Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Know Language Better Than Math

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on September 3, 2001 12:25:02 UTC

So I can use the words without really knowing what they mean. But presumably others like Goedel and Chaitin know math better than words. Their problem is then to translate their research into terms that we can understand, and perhaps even that they can understand.

I am struck by the example of quantum mechanics in this regard. Many people know how to use it, but nobody seems to know what it means. Chaitin is wont to attach meaning to his work, more so than Goedel; and we should always be suspicious when mwening is attached, for it involves extra assumptions that may not be true. I offer the many concurrent universe explanation of quantum mechanics as one example of trying to attach meaning to the naked results. If the naked equations work, we should refrain from dressing them with cosmic meaning.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins