Falsification in Math vs Science The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InAre there mathematical properties a mathematical object might have only contingently?Is the conservation of energy actually a characterisation rather than an imposed or deduced law?Why must we choose an intuitionistic explanation over a paraconsistent one, given they are dual?Can science work without mathematical formulations?What is the absolute ultimate subject (like math, literature, etc)?Is the Kuhnian paradigm shift (or sublation) materialistic or idealistic?Are there two different mathematics in philosophy?Was Kant right about space and time (and wrong about knowledge)?Per Kuhn's “puzzle solving” demarcation criteria, don't Creationism and Lysenkoism simply fall into the category of “normal science”?Are the “laws” of deductive logic empirically verifiable?
Inline version of a function returns different value than non-inline version
Spanish for "widget"
A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky
How to change the limits of integration
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?
Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?
I see my dog run
It's possible to achieve negative score?
Patience, young "Padovan"
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?
Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?
JSON.serialize: is it possible to suppress null values of a map?
Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?
What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?
Geography at the pixel level
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
How long do I have to send payment?
Why is my p-value correlated to difference between means in two sample tests?
Should I write numbers in words or as numerals when there are multiple next to each other?
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?
Is there a name of the flying bionic bird?
Falsification in Math vs Science
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InAre there mathematical properties a mathematical object might have only contingently?Is the conservation of energy actually a characterisation rather than an imposed or deduced law?Why must we choose an intuitionistic explanation over a paraconsistent one, given they are dual?Can science work without mathematical formulations?What is the absolute ultimate subject (like math, literature, etc)?Is the Kuhnian paradigm shift (or sublation) materialistic or idealistic?Are there two different mathematics in philosophy?Was Kant right about space and time (and wrong about knowledge)?Per Kuhn's “puzzle solving” demarcation criteria, don't Creationism and Lysenkoism simply fall into the category of “normal science”?Are the “laws” of deductive logic empirically verifiable?
In the beginning it was thought that the statement 1+1=0 is false, and necessarily so.
However, with the birth of modular arithmetic, it was found that indeed, 1+1 does indeed equal to 0 (in the mod 2 setting).
Now in the sciences for example physics, it's understood that Newtonian mechanics has in a sense been falsified, in the sense that, while it remains correct in its regime of validity, there are other regimes in which it is not correct.
However, while most people would say that in the second case, we have Newtonian mechanics being falsified, we do not consider 1+1=2 to have been falsified (in its own regime of validity). Why is that?
philosophy-of-science philosophy-of-mathematics falsifiability
add a comment |
In the beginning it was thought that the statement 1+1=0 is false, and necessarily so.
However, with the birth of modular arithmetic, it was found that indeed, 1+1 does indeed equal to 0 (in the mod 2 setting).
Now in the sciences for example physics, it's understood that Newtonian mechanics has in a sense been falsified, in the sense that, while it remains correct in its regime of validity, there are other regimes in which it is not correct.
However, while most people would say that in the second case, we have Newtonian mechanics being falsified, we do not consider 1+1=2 to have been falsified (in its own regime of validity). Why is that?
philosophy-of-science philosophy-of-mathematics falsifiability
@Richard I was wondering, are you a Zoroastrian?
– user4894
10 hours ago
2
No. I'm British, in almost every possible manner.
– Richard
10 hours ago
10
1+1=2 is still true in the mod 2 setting. It just so happens that 2 and 0 are names for the same object in this setting.
– Dan Staley
8 hours ago
@Richard deserves so many more upvotes than just one.
– Steve
7 hours ago
@Steve yes... I... do
– Richard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
In the beginning it was thought that the statement 1+1=0 is false, and necessarily so.
However, with the birth of modular arithmetic, it was found that indeed, 1+1 does indeed equal to 0 (in the mod 2 setting).
Now in the sciences for example physics, it's understood that Newtonian mechanics has in a sense been falsified, in the sense that, while it remains correct in its regime of validity, there are other regimes in which it is not correct.
However, while most people would say that in the second case, we have Newtonian mechanics being falsified, we do not consider 1+1=2 to have been falsified (in its own regime of validity). Why is that?
philosophy-of-science philosophy-of-mathematics falsifiability
In the beginning it was thought that the statement 1+1=0 is false, and necessarily so.
However, with the birth of modular arithmetic, it was found that indeed, 1+1 does indeed equal to 0 (in the mod 2 setting).
Now in the sciences for example physics, it's understood that Newtonian mechanics has in a sense been falsified, in the sense that, while it remains correct in its regime of validity, there are other regimes in which it is not correct.
However, while most people would say that in the second case, we have Newtonian mechanics being falsified, we do not consider 1+1=2 to have been falsified (in its own regime of validity). Why is that?
philosophy-of-science philosophy-of-mathematics falsifiability
philosophy-of-science philosophy-of-mathematics falsifiability
asked 12 hours ago
K9LucarioK9Lucario
806
806
@Richard I was wondering, are you a Zoroastrian?
