dates back as far as approximately 60,000 years BP. Sorry, sorry, it had to be said.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I do not know why, it think it is just one of those evident truths or axiom. Do you know why?

Because I can count.

 

[chcr]

Because it's not 5.

The singularity allows for creation. Since all non M-theory physics stops there.

No, it doesn't. The equations to describe it start using what we (for lack of a better description) call imaginary numbers. Our understanding is incomplete, but that doesn't mean the physics stops, just that we don't understand it yet.

Because I can count.

Okay, what comes after three?
Four.
Why?

That's what I mean. There is a why, there has to be. If you'd been taught Roman istead of Arabic notation it'd be IV, but it's still four. If we had an extra finger on each hand everything would be in base 12.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Why does 4 come after 3?

A. God said so.

B. Because it would be silly if it came before 3 since it's 1 more than 3.

C. Because they hadn't conceived of five yet.

Three shalt thou count to, and the number of the counting shall be three. Count thou not to four, but to three. Do not count to two, except to proceed directly on to three. Five is right out.

 

[Luis G]

That's what I mean. There is a why, there has to be.

There is no why, seriously. The only possible explanation I can think of is that we choose to name 4 the number following 3, and that's it. If we had associated the symbol 5 with the quantity four, then two plus two would be 5. But I bet that's as far as it goes.

In epistemology, an axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up. Not all epistemologists agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.

 

[chcr]

There is no why, seriously. The only possible explanation I can think of is that we choose to name 4 the number following 3, and that's it. If we had associated the symbol 5 with the quantity four, then two plus two would be 5. But I bet that's as far as it goes.

Well, that's certainly a popular position, Luis. My position is that what you call (or what symbol you use) it is immaterial. It's like saying it in a different language. Yes, the symbol is arbitrary. "It just is" is not a satisfying explanation to me. It's no different than "god says so," IMO. There is a why, our depth of understanding of the universe simply hasn't progressed to the point that we know why or understand that there is one.

Not all epistemologists agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.

I understand why.

it's 1 more than 3.

Again, what makes you think so and why is it more.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Conversely, if you think it isn't, let's swap some currency sometime.

 

[Luis G]

"It just is" is not a satisfying explanation to me. It's no different than "god says so," IMO.

Yes I know, it is still an evident truth, take two apples, and then put other two, how many apples are there? four, why four? because you choose to name that quantity "four" and from now on anything related to that quantity will be named four. It is what has been observed and you will not find a counter example (poor way to prove something but that's as far as you can get to prove axioms).

1 + 1 = 2, and 2 + 1 = 3, then you can induce that if 1+1 = 2 and 2+2 = 1+1 + 1+1= 4. In which case, we will also ask, what is 1, what is 2, what is 3, what is 4, what is + and what is =.

Take the evident truth and move on


PS. You accept that 2+2=4, but you do not accept "God says so" (or at least that's what I'd like to think about you). 2+2=4 is logic and evident, "god says so" isn't.

 

[chcr]

Yes I know, it is still an evident truth, take two apples, and then put other two, how many apples are there? four, why four? because you choose to name that quantity "four" and from now on anything related to that quantity will be named four. It is what has been observed and you will not find a counter example (poor way to prove something but that's as far as you can get to prove axioms).

1 + 1 = 2, and 2 + 1 = 3, then you can induce that if 1+1 = 2 and 2+2 = 1+1 + 1+1= 4. In which case, we will also ask, what is 1, what is 2, what is 3, what is 4, what is + and what is =.

Take the evident truth and move on


PS. You accept that 2+2=4, but you do not accept "God says so" (or at least that's what I'd like to think about you). 2+2=4 is logic and evident, "god says so" isn't.

I think you miss my point Luis. Yes, "four" is what we call it, but calling it something else is simple semantics. It would still be four to us if someone else called it "a suffusion of yellow." I still think (and this is probably more philosophy than math) that there must be an explanation as to why it's always four (and maybe if string theory turns out to be correct, a place where it isn't). What if you put two apples and two apples together and looked down and there were sixteen apples? What would that tell you about the universe?

Oh, and if you seriously believe in a god, doesn't "because god says so" become logical?

 

[Luis G]

In the end, even the string theory is built over axioms.

It is what has been observed and you will not find a counter example (poor way to prove something but that's as far as you can get to prove axioms).

That pretty much sums it up. That's the main point not the semantics one.

I will not enter the god debate thou. I do not believe in it and to me it is illogical, but what do I know

 

[chcr]

In the end, even the string theory is built over axioms.



That pretty much sums it up. That's the main point not the semantics one.

I will not enter the god debate thou. I do not believe in it and to me it is illogical, but what do I know

Sorry, I was just putting string theory out there as an example. String theory isn't really even a theory. The point is, if axioms are always true (even if they aren't) there must be a reason, IMO. From a pragmatic point of view it doesn't matter, but from a philosophical point of view it bugs me anyway. I think that everything is explainable.

re the god debate: I think the whole business is a myth. I just think that if you believe then a certain logic applies to that belief.

 

[Winky]

yep this one is certainly a two bagger

 

[Gato_Solo]

*snip*

1 + 1 = 2, and 2 + 1 = 3, then you can induce that if 1+1 = 2 and 2+2 = 1+1 + 1+1= 4. In which case, we will also ask, what is 1, what is 2, what is 3, what is 4, what is + and what is =.

Take the evident truth and move on

*snip*

So nobody noticed the obvious jibe here?

 

[chcr]

So nobody noticed the obvious jibe here?

Sure. Even I can occasionally pass one up.

 

[Gonz]

String theory is a prime example of why I distrust science. They spent th elast 20 some-odd years telling us what wonderful & fulfilling potential this has to finally create the GUT. Then, as I pointed out earlier, physics breaks down at the singularity & it's blows the theory to hell. However, a few madmen who had an alternate theory (supergravity, I think) & never gave up hope (but did lose more than a few jobs) were laughed at & dismissed because they didn't like the flavor of the month. Suddenly, by mistake, someone found that using their theory, physics didn't fall apart at the big bang BUT now we have multiple dimensions.

Anybody for a sci-fi convention?

 

[Luis G]

On the topic and without the intention to offend, today I read this quotation

Ignorance is not being able to distinguish what needs proof from what doesn't. Aristotle

(not good at translating quotations).

 

[chcr]

On the topic and without the intention to offend, today I read this quotation

Ignorance is not being able to distinguish what needs proof from what doesn't. Aristotle

(not good at translating quotations).

I like that.

Of course, Aristotle thought there were four elements and that the world was flat, but nobody's perfect.

 

[Winky]

Does this mean you've finished chew'in Louie a
new one cuz he don't know why 2 + 2 = Fore?

 

[Luis G]

Mathematical System

A mathematical system consists of:

1. A set or universe, U
2. Definitions-- sentences that explain the meaning of concepts that relate to the universe. Any term used in describing the universe itself is said to be undefined. All definitions are given in terms of these undefined concepts of objets.
3. Axioms-- assertions about the properties of the universe and rules for creating and justifying more assertions.
4. Theorems-- the additional assertions mentioned above.

On our common arithmetic system 1+1=2, and that's it. Why? because they decided it to be, probably based on observations. Why the symbols 1,2? just because they wanted to represent that quantity with such symbols.

Mayans used a base 20 system and dots, lines and other symbols to represent numbers. The romans used I and II for 1 and 2. We use our base 10 system and arabic numbers, it just happens to be that way. That's the mathematical system we use and proof is not needed