AB517

Rom

What do you mean ½ life is made up? I thought they decay at a given rate and we just call that rate ½ lives. Also, what do you mean by phenomenon?

Harri,

I am with these two; I do not know now what you are looking for. I think, and I can be wrong, that you are trying to make “it” more than "it" is. The number 1 is understood for what it is and what it represents to man. The truth or depth of this understanding can be validated by the nature of its acceptance by other “smart” people. The concept and use of it would (and will) extend to any intelligent being as we understand them. We write it as “1” they mite use some other digit thingies but the understanding is the same.

Herra1

What i mean as understanding ?
That is a big one.
If i understand something i can control it.
But it dosent mean, that as an example, if i control a car by driving it, that i could build or do something else, other than, put more gasoline in it.
And even my driving, is way off, compared to someone who is better driver.
But yes i understand/ i do have knowledge of driving, and some basic understanding/knowledge bout a car, (new gear, more gas, brakes, wheels are empty).
Do i understand myself ?
Sometimes. BTW i exist, You exist,they exist.

There is only one planet called Venus in our solar system.
It is unique.
There is no other like it.
They say that it exist.

A word is not a real thing. Or have You met one lately ?
Words, in itself, dont correspond to anything either.
But we use them.

I am NOT bringing any gods or deities here, but if You say that when asked,
"pattern of neurons in our brain".
That its just like the one airoplane builder who build a plane, and when they flew it, the plane shaked violently when turned left.
Now, why ?
Well, it is, because of the materials used when he build the plane.

Herra1

I want to know.
I said i was agnostic about 1.
I wanted to know, do we know 1= one. Also, what is scientific rigour.

If we are "agnostic towards unproven things", well then, what the heck are things that are proven, even ?

There is not a thing that is proven(it seems), or have valid argument/s with true premises, other than the things/mirages that exist in our brain with certain neurons.

So, 1, is a term/description incapable of precision ?

If one, is a "figment of our imagination" from where, comes our knowledge of the world ?
From trust ?

AB517

I see.

Too much, you’re asking too many questions. At some point we have to stop.
Like, 1 is a piece count or a ratio between arbitrary numbers used so that we can communicate.

It is as clear as the mind's eye.
If we keep rubbing our mind’s eye we will never see.

Herra1

Sorry about this one.
"The number 1 is understood for what it is and what it represents to man. " Just like that ?
God made it.
Dont ask ?

romansh

Hi AB
made up? .... partly Og's answer .... neuron patterns salt imbalances in neurons and across synapses etc.... I will defer to the brain scientist on the details.... but this is not practical answer from an everyday point of view though quite likely very true.

the rate of decay for radioactive materials is proportional to the "concentration" of radioactive material. This is a mathematical construct.. So a natural phenomenon fits an equation... so what? The equation allows us to predict a lot, but how much of a measure is that when it comes understanding...... leading back to Herra's question.

Science uses mathematics to "draw a picture" of the universe and how it behaves. Can be simple like Newton's Laws or it can be be quite complex. Nevertheless it is just a picture (or map).

'Made up' may have been the wrong phrase .... perhaps 'man made' would have been better.

ps
Herra ...... man made "1", and thefore it is defined a s such?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Herra1

First let me thank You all for trying to comprehend my arguments and ramblings, they can be very cryptic.

About this one bisniss, i dont know.

After saying/written all these, i go back to my cellar/dungeon to ponder these vigorously.

Can, one, ever have demonstrable reliability ?
Does the 1 exist, and if it does, where.
Is one discoverd or invented ?
Are Gödel's incompleteness theorems correct ?
Questions, questions.

AB517

I understand.

Thank you

ps

I see your green light herr. What you doing up? Where do you live?
It is 2:45 am here ... I am feeding a kid. That’s one kid. If this is all made up for something’s amassment, when I get up there I am taking names and kick'en some azz.

Herra1

Do it.
Go to sleep, if You can.

Its the time diffrence.
I am drinking beer, whitch is lube for my few brain cells (they dont work otherwise).

The children is the only gift that life gives You, so be blessed/happy.

to_hobbes

I'll just throw in my view here.

The way I see it, there are two kinds of proof: scientific, and mathematical.

Mathematic proof means you begin with some axioms -- statements that you never question, and you always assume that these axioms are always true for ever and ever without a shadow of a doubt, but you intellectually know that axioms are just ideas and may or may not be true in real life. Then, you pose a question, and try to determine the answer to that question by using logic and the axioms. The "proved" idea is called a theorem, and is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, but assumes that the axioms are always true, even if they are not.

Scientific proof is not entirely like mathematic proof. Sometime it is, like in theoretical physics. In physics, we create axioms that describe what we see in the natural universe. We write down what we see in the universe by using the language of mathematics -- axioms are called "physical laws". Then we try to figure out new things about the universe using the axioms and logic, just like in mathematic proof.

However, scientific proof is different because it assumes that the axioms are correct for every observer in the universe. In science, the axiom is called a "physical law" or a "mathematic model" for a physical observation. If one observer can show that the observation is incorrect, then the theory is declared "inaccurate" and we scramble to discover why our theories are inaccurate, which is fun because it leads to new scientific discovery. In this case, one can "disprove" a scientific theory by creating an experimentat that shows the old theory is inaccurate.

The biggest difference between science and math proofs is that the axioms of mathematics don't need to relate to anything in the natural universe -- you could make up a math language and prove things in it for fun if you wanted to. However in other sciences like physics, axioms must relate to an observation in the natural universe. Scientific theories are disproven only with counter examples.

And to prove things using scientific experimentation, you first develop a hypothesis -- write down what you think will happen using math. For example, lets say you write a formula to predict the behavior of sand in an hourglass. You write the hypothesis as a formula in the language of math. Then you observe sand falling through an hourglass and take measurements -- this is called the experiment. If the measurements observed from the hourglass match up with the measurements that were predicted with your formula, then your hypothesis is "proved" and is then called a "theory". If someone shows you that your predictions are wrong with the an identical hourglass, or they write a better mathematic formula that predicts the sand more accurately, then they can say that your theory is "disproved".

But even when a scientific theory is disproved, it can still be useful. Einstein proved that Newtonian physics was inaccurate at speed close to light-speed, or in high gravity situations (like near black holes). However, in ordinary every-day situations, Newtonian physics is still so accurate that it is considered to be "truth", which is why it is still taught in schools. That and I don't think high-school kids could understand Einsteinian physics.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)