Tlaloc_Temporal

My oint is that we have a plethora of direct evidence of exoplanets, but only a small handfull of indirect evidence for other universes at best.

That’s not necessarily evidence against other universes, but when asked about exactly how much evidence for other universes we have, “The math suggests they are possible” isn’t very strong, especially when the math makes massively incorrect predictions elsewhere that we still haven’t explained.

What is the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of other universes, and the strongest piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter? There are serious theories attempting to explain the universe without dark matter right now, so jf the evidence for other universes is weaker than dark matter, people aren’t going to take it seriously.

We can see exoplanets though, and we know there are trillions in just this galaxy. This is more like Planet X in our solar system; there’s some observations that might suggest the existence of a large planet in the Kuiper belt, but we have no direct evidence whatsoever. Hardly anything we see would change one way of the other, according to our current understanding of solar system development.

I found this bug report thread for KDE, and Chris posted a couple possible solution in there. Seems like a good starting point.

Hi, new person in this conversation. I hope you don’t mind if I drop my two cents here.

Cherry Picking is the practice of choosing evidence that supports your argument while ignoring evidence against it. It is also almost always intentional, or a result of ignorance, and the term carries negative connotations. Cherry picking is an accusation of bad faith arguing, and people will interpret it that way regardless of your intent.

For ones own experiences, which are inherently anecdotal, the ancedotal fallacy might be more applicable. But it’s only a fallacy if that narrow view is used to make a broad claim. I don’t think pointing out the existence of a certain kind of conversation is very broad, and in the context of this thread just a few instances can have a large effect.

I would even go so far as to argue that you are commiting an argument from ancedote when you dismiss the claim that harrassment exists with only your ancedotal evidence of not having seen it yourself. They brought sources, and you dismissed their experience as not good enough with no supporting evidence. If you really want to dismiss the notion that their evidence is significant, you could try seeing how many people interacted with those posts compared to average interactions for those communities, or checking how often you visit those communities to put your own experiences in context. Anything but dismissing them and refusing to engage with the intent of the message.

It’s true that everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias and dozens of other faults of logic, and it’s also true that recognizing those faults is important for improving, but being so aggressive in the specifics of data validation can be alienating and will likely miss the intended message.

Just my two cents, dismiss as you please. I do hope this ends up being useful to someone though.

Reminds me of Maxis games, like Sim City 2000 and the Streets of Sim City.

Sure, BBT doesn’t preclude other universes exsiting, and some details may even suggest other universes, but that’s outside the scope of BBT cosmology, and I’d hardly call that evidence when we still have inflation and axion theories floating around ready to radically change our idea of the early universe.

We have more evidence for Dark Matter, and we can’t even agree that that’s matter!

Ooo, look at you with your fancy infrastructure. I bet you even have commercial flights!

In all seriousness, some airstrips have only a paved runway, and it’s just dirt for everything else.

Ah, so not just every possible universe, and not just every conceivable universe, and not just every coherent idea of a universe, and not just every arbitrary state of a universe, but every collection of arbitrary notions about any form of existence no matter if those notions are compatable in any way with anything.

In that case, the vast majority of universes are not possible to understand by our laws of logic. Most of them no longer exist either, as half of them spontaneously ended in 1602 and another half fell to false vacuum decay a billion years ago, and an infinite number of other things. Yet since we’re disregarding all logic and taking every arbitrary position, there are infinite universes where they spontaneously stopped existing every second since they started existing yet continue to exist, are one dimensional yet are made of nothing but triangles, have nothing but paradoxes yet are perfectly understandable by us, and are also in a multiverse where no other universes exist.

It’s a useless concept, as you can posit that any point at all is true. It’s also self-defeating, as our continued existence proves that there are no universes that have destroyed our universe permanently, and thus not every conceivable state can exist simultaneously.

Is there some use I am missing?

What if there are more ways to not have triangles than to have triangles? If every possibility is represented equally, that would mean there are more universes without triangles. The possibility of triangles isn’t the variables that’s changing, it’s a side effect of other variables.

I just rolled two six-sided dice. If we take that action as truely random and that every possibility is represented in some universe, then there are universes were I rolled 2 and universes where I rolled 7. However, there are more universes where I rolled 7, simply because there are more ways to roll 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1).

And that’s assuming that my roll was truely random, and not significantly biased by how I threw the dice. It’s also completely impossible that I rolled a 13, and universes where triangles are impossible might not exist. Every possible universe still exists, but there are more universes where I rolled 7, and none where I can’t draw a triangle. Infinite improbability doesn’t make the impossible possible.

Does it? As far as I am aware, the Big Bang modle only describes how the early universe developed, not how it began.

That’s the airstrip.

Ah, typo. 1/3 ≠ 0.333…

It is my opinion that repeating decimals cannot properly represent the values we use them for, and I would rather avoid them entirely (kinda like the meme).

Besides, I have never disagreed with the math, just that we go about correcting people poorly. I have used some basic mathematical arguments to try and intimate how basic arithmetic is a limited system, but this has always been about solving the systemic problem of people getting caught by 0.999… = 1. Math proofs won’t add to this conversation, and I think are part of the issue.

Is it possible to have a coversation about math without either fully agreeing or calling the other stupid? Must every argument about even the topic be backed up with proof (a sociological one in this case)? Or did you just want to feel superior?

simply accept that it has to be the case because 0.333… * 3. […] That is a correct mathematical understanding

This is my point, using a simple system (basic arithmetic) properly will give bad answers in specifically this situation. A correct mathematical understanding of arithmetic will lead you to say that something funky is going on with 0.999… , and without a more comprehensive understanding of mathematical systems, the only valid conclusions are that 0.999… doesn’t equal 1, or that basic arithmetic is limited.