– user4894
10 hours ago
2
No. I'm British, in almost every possible manner.
– Richard
10 hours ago
10
1+1=2 is still true in the mod 2 setting. It just so happens that 2 and 0 are names for the same object in this setting.
– Dan Staley
8 hours ago
@Richard deserves so many more upvotes than just one.
– Steve
7 hours ago
@Steve yes... I... do
– Richard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
@Richard I was wondering, are you a Zoroastrian?
– user4894
10 hours ago
2
No. I'm British, in almost every possible manner.
– Richard
10 hours ago
10
1+1=2 is still true in the mod 2 setting. It just so happens that 2 and 0 are names for the same object in this setting.
– Dan Staley
8 hours ago
@Richard deserves so many more upvotes than just one.
– Steve
7 hours ago
@Steve yes... I... do
– Richard
7 hours ago
@Richard I was wondering, are you a Zoroastrian?
– user4894
10 hours ago
@Richard I was wondering, are you a Zoroastrian?
– user4894
10 hours ago
2
2
No. I'm British, in almost every possible manner.
– Richard
10 hours ago
No. I'm British, in almost every possible manner.
– Richard
10 hours ago
10
10
1+1=2 is still true in the mod 2 setting. It just so happens that 2 and 0 are names for the same object in this setting.
– Dan Staley
8 hours ago
1+1=2 is still true in the mod 2 setting. It just so happens that 2 and 0 are names for the same object in this setting.
– Dan Staley
8 hours ago
@Richard deserves so many more upvotes than just one.
– Steve
7 hours ago
@Richard deserves so many more upvotes than just one.
– Steve
7 hours ago
@Steve yes... I... do
– Richard
7 hours ago
@Steve yes... I... do
– Richard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
The hypothesis 1+1=0 is false in the domain of natural numbers. If the domain is the finite field of the integers mod 2, then one is no longer in the domain of the natural numbers and the statement 1+1=0 would be true in that domain.
The question is why do we not consider these to be falsifications of each other?
These are not contradictions or falsifications if we view these statements in their separate domains. The domain of the natural numbers is not the domain of the integers mod 2. Although the statements may look the same, they are statements derived or not from different domains and so are different.
Falsification would be involved in mathematics by assuming something with the intent to arrive at a contradiction. If one can arrive at the contradiction, then one can conclude that what one assumed true was false. One name for this inference rule would be proof by contradiction.
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by first assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibile.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 26). Proof by contradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:55, April 9, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof_by_contradiction&oldid=889548940
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
3
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
7
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
1
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
1
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
In math, we define stuff like numbers and operator, then we go on to proof stuff from these premises.
When you ask: "Is 1 + 1 = 0
?", a mathematician will just ask back: "With what definition of +
?"
If you assume natural numbers and the common definition of
+
, then this statement is false.If you assume numbers modulo 2 and
+
meaning XOR, then this statement is perfectly true.
You cannot say that we falsified the claim that 1 + 1 = 2
, we just came up with new definitions for what +
could mean.
For physics, the situation is a little different: Here we measure stuff we want to explain, then we whip up some fancy theory to explain the measurements, and finally, we test the theory by measuring more stuff, trying to falsify our theory.
In the example you gave, Newton had some measurements (like falling apples) that he wanted to explain, so he came up with his theory of force, acceleration and movement, and he could explain his measurements. We continued testing his theory until finally the Michelson-Morley Experiment produced numbers that could not be explained with Newtonian Physics anymore. So, Einstein came up with a new theory that could explain all that the old theory could explain, and which also explained the result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Note that I said "could explain all that the old theory could explain". Newton's theory worked fine for small numbers, and Einstein's theory had to make the same predictions for these small numbers. More precisely, Newton's theory is nothing more or less than a convenient approximation of Einstein's theory for small numbers.
We do this a lot in physics: We know that some stuff obeys some complex rules, but we don't want to bother with deriving mathematically correct results, so we just use an approximation (and hopefully check that this approximation is indeed not too far off). The point is, in the end physicists can only falsify stuff by measurement which includes measurement errors, and it does not help our cause to calculate stuff we can't measure. But the approximations allow us to make conclusions we cannot derive with mathematical rigor.
So, a physicist with a quartz-clock, a ruler, and a scale will simply use Newtonian Mechanics to predict their measurements. A physicist listening in to gravitational waves does not have this luxury, they must use General Relativity to derive their predictions. The first physicist simply uses an approximation (Newtonian Mechanics) to an approximation (Special Relativity) to a theory (General Relativity) which we do not know what theory it approximates yet (String Theory? Loop Quantum Gravity? Something else?)
In this sense, no physical theory is fully correct or incorrect. For some theories we know where they start producing numbers that actually disagree with our experiments, and for others we may not have discovered those places yet. But that does not reduce their usefulness when we apply them to problems where we know that they yield sufficiently precise results. In the end, any physical theory is just an approximation of reality.
New contributor
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Hmmm. What about 1 + 1 = 10 ?
Is that equation, expressed in binary arithmetic, "false in the domain of natural numbers"?
My grounding in math and logic isn't very strong, but I understand the Wikipedia entry...I just don't think that the notions of truth and falsity can coherently apply to inductive inferences (abstract descriptions of unobservable things).
I've also heard people (philosophy professors!) say that Einstein disproved Newton's stuff, but that seems incorrect to me in the postmodern age of philosophy. Newton wasn't mistaken, his principles describe his observations very well. His theoretical model wasn't poor or wrong, and scientific proof seems to me to be an oxymoron. People who have faith in that idea reject the notion of fallibilism, which is commensurate with the postmodern approach:
Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory,
view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified
in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the
truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to
science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved
commonsense views.
Stephen Hetherington, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I've learned (is this correct?) that true/false distinctions are properties of formal languages ( arithmetic and logic), where axioms and operations are strictly defined and the symbols are unrelated to observable phenomena (only to each other).
As for discourses in natural languages, the idea of epistemic truth (especially the theory of correspondence to reality) has been quite thoroughly discredited...or so I've been told...
I'm new here; I wouldn't be happy to hear that I (and my wisest philosophy instructors) have misinterpreted Kant, Kune and Popper, but if a wise expert disagrees I'll listen. I believe that it's theoretically impossible to denote the absolute truth about unobservable phenomena or complex abstractions, but I'm still learning...
In any case, to me coherency is the gold standard of human understanding, not truth. Subjective beliefs and public discourses may be assessed according to so-called objective criteria: the reliability of relevant evidence and the justification for one's presumptions. I think that that's one thing upon which scientists and philosophers might agree.
New contributor
add a comment |
1 + 1 = 0
is false.
Meanwhile, (1_2) +_2 (1_2) = 0_2
is true. Here +_2
is a different operation than +
, and 1_2
and 0_2
are different things than 1
and 0
. So it's not surprising that one equation is true while the other is false.
The problem is that we do not like to write "_2
" everywhere, so we often write 1 + 1 = 0
when we mean 1_2 +_2 1_2 = 0_2
. This can possibly lead to confusion, though hopefully the author (or context) will make it clear what is meant by the equation 1 + 1 = 0
, whenever it is written, so that ambiguity is avoided.
I would not say that Newtonian physics is "false", but I would say that it does not accurately predict certain observations we make about our universe, while Einstein's Relativity does seem to predict these observations quite well. So Newtonian physics is apparently not the best theory for our physical universe.
However, since there are no other universes(?), physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience.
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61712%2ffalsification-in-math-vs-science%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The hypothesis 1+1=0 is false in the domain of natural numbers. If the domain is the finite field of the integers mod 2, then one is no longer in the domain of the natural numbers and the statement 1+1=0 would be true in that domain.
The question is why do we not consider these to be falsifications of each other?
These are not contradictions or falsifications if we view these statements in their separate domains. The domain of the natural numbers is not the domain of the integers mod 2. Although the statements may look the same, they are statements derived or not from different domains and so are different.
Falsification would be involved in mathematics by assuming something with the intent to arrive at a contradiction. If one can arrive at the contradiction, then one can conclude that what one assumed true was false. One name for this inference rule would be proof by contradiction.
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by first assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibile.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 26). Proof by contradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:55, April 9, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof_by_contradiction&oldid=889548940
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
3
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
7
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
1
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
1
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The hypothesis 1+1=0 is false in the domain of natural numbers. If the domain is the finite field of the integers mod 2, then one is no longer in the domain of the natural numbers and the statement 1+1=0 would be true in that domain.
The question is why do we not consider these to be falsifications of each other?
These are not contradictions or falsifications if we view these statements in their separate domains. The domain of the natural numbers is not the domain of the integers mod 2. Although the statements may look the same, they are statements derived or not from different domains and so are different.
Falsification would be involved in mathematics by assuming something with the intent to arrive at a contradiction. If one can arrive at the contradiction, then one can conclude that what one assumed true was false. One name for this inference rule would be proof by contradiction.
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by first assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibile.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 26). Proof by contradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:55, April 9, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof_by_contradiction&oldid=889548940
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
3
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
7
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
1
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
1
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The hypothesis 1+1=0 is false in the domain of natural numbers. If the domain is the finite field of the integers mod 2, then one is no longer in the domain of the natural numbers and the statement 1+1=0 would be true in that domain.
The question is why do we not consider these to be falsifications of each other?
