Goddamn this shit is annoying.

[Jack]

What's been proven at the quantum level?

And btw, "quantum level" is not equal to "quantum physics". There are observable effects of the latter, providing empirical evidence of what happens at the former.

I know, I'm splitting hairs.

Don't btw me about observable effects of imagined probabilities, or what to call it. The vast majority of what science has actually observed has raised more questions than answers. I know, I'm splitting hairs.

You're right, of course, but my point was not to claim that the concept cannot be explained to the layman (it can), only that it cannot make sense without a basis in mathematics. As I said, it is rather counter-intuitive at that level because we relate best to what we can see and readily observe.

Know what you told him; no to repeat it. Lestat should say fuck you.

[odeon]

He can if he wants to.

[odeon]

The vast majority of what science has actually observed has raised more questions than answers.

Does this bother you? Because it is not a bad thing. For better or worse, it's what physics is about. Observing and reformulating and observing.

If the questions raised by an observation are all over the place, all kinds of things can still be learned from it. It's supposed to be an iterative process.

IMO it's only a bad thing if nothing is learned and the same mistakes are repeated with the next observation.

I'm a big fan of experimental physics.

[Jack]

You keep saying it can't make sense. Math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas. Spend my day working with symbols that represent ideas. When providing others with information, I can't simply present them with my abstraction; they don't know the rules or understand the logic my abstraction. They must also be provided an interpretation they can understand. If I do that for them, they do in fact understand the meaning without actually needing to understand my abstraction. For some reason I think you know how to do that too.

[神]

That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.

But how can you be half bald at 14?

[Bastet]

That you are 14 and in high school would certainly explain your behavior.

But how can you be half bald at 14?

Bad genes. Ima drive this little fucker across state lines and take his virginity.

[odeon]

You keep saying it can't make sense. Math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas. Spend my day working with symbols that represent ideas. When providing others with information, I can't simply present them with my abstraction; they don't know the rules or understand the logic my abstraction. They must also be provided an interpretation they can understand. If I do that for them, they do in fact understand the meaning without actually needing to understand my abstraction. For some reason I think you know how to do that too.

I'm saying it cannot make complete sense when expressed in a language that lacks the vocabulary to explain the core of the theory.

You can still describe the more notable properties of the theory using that language, for example, the quantified energy levels or the wave-particle duality, and you can relate to, and make some sense of, observable phenomena using those basic properties, but the basic logic will be missing because the language required to explain that logic is missing.

Now, if that makes you want to say "fuck you", so be it.

There's a lot I want to say here but every time I try, I feel I am not explaining it properly and so delete what I write. Very frustrating. Sometimes the written languages don't seem to be enough either.

["couldbecousin"]

  Sometimes it's good to say  "fuck you"  just because!   

[odeon]

Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.

It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.

[odeon]

  Sometimes it's good to say  "fuck you"  just because!   

Because it's BRAVE.

[Jack]

Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.

It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.

It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.

[Jack]

You keep saying it can't make sense. Math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas. Spend my day working with symbols that represent ideas. When providing others with information, I can't simply present them with my abstraction; they don't know the rules or understand the logic my abstraction. They must also be provided an interpretation they can understand. If I do that for them, they do in fact understand the meaning without actually needing to understand my abstraction. For some reason I think you know how to do that too.

I'm saying it cannot make complete sense when expressed in a language that lacks the vocabulary to explain the core of the theory.

You can still describe the more notable properties of the theory using that language, for example, the quantified energy levels or the wave-particle duality, and you can relate to, and make some sense of, observable phenomena using those basic properties, but the basic logic will be missing because the language required to explain that logic is missing.

Now, if that makes you want to say "fuck you", so be it.

There's a lot I want to say here but every time I try, I feel I am not explaining it properly and so delete what I write. Very frustrating. Sometimes the written languages don't seem to be enough either.

We would probably communicate better with each other in code.

[odeon]

Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.

It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.

It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.

But that's where I disagree. I'm saying that they cannot be used interchangeably. They have things in common and they have differences.

Say "fuck you" using mathematics.

[Jack]

The're nothing mathematical that can't be expressed with words. Already said I'm not trying to negate the importance of math in physics. I'm saying fuck you, quantum theory can't make sense to me.

[TheoK]

Oh, and saying that math is simply coding, symbols that represent ideas, is a bit like saying that spoken languages are simply words that represent communication.

It's true, in a sense, but it does not adequately explain why one would use math rather than music to describe algebra.

It's clear I'm saying both math and written language are abstractions that can represent the same ideas. It's true in a sense because it's true.

But that's where I disagree. I'm saying that they cannot be used interchangeably. They have things in common and they have differences.

Say "fuck you" using mathematics.

Well, something like this: 5=2