| richardhutnik said: I WILL question your statement above regarding EVERYTHING is able to mapped to mathematical models. Exactly what kind of mathematical models would be able to account for the ability to invent? What mathematical models prepare one for "black swans"? We see art, and we see the subjective. We aren't able to model that mathematically. And these things, the art and the "black swans" are some of the most important things we deal with in life. Consider this bit from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model Philosophical considerations Many types of modelling implicitly involve claims about causality. This is usually (but not always) true of models involving differential equations. As the purpose of modelling is to increase our understanding of the world, the validity of a model rests not only on its fit to empirical observations, but also on its ability to extrapolate to situations or data beyond those originally described in the model. One can argue that a model is worthless unless it provides some insight which goes beyond what is already known from direct investigation of the phenomenon being studied. Again, back to causality here as a reason mathematical models end up being limited, when one can't prove causality is universal. So, on this note, I have to ask, please give the math which is able to answer what the sound of one hand clapping is or be able to confirm that, if wishes were trees, would the trees be fall, as you stand where you live. However, I should also note that you can use math to create some really awesome fictional worlds with their own unique physics. |
Please re-read my previous post(s). I stated that
a) our mathematical models are obviously limited. But always improving. No other corpus of human theories was ever as effective or useful as the rational, scientific one.
b) sensations are subjectively important, but there is also no reason to think that we can't model their objective reality (example of something we already know quite well: hunger, example of something we still don't know well: music appreciation). Even irrational behaviours are only irrational at the level of the conscious mind, but science aims to explain them at a more fundamental level, down to the phsyical model of the brain, where everything is still perfectly rational. That includes faith, by the way, and all other subjective epiphenomena.
c) black swans are something most business people did not account for in their models. They can and should be considered mathematically. Taleb himself does so.
d) I don't need to prove causality, as that would be utter induction. I merely have to consider that we never found anything falsifying it and as such it's the most tested temporary hypothesis known to men.
Finally, you're playing with words again, but science is about how words (symbols) map to the underlying reality. The fact that you can put the words "sound of one hand clapping" next to each other and the fact that they have sintactical sense doesn't mean they have semantic sense. One day a mathematical model of your brain will account for all of its activity when you say those words or when you think them under the shower. One day someone could develop a coherent mathematical model of infinite worlds where one hand can clap by itself.
The absence of a mathematical model of how one single hand claps in our reality is not a limitation of the scientific method. It's a statement on how our real physics works according to our models, just like "2 2=5" being false and no further statements being derived from it is not a limitation of basic arithmetics, simply a logic proposition deriving from its rules.
If you're phylosophycally inclined: existence is not a predicate (Kant vs ontological argument). Conceptualizing something doesn't make it eligible to being modeled in the physical world.
You'd have brought more weight to the discussion if you talked about Godel's works, but koans don't cut it.
