Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 06:19:21 PM

Quote from: the joint on April 04, 2015, 06:06:15 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 04:58:55 PM

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 09:23:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 29, 2015, 02:43:20 AM

Quote from: username18333 on March 28, 2015, 09:41:32 PM

[]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, suggest[ion] [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. What are Half Lives and Mean Lives? Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a statement (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., Every object in the Universe attracts) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics. Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct. Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations. The physical laws cannot be asserted or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

Nature is absolutely NOT mathematical. Nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to it.

Your assertion/theory that "nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to..." is ascribing nature with inherent mathematical properties.

This is irrefutable. Any claim you could possibly make to the contrary only reinforces this claim. Any time you say "nature is [something]" or "nature is [not something]" then you are ascribing mathematical properties to it. It's completely unavoidable.