ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:54:13 -0500 <47645B15.8040208@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Dennis,    (01) That statement has no connection with either mathematics or the universe:    (02) DT> It seems to me that as valid as mathematics may be for the > purposes of engineering, architecture, other worldly purposes, > and as a tool for analytical thinking, that it's requirement > for self-consistency automatically negates its capacity to > faithfully model the natural universe and its ever changing > landscape.    (03) First of all, I don't want to defend all uses of logic and mathematics because people often apply the wrong kind of math to the wrong problems for the wrong reasons.    (04) However, there are two very important points to make:    (05) 1. The fact that something x at time t1 is changing to something y at time t2 does not in any way create any kind of contradiction. Certain kinds of mathematics, such as differential equations, for example, describe change and rate of change very nicely.    (06) 2. Any collection of observations about the universe or any part of it either at one instant of time or at different times can *never* create any contradiction of any kind, whether stated in a natural language or translated to logic.    (07) The explanation of point #2 is very simple:    (08) a) Any observation statement in logic or English or any other language requires only two logical operators: conjunction (i.e., 'and') and the existential quantifier (i.e., 'there is something'). No negations ('not'), disjunctions ('or'), implications ('if-then'), or universal quantifiers ('all' or 'every') are required to state an observation.    (09) b) Therefore, any collection of observations about the universe will contain only positive statements whose only logical operators are existence and conjunction.    (010) c) Any collection of statements as in (b) can *never* be contradictory with one another. Therefore, all observations of the universe or any part of it must always be consistent.    (011) Contradictions can only arise from combinations of observation statements with other statements that contain an explicit or implicit negation. Such implicit negations are typical in the scientific theories and in so-called "common sense" ideas about how the world (or the universe) works. But those statements are *never* reports of observations. They are always somebody's interpretation or hypothesis about the observations.    (012) If a contradiction arises between an observation statement and some theory, hypothesis, or commonsense idea, then there are several possibilities:    (013) 1. The observation might have been erroneous or perhaps slightly inaccurate.    (014) 2. If the observation was correct, it is possible that the person who was applying the theory or idea made some mistake in applying it. For example, the theory was about subsonic air flow, and the person applied it to an airplane in supersonic flight.    (015) 3. If the observation was correct and the person applied it correctly and the contradiction still remained, then the original theory or idea is incorrect and must be revised or rejected.    (016) Both science and common sense have followed these procedures for all recorded history (several thousand years). And people have frequently found that many theories and ideas about the universe were wrong.    (017) But *nobody* has ever detected a single example where the universe or any part of it was self-contradictory.    (018) If you can ever discover such a case, it would truly be a miracle that is even more miraculous than anything reported in any religious text of any kind. The miracles reported in any religious text might contradict theories or ideas about the universe. But as observation statements, they cannot be self-contradictory.    (019) If you ever observe something that is self contradictory, you have witnessed a miracle that is far more miraculous than anything ever reported in any religion.    (020) If you do, don't bother to tell us about it, because we would simply dismiss you a nut case.    (021) John Sowa    (022) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (023) ```
 Current Thread [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Bill Andersen Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Stavros Macrakis Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Dennis Thomas Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, John F. Sowa <= [ontolog-forum] [LIKELY_SPAM]Re: Imagery in Scientific Thought, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Dennis L. Thomas Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Imagery in Scientific Thought, Dennis Thomas