These are not contradictions or falsifications if we view these statements in their separate domains. The domain of the natural numbers is not the domain of the integers mod 2. Although the statements may look the same, they are statements derived or not from different domains and so are different.
Falsification would be involved in mathematics by assuming something with the intent to arrive at a contradiction. If one can arrive at the contradiction, then one can conclude that what one assumed true was false. One name for this inference rule would be proof by contradiction.
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by first assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibile.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 26). Proof by contradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:55, April 9, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof_by_contradiction&oldid=889548940
The hypothesis 1+1=0 is false in the domain of natural numbers. If the domain is the finite field of the integers mod 2, then one is no longer in the domain of the natural numbers and the statement 1+1=0 would be true in that domain.
The question is why do we not consider these to be falsifications of each other?
These are not contradictions or falsifications if we view these statements in their separate domains. The domain of the natural numbers is not the domain of the integers mod 2. Although the statements may look the same, they are statements derived or not from different domains and so are different.
Falsification would be involved in mathematics by assuming something with the intent to arrive at a contradiction. If one can arrive at the contradiction, then one can conclude that what one assumed true was false. One name for this inference rule would be proof by contradiction.
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by first assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibile.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 26). Proof by contradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:55, April 9, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof_by_contradiction&oldid=889548940
answered 11 hours ago
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.2k51555
10.2k51555
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
3
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
7
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
1
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
1
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
3
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
7
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
1
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
1
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
But then why is Newtonian mechanics viewed as being falsified? There too, it is correct in its own domain. Why should we view this as a falsification while in the 1+1=0 it is not?
– K9Lucario
11 hours ago
3
3
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
@K9Lucario Restricted to certain problems in the domain of bodies in motion, Newtonian mechanics is still useful for making predictions. Current gravity theories explain more of the data obtained from the same domain of bodies in motion. So these theories are talking about the same domain.
– Frank Hubeny
11 hours ago
7
7
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
I think you might want to stress a particular facet of your answer - 1+1=0 in the domain of the naturals vs F_2 is not the same statement. Sure, it looks the same when we write it in our convenient notation, but if you were to logically express both statements from the "ground up" you would find they are simply different.
– TreFox
8 hours ago
1
1
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
@TreFox I agree. They are not the same statements because the domains are different. They look the same, because sometimes our conventions for symbolizing natural numbers and equivalence classes look the same. However, we could use a different notation for each domain to emphasize their differences.
– Frank Hubeny
7 hours ago
1
1
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
@K9Lucario the domain of science is the real world. In math, we may choose the axiom set arbitrarily. We don't have such luxury in real life.
– IMil
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
In math, we define stuff like numbers and operator, then we go on to proof stuff from these premises.
When you ask: "Is 1 + 1 = 0
?", a mathematician will just ask back: "With what definition of +
?"
If you assume natural numbers and the common definition of
+
, then this statement is false.If you assume numbers modulo 2 and
+
meaning XOR, then this statement is perfectly true.
You cannot say that we falsified the claim that 1 + 1 = 2
, we just came up with new definitions for what +
could mean.
For physics, the situation is a little different: Here we measure stuff we want to explain, then we whip up some fancy theory to explain the measurements, and finally, we test the theory by measuring more stuff, trying to falsify our theory.
In the example you gave, Newton had some measurements (like falling apples) that he wanted to explain, so he came up with his theory of force, acceleration and movement, and he could explain his measurements. We continued testing his theory until finally the Michelson-Morley Experiment produced numbers that could not be explained with Newtonian Physics anymore. So, Einstein came up with a new theory that could explain all that the old theory could explain, and which also explained the result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Note that I said "could explain all that the old theory could explain". Newton's theory worked fine for small numbers, and Einstein's theory had to make the same predictions for these small numbers. More precisely, Newton's theory is nothing more or less than a convenient approximation of Einstein's theory for small numbers.
We do this a lot in physics: We know that some stuff obeys some complex rules, but we don't want to bother with deriving mathematically correct results, so we just use an approximation (and hopefully check that this approximation is indeed not too far off). The point is, in the end physicists can only falsify stuff by measurement which includes measurement errors, and it does not help our cause to calculate stuff we can't measure. But the approximations allow us to make conclusions we cannot derive with mathematical rigor.
So, a physicist with a quartz-clock, a ruler, and a scale will simply use Newtonian Mechanics to predict their measurements. A physicist listening in to gravitational waves does not have this luxury, they must use General Relativity to derive their predictions. The first physicist simply uses an approximation (Newtonian Mechanics) to an approximation (Special Relativity) to a theory (General Relativity) which we do not know what theory it approximates yet (String Theory? Loop Quantum Gravity? Something else?)
