You said in post #210: ""colors" are human invented symbolic terms". So that was misleadingly worded. Got it.
Well, is a spectrum being projected onto a piece of paper mathematically? If not, then "no". If yes, then your term mathematically is so far away from the standard usage of it, you really need to give a definition of it.
Right, so photons don't have color, according to you. Got it.
Again, is a spectrum being projected onto a piece of paper mathematically? If not, then "no". If yes, then your term mathematically is so far away from the standard usage of it, you really need to give a definition of it.Right, because they deal with visible light
vs an ultraviolet spectrometer:
or an infrared spectrometer
Which shows that when we cannot directly observe the frequencies of certain wave lengths, we resort to instruments that translate the observed wave lengths into symbolic mathematical language.
Sure, but representing something with mathematical values isn't the same as something being made out of mathematical values.
Not sure that's fully true?
Yes, we know that's what you believe: because the mathematical model of the world works so well, you take it to be true. However, science is a bit more careful, and doesn't make that leap of faith because there's no concrete evidence for it.
It isn't objectively mathematics, because that's your subjective opinion/belief. You can't turn your subjective belief into an objective truth without proving it correct. This statement is thus false.
(OK)
I meant the names of the colors are human inventions, but regardles of name the frequencies of "red" do not change regardles of the name we give it. But to the average person a frequency number is meaningless.
Of course it is. When we look at "red" on a piece of white paper we still see the frequencies which are translatable into a mathematical numbers.
No, photons still have a frequency which determines is expressed color.
One color or a spectrum of colors does not change the fact that each color (hue) has a mathematical frequency, whch allows us to recognize the difference and give those frequencies "names". The light itself travels @ "c" until it hits the paper. It's all mathematical.
If the measurements are correct then the mathematical representation does identify the mathematical values of any structure correctly. A triangle is made from three specific measurable straight lines, connected at three points. Each line is measurable and determines the shape of the triangle. A right triangle can be mathematically represented as; a^2 + b^2 = c^2
Can you give an example of a natural phenomenon which does not represent a value or a set of values? I realize that sometimes there are too many variables, which makes the phenomenon unmeasurable, but the values are still contained within the pattern, IMO. A cloud is an assembly of its constituent values, but its irregular shape makes it difficult to measure its volume except perhaps by means of fractals.
Is there an example where mathematics do not work when all of its constituent values are known?
I disagree. Objective science itself uses mathematics and by your own admission they work so well. Thus mathematics it is not my subjective view, but the basis of objective scientific measurement itself.
I have no idea what theses equations mean, but clearly they are mathematical in essence.For infinitely long sinusoids, a change in {\displaystyle \varphi }is the same as a shift in time, such as a time delay. If {\displaystyle \textstyle x(t)}
is delayed (time-shifted) by {\displaystyle \textstyle {\frac {1}{4}}}
of its cycle, it becomes:
{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x\left(t-{\tfrac {1}{4}}T\right)&=A\cdot \cos \left(2\pi f\left(t-{\tfrac {1}{4}}T\right)+\varphi \right)\\&=A\cdot \cos \left(2\pi ft-{\tfrac {\pi }{2}}+\varphi \right)\end{aligned}}}
whose "phase" is now {\displaystyle \textstyle \varphi -{\frac {\pi }{2}}}. It has been shifted by {\displaystyle \textstyle {\frac {\pi }{2}}}
radians (the variable {\displaystyle A}
here just represents the amplitude of the wave).
I'm not going to respond in detail, because that's useless: you've proven unable to understand my refutations. I am however going to point out a few things so that everybody can see you are obviously not understanding the science involved:I meant the names of the colors are human inventions, but regardles of name the frequencies of "red" do not change regardles of the name we give it. But to the average person a frequency number is meaningless.
No, photons still have a frequency which determines is expressed color.
Of course it is. When we look at "red" on a piece of white paper we still see the frequencies which are translatable into a mathematical numbers.
One color or a spectrum of colors does not change the fact that each color (hue) has a mathematical frequency, whch allows us to recognize the difference and give those frequencies "names". The light itself travels @ "c" until it hits the paper. It's all mathematical.
