The order of things...

[CallMeIshmael]

Crap... I just opened this thing in threaded, and saw that I quoted the wrong thing... I meant to quote this, in my other post:

[ QUOTE ]
I was using deinition 2 of biology - "The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms." - as abstract thought is a characteristic phenomena of humans, and is required for things like math and philosophy. If you had clearly stated what you meant in the first place, this confusion may have been avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Quaalude]

[ QUOTE ]

Is leading me to believe you've completely missed the point. (I realize the way I used the ">" in OP was semi confusing)

Read the dialogue I had with gumpzilla to get a better idea of what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read it, but it became nonsensical. I get the whole "greater than" thing, which was what I actually assumed you meant in an early post, but you didn't like my assumption and you then said it meant "logical priority," and most recently you said it meant "subset." Since "subset" is the last thing you said, I'll go with that one. If you're going to go with set operations, then "intersection" is the term that should be used here. Mathematics and physics, for instance, certainly intersect, but in no way is one a subset of the other. Philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology all intersect, but I don't think any of them could be said to be a subset of any other.

But, that wasn't the truely nonsensical part.

[ QUOTE ]

BUT... keep in mind that, IF one day, we are somehow able to completely deduce every law of phyics to mathematics. That is, we can mathematically explain and predict every phenomna, then chemistry is also 'solved,' since, when I say we can predict every phenomena, it includes every chemical reaction. Once chemistry is solved, then even the most intricate biological systems are solved. And when this happens, things like world hunger are history

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if we develop a Theory of Everything, that, like gumpzilla said, says little about predicting anything. The fundamental nature of the universe is unpredictability. Because of this it is impossible to "mathematically explain and predict every phenomna." Once you assume an impossible thing, anything that follows from that is meaningless. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by saying "solved" in this context. It just doesn't make sense to me. There is also some weird comment about world hunger in there. I don't see what that has to do with anything. There is plenty of food in the world right now. The problem is distribution, not biology.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I get the whole "greater than" thing, which was what I actually assumed you meant in an early post

[/ QUOTE ]

In your first post you used the term "ordering" to describe what I was doing. Ordering, to me, implies one is "better than".

When I was talking to Gumpzilla, he was thinking I was going with greater than = better than. Which I was not.


Chemistry > Biology implies that Biology can be completely and totally described through chemistry. "Subset" and "logical priority" mean the same thing in this context, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if we develop a Theory of Everything, that, like gumpzilla said, says little about predicting anything. The fundamental nature of the universe is unpredictability. Because of this it is impossible to "mathematically explain and predict every phenomna."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im well aware that what I described is impossible. (and that was made clear in a later post).

The point was that (though impossible) complete knowledge of all physical processes would lead to complete understanding of both chemistry, and, therefore, biology.

I dont think this is that hard to understand, and pretty much everyone else seems to agree.

Perhaps reading Drudman's post will help you understand, as it was well written.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by saying "solved" in this context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete knowledge. That is: everything that there is to know about (science x) is known.

[ QUOTE ]

There is also some weird comment about world hunger in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total understanding of all physical processes would lead to many many many great things for the world. One of them is ending world hunger. This, also, shouldnt be that hard to see.

[Quaalude]

[ QUOTE ]

Chemistry > Biology implies that Biology can be completely and totally described through chemistry. "Subset" and "logical priority" mean the same thing in this context, imo.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the migratory pattern of the Arctic Tern and the propensity of humans to wear jewelry can be completely and totally described through chemistry? I'd like to see that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if we develop a Theory of Everything, that, like gumpzilla said, says little about predicting anything. The fundamental nature of the universe is unpredictability. Because of this it is impossible to "mathematically explain and predict every phenomna."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im well aware that what I described is impossible. (and that was made clear in a later post).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware that you are aware of this.

[ QUOTE ]
The point was that (though impossible) complete knowledge of all physical processes would lead to complete understanding of both chemistry, and, therefore, biology.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that assuming bullsh!t leads to more bullsh!t. Basically what you're saying is that if something happened that is impossible, then everything would be different. Gee, wow, great. Pardon me if I think that this is dumb.

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think this is that hard to understand, and pretty much everyone else seems to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Pretty much everyone else" agreed and I missed it? Huh. Ain't that sumpthin'.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps reading Drudman's post will help you understand, as it was well written.


[/ QUOTE ]
I read it. Didn't care for it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by saying "solved" in this context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete knowledge. That is: everything that there is to know about (science x) is known.

[ QUOTE ]

There is also some weird comment about world hunger in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total understanding of all physical processes would lead to many many many great things for the world. One of them is ending world hunger. This, also, shouldnt be that hard to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total understanding of everything would change things? Wow! That's pretty amazing. I never woulda thunk it. Perhaps you could write your congressman and get him to pass a resolution requiring that the universe be completely understandable. Do ya have any more nuggets of fantasy-world wisdom over there?

[daryn]

so do you now agree that there can be physics without math?

drudman writes g00t

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the migratory pattern of the Arctic Tern and the propensity of humans to wear jewelry can be completely and totally described through chemistry? I'd like to see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped here. I really really hope you're joking.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
so do you now agree that there can be physics without math?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, fwiw, I pulled the openener out of a book I saw at the library. I dont necessarily believe it. I just wanted to talk about it.

[ QUOTE ]
drudman writes g00t

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. He and AthenianStranger are two of the best writers I've seen on here.

I wish they posted more. (Maybe even on, get this, POKER!)


(Though I stand by my: Drudman needs to get laid more comment [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I dont necessarily believe it. I just wanted to talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever, i'm ASKING YOU, that's all. it seemed like you disagreed.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
whatever, i'm ASKING YOU, that's all. it seemed like you disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Physics can exist without mathematics.

Math just helps us in our understanding.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the migratory pattern of the Arctic Tern and the propensity of humans to wear jewelry can be completely and totally described through chemistry? I'd like to see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this seems very obvious. To understand the migratory patterns of the Arctic Tern, one must study the biology of the bird's brain, the ecology of its habitats, etc. These all concern biological processes, which are all chemical processes, which are all physical processes...

To understand why humans wear jewelry, you would have to do anthropological, cultural and sociological studies, all of which deal with a variety of things, mostly ecological and psychological, which are really just biological processes, which are really just chemical processes, which are really just physical processes...