In this sense, no physical theory is fully correct or incorrect. For some theories we know where they start producing numbers that actually disagree with our experiments, and for others we may not have discovered those places yet. But that does not reduce their usefulness when we apply them to problems where we know that they yield sufficiently precise results. In the end, any physical theory is just an approximation of reality.
New contributor
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
add a comment |
In math, we define stuff like numbers and operator, then we go on to proof stuff from these premises.
When you ask: "Is 1 + 1 = 0
?", a mathematician will just ask back: "With what definition of +
?"
If you assume natural numbers and the common definition of
+
, then this statement is false.If you assume numbers modulo 2 and
+
meaning XOR, then this statement is perfectly true.
You cannot say that we falsified the claim that 1 + 1 = 2
, we just came up with new definitions for what +
could mean.
For physics, the situation is a little different: Here we measure stuff we want to explain, then we whip up some fancy theory to explain the measurements, and finally, we test the theory by measuring more stuff, trying to falsify our theory.
In the example you gave, Newton had some measurements (like falling apples) that he wanted to explain, so he came up with his theory of force, acceleration and movement, and he could explain his measurements. We continued testing his theory until finally the Michelson-Morley Experiment produced numbers that could not be explained with Newtonian Physics anymore. So, Einstein came up with a new theory that could explain all that the old theory could explain, and which also explained the result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Note that I said "could explain all that the old theory could explain". Newton's theory worked fine for small numbers, and Einstein's theory had to make the same predictions for these small numbers. More precisely, Newton's theory is nothing more or less than a convenient approximation of Einstein's theory for small numbers.
We do this a lot in physics: We know that some stuff obeys some complex rules, but we don't want to bother with deriving mathematically correct results, so we just use an approximation (and hopefully check that this approximation is indeed not too far off). The point is, in the end physicists can only falsify stuff by measurement which includes measurement errors, and it does not help our cause to calculate stuff we can't measure. But the approximations allow us to make conclusions we cannot derive with mathematical rigor.
So, a physicist with a quartz-clock, a ruler, and a scale will simply use Newtonian Mechanics to predict their measurements. A physicist listening in to gravitational waves does not have this luxury, they must use General Relativity to derive their predictions. The first physicist simply uses an approximation (Newtonian Mechanics) to an approximation (Special Relativity) to a theory (General Relativity) which we do not know what theory it approximates yet (String Theory? Loop Quantum Gravity? Something else?)
In this sense, no physical theory is fully correct or incorrect. For some theories we know where they start producing numbers that actually disagree with our experiments, and for others we may not have discovered those places yet. But that does not reduce their usefulness when we apply them to problems where we know that they yield sufficiently precise results. In the end, any physical theory is just an approximation of reality.
New contributor
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
add a comment |
In math, we define stuff like numbers and operator, then we go on to proof stuff from these premises.
When you ask: "Is 1 + 1 = 0
?", a mathematician will just ask back: "With what definition of +
?"
If you assume natural numbers and the common definition of
+
, then this statement is false.If you assume numbers modulo 2 and
+
meaning XOR, then this statement is perfectly true.
You cannot say that we falsified the claim that 1 + 1 = 2
, we just came up with new definitions for what +
could mean.
For physics, the situation is a little different: Here we measure stuff we want to explain, then we whip up some fancy theory to explain the measurements, and finally, we test the theory by measuring more stuff, trying to falsify our theory.
In the example you gave, Newton had some measurements (like falling apples) that he wanted to explain, so he came up with his theory of force, acceleration and movement, and he could explain his measurements. We continued testing his theory until finally the Michelson-Morley Experiment produced numbers that could not be explained with Newtonian Physics anymore. So, Einstein came up with a new theory that could explain all that the old theory could explain, and which also explained the result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Note that I said "could explain all that the old theory could explain". Newton's theory worked fine for small numbers, and Einstein's theory had to make the same predictions for these small numbers. More precisely, Newton's theory is nothing more or less than a convenient approximation of Einstein's theory for small numbers.
We do this a lot in physics: We know that some stuff obeys some complex rules, but we don't want to bother with deriving mathematically correct results, so we just use an approximation (and hopefully check that this approximation is indeed not too far off). The point is, in the end physicists can only falsify stuff by measurement which includes measurement errors, and it does not help our cause to calculate stuff we can't measure. But the approximations allow us to make conclusions we cannot derive with mathematical rigor.
So, a physicist with a quartz-clock, a ruler, and a scale will simply use Newtonian Mechanics to predict their measurements. A physicist listening in to gravitational waves does not have this luxury, they must use General Relativity to derive their predictions. The first physicist simply uses an approximation (Newtonian Mechanics) to an approximation (Special Relativity) to a theory (General Relativity) which we do not know what theory it approximates yet (String Theory? Loop Quantum Gravity? Something else?)
