the question we've all been asking
fire away
the question we've all been asking
fire away
I'll bite.
Math is the base for nearly all fields of natural science. It's a agreed common language to describe universal laws that are the same way to everybody.
Derived units in science are impossible without math.
I can't imagine anyone thinking that the two aren't related. . . why is this a question?
Yes.
Also,
Not necessarily. Math is Ti related, and science is Ne related.
Well, imagine it this way: a person is capable of using Ne, but incapable of using Ti at all. Would they be able to engage in science? yes.
Person 2: Can use Ti, but is unable to use Ne. Will they be able to engage in science? Yes, but only through math.
I don't think you can do empirical science without logic, which is indeed math. Otherwise you'd be looking at something and not equating it to something else. I'm also pretty sure nonempirical science relies on a lot of math too.
Even theology relies on someone taking statements and making judgements on them, which is logic, which is math.
Math skills are kind of inherent in pretty much everything we do, due to the nature of what math is. I'd say it is more fair to say that you are using math always than it is to say something is does not require math. I struggle to perceive a human mind without math. It is kind of built into the psyche. I do think that there are creatures that might not do math, they are called plants.
Also note, my definition of math includes warped math, like 2+2=5, Fish=Dog=Cat and so on and so forth. I can't think of any real agreagous examples. I guess there is the one where if you cut something in half, then you'll have twice the amount. For example, if I take a brick, and cut it in half, I'll have twice the original brick. You get what I mean. Yes, that counts as math. I'm sure someone studies it as well.
I also fail to see the idea that someone who cannot think of new things is unable/able to do science, and that someone who cannot categorize things is also unable/able to do science. Science is a methodology. It really only requires you to follow the methodology. If you have the ability to understand the methodology, then you have the ability to do it. This is not a hard rule, some people discover things by accident.
In these cases, because person one cannot put things to a logical framework, which is literally how science works, I do believe the science they would do is accidental with a fairly high failure rate to follow procedure. Imagine looking at a blade of grass and then thinking of elephants, and then thinking of knives and then thinking of dogs in a neverending loop of unconnected ideas. This is an oversimplification, as it is quite possible that this person cannot hold the concept of an elephant, as the have no logical framework to identify it as. As such, they'd have to rely on emotions for this manner, and Their own gut. None of these things can rely on logic, as this person does not follow that. This is what I believe this person would be like. I'd say this person would be likely to be either insane, an artist, or both. I'd like to think of how they'd exist in modern society. They'd obviously need help to survive. It would probably be up to the caretaker to understand the emotions and method of thinking, and attempt to accommodate this. One question I have is whether this person would be able to learn a language, as language is a logical framework.
I feel it is stated as though the person two as described above cannot perceive new things, which is not the same as generating ideas. Cognitive functions as a rule are purely mental, and are not to be tied to the ability to see, for example, which I believe is endemic to all of us. As an example, I can easily see there is a cup of water. I don't need to be able to think of revolutionary ideas to see processes that are in front of me and put them into categories of observation. It would be hard inventing things without the capability to generate new ideas though. More likely, the hypothetical person would be a good observer and teacher, but otherwise inable to design experiments and the like. They'd have to be told what to look at and how to look. Finally, I would believe that this person can do math only that he was taught. As such, this person cannot invent new problems, and cannot expand past their knowledge without help. This person would be incredibly inflexible, as they do not have the ability to reconcile new information with old information. It would be quite hard for them to cope with new ideas. It is doable though, as they'd possibly be able to have someone else do idea generation as a crutch. It is possible, that they'd reject all new information that doesn't fit their framework, as Ne is also used to reconcile.
If if you disagree, then please tell me why I am wrong, and how it should work. I created these outlines from the definitions I read on various sites over the years, but I have never talked about it, and have never gotten comfimation that I have correct understanding of the subject from anyone else.
Finally, why is this a translation request?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Well if we ask it from purist mathematician POV it might not be... Maybe.
It might be something that it is seen as hand waving stuff without absolute exactness.
In physics sin(x)=x is many times quite OK relation not always but many times. So yeah.
You see it works quite well in restricted area and it might be good enough for science.
Just t clarify: yes, you need a lots of mathematical thinking to figure this out but it is not about being precise with boundaries and you work with rule of thumb (if the angle is too big to use second or third taylor polynomial term or something else).
And BAM!
even better but not perfect...
f(x)=x
g(x)=sin(x) and
h(x)=x-x^3/6
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 10-18-2017 at 09:26 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Math is science
Katy Perry is ISTP
I'd personally trust Gauss on the topic, that's all I know.
Math in itself is Ti, anything that is empirical involves Te but science also involves Ne and arguably Ni. Empirical science needs math but math doesn't need science, though it often does take inspiration from it.
Last edited by Exodus; 03-30-2018 at 01:23 AM.
Math is a human-created tool which is surprisingly useful in quantifying the universe. (Quantification is one part of science. The other parts of science are discovery, categorization, and synthesis.)