If the measurements are correct then the mathematical representation does identify the mathematical values of any structure correctly. A triangle is made from three specific measurable straight lines, connected at three points. Each line is measurable and determines the shape of the triangle. A right triangle can be mathematically represented as; a^2 + b^2 = c^2
Can you give an example of a natural phenomenon which does not represent a value or a set of values? I realize that sometimes there are too many variables, which makes the phenomenon unmeasurable, but the values are still contained within the pattern, IMO. A cloud is an assembly of its constituent values, but its irregular shape makes it difficult to measure its volume except perhaps by means of fractals.
But we can measure humidity, windspeed, temperature, and the values of the constituent molecules.
Is there an example where mathematics do not work when all of its constituent values are known?
I disagree. Objective science itself uses mathematics and by your own admission they work so well. Thus mathematics it is not my subjective view, but the basis of objective scientific measurement itself.
..........
White light is dispersed by a prism into the colors of the visible spectrum. For measurements of frequencies outside the visible spectrum, we use instruments with a wider range of frequency perception.
Color.......Wavelength.......Frequency..........Photon energy
Violet...380–450 nm.....668–789 THz.....2.75–3.26 eV
Blue.....450–495 nm......606–668 THz.....2.50–2.75 eV
Green...495–570 nm......526–606 THz.....2.17–2.50 eV
Yellow..570–590 nm......508–526 THz.....2.10–2.17 eV
Orange.590–620 nm......484–508 THz.....2.00–2.10 eV
Red......620–750 nm......400–484 THz......1.65–2.00 eV
Colors that can be produced by visible light of a narrow band (in mathematical terms)
The (mathematical) relationship between period, frequency, and amplitudefor a sine wave is illustrated in this image.
From Wiki, I have no idea what theses equations mean, but clearly they are mathematical in essence.
Please do. But if you do don't tell people that you asked for three examples and I gave you six is bad science.
Yes.
No, I didn't ask for three examples. You said there were only three, and now you are giving six. In other words, you have contradicted yourself.
Except that you don't (or can't).
Except that's not how science works, even according to you.
Not just that, but Write4U is unable to actually give definitions. At best, you get some vague description or an example usage, which often later turns out to be partially inconsistent with how Write4U actually uses the term/word.
I've encountered this in Write4U before too. One thing I'm not sure about if it's a fundamental position/assumption, or the result of Write4U's confused understanding of the words/terms involved?
Not quitting is actually one of my primary goals here.
I was an accountant for 7 years ......big organization.....many parts......lots of details.....
.
I have provided proof that the essence of the universe is of a mathical nature of universal constants. Where does it fail?
I could explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand, so why should I even try? I'll just drop this hint:
Ah, that makes sense, yes. It also fits the constant irrelevant appeals to a specific small set of authorities. I guess those would be the popes, in this analogue.
It's as meaningful as the phrase "speaking things into existence". This analogue does fit quite well! Do you suppose that Write4U's believes are so ingrained by now, (s)he's essentially the analogue-counterpart of a fundamentalist?
If only all the effort that went into woo could be directed into science, how wonderful the world would be today...
If only all the effort that went into woo could be directed into science, how wonderful the world would be today...
Well Shapiro/Tegmark seems to be the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). But there is something more mystical at work than even the pronouncements of Teggers.Ah, that makes sense, yes. It also fits the constant irrelevant appeals to a specific small set of authorities. I guess those would be the popes, in this analogue.
It's as meaningful as the phrase "speaking things into existence". This analogue does fit quite well! Do you suppose that Write4U's believes are so ingrained by now, (s)he's essentially the analogue-counterpart of a fundamentalist?
If only all the effort that went into woo could be directed into science, how wonderful the world would be today...
(I'm not sure what you are referring to with that last bit?)
I'm not familiar enough with the history of complex numbers, so I really couldn't say. However, the idea of making numbers "two-dimensional" to me doesn't feel like a weird concept to come up with. It's just a special way of expressing a point on a plane: you take the (x, y) tuple, and simple refer to it as a number as well. Many operations that can be performed on (real) numbers can be extended/generalized to also work on multi-dimensional numbers. In the case of complex numbers, it just turns out there are various useful relations between the two coordinates and particular operations one can perform. For example, take: https://www2.clarku.edu/~djoyce/complex/mult.html (Especially the last section.) It turns out that multiplication in the complex plane is the same as performing some particular geometric operations. In a sense, both are the same: they are just two (very) different ways of expressing the same underlying relations. Once such a correspondence is established, it's hard to conceptually separate the two again.
Is there?
Nor do I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
What refutations? Your personal "beliefs"?