In this sense, no physical theory is fully correct or incorrect. For some theories we know where they start producing numbers that actually disagree with our experiments, and for others we may not have discovered those places yet. But that does not reduce their usefulness when we apply them to problems where we know that they yield sufficiently precise results. In the end, any physical theory is just an approximation of reality.
New contributor
In math, we define stuff like numbers and operator, then we go on to proof stuff from these premises.
When you ask: "Is 1 + 1 = 0
?", a mathematician will just ask back: "With what definition of +
?"
If you assume natural numbers and the common definition of
+
, then this statement is false.If you assume numbers modulo 2 and
+
meaning XOR, then this statement is perfectly true.
You cannot say that we falsified the claim that 1 + 1 = 2
, we just came up with new definitions for what +
could mean.
For physics, the situation is a little different: Here we measure stuff we want to explain, then we whip up some fancy theory to explain the measurements, and finally, we test the theory by measuring more stuff, trying to falsify our theory.
In the example you gave, Newton had some measurements (like falling apples) that he wanted to explain, so he came up with his theory of force, acceleration and movement, and he could explain his measurements. We continued testing his theory until finally the Michelson-Morley Experiment produced numbers that could not be explained with Newtonian Physics anymore. So, Einstein came up with a new theory that could explain all that the old theory could explain, and which also explained the result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Note that I said "could explain all that the old theory could explain". Newton's theory worked fine for small numbers, and Einstein's theory had to make the same predictions for these small numbers. More precisely, Newton's theory is nothing more or less than a convenient approximation of Einstein's theory for small numbers.
We do this a lot in physics: We know that some stuff obeys some complex rules, but we don't want to bother with deriving mathematically correct results, so we just use an approximation (and hopefully check that this approximation is indeed not too far off). The point is, in the end physicists can only falsify stuff by measurement which includes measurement errors, and it does not help our cause to calculate stuff we can't measure. But the approximations allow us to make conclusions we cannot derive with mathematical rigor.
So, a physicist with a quartz-clock, a ruler, and a scale will simply use Newtonian Mechanics to predict their measurements. A physicist listening in to gravitational waves does not have this luxury, they must use General Relativity to derive their predictions. The first physicist simply uses an approximation (Newtonian Mechanics) to an approximation (Special Relativity) to a theory (General Relativity) which we do not know what theory it approximates yet (String Theory? Loop Quantum Gravity? Something else?)
In this sense, no physical theory is fully correct or incorrect. For some theories we know where they start producing numbers that actually disagree with our experiments, and for others we may not have discovered those places yet. But that does not reduce their usefulness when we apply them to problems where we know that they yield sufficiently precise results. In the end, any physical theory is just an approximation of reality.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
cmastercmaster
1611
1611
New contributor
New contributor
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
I'm not sure if the statement "any physical theory is just an approximation of reality" is necessarily always true. After all, we could inadvertently stumble upon a physical theory that exactly describes reality; there's nothing preventing us from doing that. However, we couldn't ever verify that it exactly described reality, as it can only ever be verified to within a finite experimental uncertainty. Other than that admittedly quite pedantic clarification, great answer!
– probably_someone
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Hmmm. What about 1 + 1 = 10 ?
Is that equation, expressed in binary arithmetic, "false in the domain of natural numbers"?
My grounding in math and logic isn't very strong, but I understand the Wikipedia entry...I just don't think that the notions of truth and falsity can coherently apply to inductive inferences (abstract descriptions of unobservable things).
I've also heard people (philosophy professors!) say that Einstein disproved Newton's stuff, but that seems incorrect to me in the postmodern age of philosophy. Newton wasn't mistaken, his principles describe his observations very well. His theoretical model wasn't poor or wrong, and scientific proof seems to me to be an oxymoron. People who have faith in that idea reject the notion of fallibilism, which is commensurate with the postmodern approach:
Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory,
view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified
in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the
truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to
science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved
commonsense views.
Stephen Hetherington, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I've learned (is this correct?) that true/false distinctions are properties of formal languages ( arithmetic and logic), where axioms and operations are strictly defined and the symbols are unrelated to observable phenomena (only to each other).
As for discourses in natural languages, the idea of epistemic truth (especially the theory of correspondence to reality) has been quite thoroughly discredited...or so I've been told...
I'm new here; I wouldn't be happy to hear that I (and my wisest philosophy instructors) have misinterpreted Kant, Kune and Popper, but if a wise expert disagrees I'll listen. I believe that it's theoretically impossible to denote the absolute truth about unobservable phenomena or complex abstractions, but I'm still learning...
In any case, to me coherency is the gold standard of human understanding, not truth. Subjective beliefs and public discourses may be assessed according to so-called objective criteria: the reliability of relevant evidence and the justification for one's presumptions. I think that that's one thing upon which scientists and philosophers might agree.
New contributor
add a comment |
Hmmm. What about 1 + 1 = 10 ?