Lol i know that. katie purry
This isn't really right in my case. I don't engage in science just through math... more like through hard data and analysis of that within a given logical framework/interpretation. That doesn't need Ne of course, and I don't really see why science would be Ne primarily. The primarily exploration-discovery-experimental approach would be, sure, but that's not all of science. And, I do have a quite distinct quantification-oriented logical approach so it's maths in that sense yes but science to me isn't just pure maths, it has empiricism too: that hard data that's to be analyzed.
OK if you meant a hypothetical... I don't subscribe to +- so I dunno what you meant there about -Ni/+Ne HA, also none of the above I said about my approach engages Intuition. I find anything requiring Ne is actually quite a pain in the ass for me, e.g. when I had to design psychology experiments that did not measure hard facts directly, but were instead supposed to test vague constructs that in my opinion were total bollocks, especially the idea that the specific experiment design would measure these constructs. I find it far far easier and more natural to design an EEG experiment compared to those... that doesn't require Ne. I will never in my life go near designing those vague experiments again. I do need to add that the interpretation of the results for an EEG or other brain imaging experiment can still ask for Ne, but it's avoidable, so it's better.
Well those sciences that do not use math are considered soft sciences.
@lavos I have never seen anybody use Model B like you before. It's also structurally awkward to try to blend it in with classical Model A using it that way, but there might be some merit to it actually. I will definitely be thinking about it. I'll also reread the original Russian translations on it to try to glean any additional meaning.
I feel bad for making this thread.
But I'm never gonna close it, at least not until someone asks me to out of kindness.
Math is pretty broad. One would say that analysis might be LII-ish approach – taking the deepest dive to show that something is really what it is and maybe discreet stuff. Which makes me wonder David Hilbert's type. Axiomatic geometry was blown into 20 or 21 axioms (Euclid... ).
Then there are much more structural areas [such as algebra] where ILI's might have upper hand.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
n0ki / @kopyk uses it too. And @Hitta came up with it.
Don't see why.It's also structurally awkward to try to blend it in with classical Model A using it that way,
When you do, please show said source(s).I'll also reread the original Russian translations on it to try to glean any additional meaning.
Related, but they are more like cousins than brothers or sisters.
For example, science is way closer to art than math is. Math is very "straight man", 2+2 = 4. I said do this/this is the way it is. Why? Because I'm a man. It can't ever be anything else. Science is peer-reviewed and objective, but the interpretations are more open than that. It goes through more of a process where it's allowed to evolve as new evidence is collected and re-evaluated, as science is rooted more in nature and mother nature changes. Albeit very slowly usually, but it does. But 2+2 always equaled 4, 2+2 equals 4 now, and 2+2 will equal 4 in the future for all of eternity.
Both are based on logic and objectivity, but math is more logical and objective. It is more heterosexual and gets more girls.
The Trinity of Life:
Art = the faggiest
Science = bisexual/but leaning to straight
Math = Straight
End of the discussion. I won this argument.
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 04-03-2018 at 08:06 AM.
I also won it, because the trinity spells my real name:
Science
Art
Math
It is also objectively true and pure- because it represents the life path of how a human being is naturally 'supposed to' function. We all start out bisexual and innocently impressionable (Science-Mother Nature energy), and then we use Art to self-express and transition (gaaaaay) for personal fun and narcissism, and then finally we are meant to reproduce and add kids to the human race. (Math/Straightness) It is also why religiously speaking, Math/God/Heterosexuality is put up on a pedestal. Math is essentially very black and white, but God also has to be this way- to sort out the just from the injust. 'Good guys always win, I want to be a good guy so I win!' is a naive yet deeply rooted tribal/'2+2=4' psyche value our entire civilization is based upon and represents the eternal war between conservatives (straight people) and liberals (******s).
See? Everything makes sense and is connected. Subjectivity is practically married to objectively. Most people are at war with this, and aren't as enlightened as me.
=)
my math teacher used to say that people good in music would be good at math as well, but the contrary would not necessarily be true.
Well, there is the weird overlap between music and math that spreads into physics and information technology. Absolute pitch etc.
There are people who can decode anysort of hearable stuff to represent something else. It can be a freaky asset in itself.
Definitely not me.
I'm bad at music but never tried to get better at it.
My mind is not about exactness about various stuff. It just wants to form grand formula and play with minor ones. That itself is more like scientific mind with technological spin.
One physics student said to me: I don't want to go to math department because people are so inhumane there.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 04-03-2018 at 12:48 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Math is an abstract concept that can describe reality... but not necessarily always. In order for it to be applied to the physical world, it has to be within the laws of physics, because the laws of physics describe what's possible and what's not possible in the physical world.
So what's interesting is that math and logic actually contain MORE things than the physical world (so that there are false things that are derived from math and logic). Perhaps that's the reason for imagination and creativity. Infinity is a mathematical concept, and there are numbers that are bigger than even the biggest infinity, and since math is "real" in an abstract sense, it must mean that knowledge is infinite.
Cantor's diagonal argument
Well, math and science have been bumping uglies for quite a long time, so I hope they aren't related.