So then why does everyone loose their heads when this happens? Thousands of people forcing algebra and limits on anyone they so much as suspect could have a reasonable but flawed conclusion, yet this thread is the first time I’ve seen anyone even try to mention the limitations of arithmetic, and they get stomped on.

Why is basic arithmetic so sacred that it must not be besmirched? Why is it so hard for people to admit that some tools have limits? Why is everyone bringing in so many more advanced systems when my entire argument this whole time is that a simple system has limits?

That’s my whole argument. Firstly, that 0.999… catches people because using arithmetic properly leads to an incorrect understanding of repeating decimals. And secondly, that starting with the limits of arithmetic will increase understand with less frustration than throwing more complicated solutions around.

My argument have never been with the math, only with our perceptions of it and how we go about teaching it.

This isn’t about limits of accuracy

According to who?

According to me, talking about the origin of the 0.999… issue of the original comment, the “conversion of fractions to decimals”, or using basic arithmetic to manipulate values into repeating decimals. This has been my position the entire time. If this was about the limits of accuracy, then it would be impossible to solve the 0.999… = 1 issue. Yet it is possible, our accuracy isn’t limited in this fashion.

You still haven’t shown why you’re limiting yourself to basic arithmetic.

Because that’s where the entire 0.999… = 1 originates. You’ll never even see 0.999… without using basic addition on each digit individually, especially if you use fractions the entire time. Thus 0.999… is an artifact of basic arithmetic, a flaw of that system.

Different systems for different applications.

Then you agree that not every system is applicable everywhere! Even if you use that system perfectly, you’ll still end up with the wrong answer! Thus the issue isn’t someone using the system incorrectly, it’s a limitation of the system that they used. The correct response to this isn’t throwing heaps of other systems at the person, it’s communicating the limit of that system.

If someone is trying to hammer a screw, chastising them for their swinging technique then using your personal impact wrench in front of them isn’t going to help. They’re just going to hit you with the hammer, and continue using the tools they have. Explaining that a hammer can’t do the twisting motion needed for screws, then handing them a screwdriver will get you both much farther.

Limits of accuracy isn’t algebra.

It never was, and neither is the problem we’ve been discussing. You can talk about glue, staples, clamps, rivets, and bolts as much as you like, people with hammers are still going to hit screws.

What do you mean not taught yet?

I mean those more advanced methods are taught after basic arithmetic. There are plenty of adults that operate primarily with 5th grade math, and a scary number of them do finances…

limits of accuracy

This isn’t about limits of accuracy, we’re working with abstract values and ideal systems. Any inaccuracies must be introduced by those systems.

If you think the system isn’t at fault here, please show me how basic arithmetic can make 0.999… into 1. Show me how the carry method deals with Infinity correctly. If every error is just using the system incorrectly, then a correct use of the system must be applicable to everything, right? You shouldn’t need a new system like algebra to be correct, right?

Neither of those examples use the rules of those system though.

Basic arithmetic on decimap notation is performed by adding/subtracting each digit in each place, or multiplying each digit by each digit then adding those sub totals together, or the yet more complicated long division.

Adding (and by extension multiplying) requires the carry operation, because digits only go up to 9. A string of 9s requires starting at the smallest digit. 0.999… has no smallest digit, thus the carry operation fails to roll it over to 1. It’s a bug that requires more comprehensive methods to understand.

Someone using only basic arithmetic on decimal notation will conclude that 0.999… is not 1. Another person using only geocentrism will conclude that some planets follow spiral orbits. Both conclusions are wrong, but the fault lies with the tools, not the people using them.

The system I’m talking about is elementary decimal notation and basic arithmetic. Carry the 1 and all that. Equations and algebra are more advanced and not taught yet.

There is no method by which basic arithmetic and decimal notation can turn 0.999… into 1. All of the carry methods require starting at the smallest digit, and repeating decimals have no smallest digit.

If someone uses these systems as they were taught, they will get told they’re wrong for doing so. If we focus on that person being wrong, then they’re more likely to give up on math entirely, because they’re wrong for doing as they were taught. If we focus on the limitstions of that system, then they have the explanation for the error, and an understanding of why the more complicated system is preferable.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Again, I don’t disagree with the math. This has never been about the math. I get that ever model is wrong, but some are useful. Math isn’t taught like that though, and that’s why people get hung up things like this.

Basic decimal notation doesn’t work well with some things, and insinuates incorrect answers. People use the tools they were taught to use. People get told they’re doing it wrong. People give up on math, stop trying to learn, and just go with what they can understand.

If instead we focus on the limitations of some tools and stop hammering people’s faces in with bigger equations and dogma, the world might have more capable people willing to learn.

I don’t really care how many representations a number has, so long as those representations make sense. 2 = 02 = 2.0 = 1+1 = -1+3 = 8/4 = 2x/x. That’s all fine, we can use the basic rules of decimal notation to understand the first three, basic arithmetic to understand the next three, and basic algebra for the last one.

0.999… = 1 requires more advanced algebra in a pointed argument, or limits and infinite series to resolve, as well as disagreeing with the result of basic decimal notation. It’s steeped in misdirection and illusion like a magic trick or a phishing email.

I’m not blaming mathematicians for this, I am blaming teachers (and popular culture) for teaching that tools are inflexible, instead of the limits of those systems.

In this whole thread, I have never disagreed with the math, only it’s systematic perception, yet I have several people auguing about the math with me. It’s as if all math must be regarded as infinitely perfect, and any unbelievers must be cast out to the pyre of harsh correction. It’s the dogmatic rejection I take issue with.

Are those algorithms taught to people in school?

Once again, I have no issue with the math. I just think the commonly taught system of decimal arithmetic is flawed at representing that math. This flaw is why people get hung up on 0.999… = 1.