Is that equation, expressed in binary arithmetic, "false in the domain of natural numbers"?
My grounding in math and logic isn't very strong, but I understand the Wikipedia entry...I just don't think that the notions of truth and falsity can coherently apply to inductive inferences (abstract descriptions of unobservable things).
I've also heard people (philosophy professors!) say that Einstein disproved Newton's stuff, but that seems incorrect to me in the postmodern age of philosophy. Newton wasn't mistaken, his principles describe his observations very well. His theoretical model wasn't poor or wrong, and scientific proof seems to me to be an oxymoron. People who have faith in that idea reject the notion of fallibilism, which is commensurate with the postmodern approach:
Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory,
view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified
in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the
truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to
science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved
commonsense views.
Stephen Hetherington, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I've learned (is this correct?) that true/false distinctions are properties of formal languages ( arithmetic and logic), where axioms and operations are strictly defined and the symbols are unrelated to observable phenomena (only to each other).
As for discourses in natural languages, the idea of epistemic truth (especially the theory of correspondence to reality) has been quite thoroughly discredited...or so I've been told...
I'm new here; I wouldn't be happy to hear that I (and my wisest philosophy instructors) have misinterpreted Kant, Kune and Popper, but if a wise expert disagrees I'll listen. I believe that it's theoretically impossible to denote the absolute truth about unobservable phenomena or complex abstractions, but I'm still learning...
In any case, to me coherency is the gold standard of human understanding, not truth. Subjective beliefs and public discourses may be assessed according to so-called objective criteria: the reliability of relevant evidence and the justification for one's presumptions. I think that that's one thing upon which scientists and philosophers might agree.
New contributor
add a comment |
Hmmm. What about 1 + 1 = 10 ?
Is that equation, expressed in binary arithmetic, "false in the domain of natural numbers"?
My grounding in math and logic isn't very strong, but I understand the Wikipedia entry...I just don't think that the notions of truth and falsity can coherently apply to inductive inferences (abstract descriptions of unobservable things).
I've also heard people (philosophy professors!) say that Einstein disproved Newton's stuff, but that seems incorrect to me in the postmodern age of philosophy. Newton wasn't mistaken, his principles describe his observations very well. His theoretical model wasn't poor or wrong, and scientific proof seems to me to be an oxymoron. People who have faith in that idea reject the notion of fallibilism, which is commensurate with the postmodern approach:
Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory,
view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified
in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the
truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to
science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved
commonsense views.
Stephen Hetherington, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I've learned (is this correct?) that true/false distinctions are properties of formal languages ( arithmetic and logic), where axioms and operations are strictly defined and the symbols are unrelated to observable phenomena (only to each other).
As for discourses in natural languages, the idea of epistemic truth (especially the theory of correspondence to reality) has been quite thoroughly discredited...or so I've been told...
I'm new here; I wouldn't be happy to hear that I (and my wisest philosophy instructors) have misinterpreted Kant, Kune and Popper, but if a wise expert disagrees I'll listen. I believe that it's theoretically impossible to denote the absolute truth about unobservable phenomena or complex abstractions, but I'm still learning...
In any case, to me coherency is the gold standard of human understanding, not truth. Subjective beliefs and public discourses may be assessed according to so-called objective criteria: the reliability of relevant evidence and the justification for one's presumptions. I think that that's one thing upon which scientists and philosophers might agree.
New contributor
Hmmm. What about 1 + 1 = 10 ?
Is that equation, expressed in binary arithmetic, "false in the domain of natural numbers"?
My grounding in math and logic isn't very strong, but I understand the Wikipedia entry...I just don't think that the notions of truth and falsity can coherently apply to inductive inferences (abstract descriptions of unobservable things).
I've also heard people (philosophy professors!) say that Einstein disproved Newton's stuff, but that seems incorrect to me in the postmodern age of philosophy. Newton wasn't mistaken, his principles describe his observations very well. His theoretical model wasn't poor or wrong, and scientific proof seems to me to be an oxymoron. People who have faith in that idea reject the notion of fallibilism, which is commensurate with the postmodern approach:
Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory,
view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified
in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the
truth of the belief. Fallibilism applies that assessment even to
science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved
commonsense views.
Stephen Hetherington, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I've learned (is this correct?) that true/false distinctions are properties of formal languages ( arithmetic and logic), where axioms and operations are strictly defined and the symbols are unrelated to observable phenomena (only to each other).
As for discourses in natural languages, the idea of epistemic truth (especially the theory of correspondence to reality) has been quite thoroughly discredited...or so I've been told...
I'm new here; I wouldn't be happy to hear that I (and my wisest philosophy instructors) have misinterpreted Kant, Kune and Popper, but if a wise expert disagrees I'll listen. I believe that it's theoretically impossible to denote the absolute truth about unobservable phenomena or complex abstractions, but I'm still learning...
In any case, to me coherency is the gold standard of human understanding, not truth. Subjective beliefs and public discourses may be assessed according to so-called objective criteria: the reliability of relevant evidence and the justification for one's presumptions. I think that that's one thing upon which scientists and philosophers might agree.
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
aaaaaa
1032
1032
New contributor
answered 10 hours ago
RortianRortian
536
536
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 + 1 = 0
is false.
Meanwhile, (1_2) +_2 (1_2) = 0_2
is true. Here +_2
is a different operation than +
, and 1_2
and 0_2
are different things than 1
and 0
. So it's not surprising that one equation is true while the other is false.
The problem is that we do not like to write "_2
" everywhere, so we often write 1 + 1 = 0
when we mean 1_2 +_2 1_2 = 0_2
. This can possibly lead to confusion, though hopefully the author (or context) will make it clear what is meant by the equation 1 + 1 = 0
, whenever it is written, so that ambiguity is avoided.
I would not say that Newtonian physics is "false", but I would say that it does not accurately predict certain observations we make about our universe, while Einstein's Relativity does seem to predict these observations quite well. So Newtonian physics is apparently not the best theory for our physical universe.
However, since there are no other universes(?), physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience.
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1 + 1 = 0
is false.
Meanwhile, (1_2) +_2 (1_2) = 0_2
is true. Here +_2
is a different operation than +
, and 1_2
and 0_2
are different things than 1
and 0
. So it's not surprising that one equation is true while the other is false.
The problem is that we do not like to write "_2
" everywhere, so we often write 1 + 1 = 0
when we mean 1_2 +_2 1_2 = 0_2
. This can possibly lead to confusion, though hopefully the author (or context) will make it clear what is meant by the equation 1 + 1 = 0
, whenever it is written, so that ambiguity is avoided.
I would not say that Newtonian physics is "false", but I would say that it does not accurately predict certain observations we make about our universe, while Einstein's Relativity does seem to predict these observations quite well. So Newtonian physics is apparently not the best theory for our physical universe.
However, since there are no other universes(?), physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience.
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1 + 1 = 0
is false.
Meanwhile, (1_2) +_2 (1_2) = 0_2
is true. Here +_2
is a different operation than +
, and 1_2
and 0_2
are different things than 1
and 0
. So it's not surprising that one equation is true while the other is false.
The problem is that we do not like to write "_2
" everywhere, so we often write 1 + 1 = 0
when we mean 1_2 +_2 1_2 = 0_2
. This can possibly lead to confusion, though hopefully the author (or context) will make it clear what is meant by the equation 1 + 1 = 0
, whenever it is written, so that ambiguity is avoided.
I would not say that Newtonian physics is "false", but I would say that it does not accurately predict certain observations we make about our universe, while Einstein's Relativity does seem to predict these observations quite well. So Newtonian physics is apparently not the best theory for our physical universe.
However, since there are no other universes(?), physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience.
1 + 1 = 0
is false.
Meanwhile, (1_2) +_2 (1_2) = 0_2
is true. Here +_2
is a different operation than +
, and 1_2
and 0_2
are different things than 1
and 0
. So it's not surprising that one equation is true while the other is false.
The problem is that we do not like to write "_2
" everywhere, so we often write 1 + 1 = 0
when we mean 1_2 +_2 1_2 = 0_2
. This can possibly lead to confusion, though hopefully the author (or context) will make it clear what is meant by the equation 1 + 1 = 0
, whenever it is written, so that ambiguity is avoided.
I would not say that Newtonian physics is "false", but I would say that it does not accurately predict certain observations we make about our universe, while Einstein's Relativity does seem to predict these observations quite well. So Newtonian physics is apparently not the best theory for our physical universe.
However, since there are no other universes(?), physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience.
answered 8 hours ago
mathmandanmathmandan
1513
1513
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
add a comment |
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
"physicists frequently omit the phrase "for our physical universe" for convenience." Lol I love that diffidence! Some theorists believe that an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) exist, which don’t connect to each other. I find that quite amusing; how could that issue matter to me? Even a single universe (and a pluralistic metaphysics) is too much for anybody to understand very well – I don’t think that we have any business in other hypothetical ones!
– Rortian
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61712%2ffalsification-in-math-vs-science%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@Richard I was wondering, are you a Zoroastrian?
– user4894
10 hours ago
2
No. I'm British, in almost every possible manner.
– Richard
10 hours ago
10
1+1=2 is still true in the mod 2 setting. It just so happens that 2 and 0 are names for the same object in this setting.
– Dan Staley
8 hours ago
@Richard deserves so many more upvotes than just one.
– Steve
7 hours ago
@Steve yes... I... do
– Richard
7 hours ago