Favourite type of science?

Post Reply New Topic

true, but most abstractions are closely tied to the physical world in one way or the other,
the number 1 is a palceholder for a multitude of concepts used by our species to facilitate comunication about objects, i agree that the number 1 in itself is only an abstract, i also agree much of computer science is only abstract but those abstracts are a way to improve our empirical understanding of computational systems (something that actually physcially exists) as well as give us new ways of implementing the human will through those systems.

i must admit that i find this particular field extremely frustrating in this sense, computers in general, they use an enormous amount of theoretical work, often build upon other work without even knowing, to impart extreme changes around it.

That's not what I'm "surprised" by (but how could you know that when only looking at 30% of the post? ) It's the childish conduct that it spawns that you all are willing to adopt when doing so. If one is going to bother with arguing with another person, they should at the very least respect the argument of the other by acknowledging all of it - not just what they want.

To Orwell complaining about not using anecdotal evidence, you did when saying that mathematicians sometimes test their observations concretely over the course of their study, and used that as justification (along with the math-isn't-science crutch) to dismiss computer science. I've done much the same thing with biology, but it's not the only damn thing I've offered so far.

To everyone, when I say 'look at computer science alone, I mean forget about theoretical computer science and look at the way empirical computer science is practiced. Even quantum computing has come into the realm of the empirical now that the predictions made before can be verified with actual quantum computers. They're rudimentary computers, but that's not the point.

Not responding to everything does not imply not having read everything. Would you feel better if I quoted your whole post but still only directly responded to a portion of it? You have bizarre views on netiquette, and no one here is bound to abide by them.


That's not anecdotal evidence. It was a counterexample to your (incorrect) claim that testing something automatically makes it science. And you have yet to provide any justification for your disagreement with the claim that math is not a science.


Running a program to see if it works properly is really not the same thing as an empirical science. Nor is it the bulk of computer science work.

FYI, any time I'm in any sort of debate with someone, I read posts carefully, and even more so when I decide to respond. I frequently read each word at least 2-3 times or more.

Just because I don't quote the whole thing doesn't mean I didn't read and consider the whole thing.


What?


I respect arguments based on their merit.

What, BTW, do you mean by 'respecting' an opponent's argument? If you mean quoting their entire post, why didn't you do so in your post?


1. Nobody is 'dismissing' computer science. If they were, I'd have something to say about that.

2. Quit calling the 'math isn't science' argument a crutch. Tossing out adjectives isn't an effective counterargument, and if you have an effective counterargument then you can just use it.


So the art of computer programming? Or software engineering?


Which predictions are you referring to? Physical predictions? Then you are talking science, physics to be exact.

I like physics best, although right now my knowledge of mathematics is more suitable for chemistry than physics I'm working to change that.

Somewhere between my ears and my face and the back of my head.

ruveyn

Breakbeat science!

Iriscience of Dilated is pretty gool as well.

Which subfield of physics are you most interested in? Physics in general requires mathematical tools from almost all areas of mathematics. However, most of the pure mathematics textbooks on those subjects focus more on theorems and proofs rather than practical applications of the subject matter. If you just want the tools needed to understand physics then I would rather recommend a book like "Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by Arfken and Weber:

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Sixth-Comprehensive/dp/0120598760

I've already told you that unwillingness to accept the fact that physical particles are data will prevent agreement on the issue. You can say "data" is just an abstraction all you want, but it's no more an abstraction than the particle itself. The photon is an abstraction. It's accepted as having two distinct forms as a particle and a wave - completely uncontroversial, yet it's observed and measured quantitatively no differently from the way chromosomes are measured and can be interpreted as databases. There's nothing that says you can't observe a function of the natural world that can only be described by math and observed indirectly. This is exactly how black holes are studied. As far as our perception of reality is concerned, they only exist in two places: in math, and as agents of force on other objects. Nobody can directly observe a black hole. The same can be said for photons as well. It's excepted that you can't observe the two forms of photons at the same time, but didn't stop this guy from indirectly observing their properties by using macro-scale models that are nothing like photons. I doubt anyone's going to seriously challenge these endeavors as unscientific. In the same way, you can't directly observe the raw form of "information", only the different forms it takes. Computer science attempts to model both in many different sub-fields, and experiments on them all according to what type of information they're attempting to model is.

As for the 'it's just math' business, it's not. The math is used only as a tool in the same way every other science does. To model something that's there and has specific behaviors that need to be described according to consistent framework. That framework's structure is dictated not by everybody's imaginations, but by what will consistently repeat results that mimic what's observed by systems in nature through experiments written and run according to what's observed in nature. This still requires acceptance of the idea that algorithms spontaneously appear in nature and aren't created by man. This isn't as uncontroversial a view as some seem to think. The only irregularity is that the entire concept of the algorithm is man-made, rather than taking the form of a ball (particle) or rippling water (wave) and things seen before. Even so, the universe doesn't really care what we call what it does - we can call it unicorns and it won't get mad. What's relevant is that everything we say about it stays consistent. And if this post gets cut up into sentence fragments again, there's a good chance I'll be in a bad mood.

No. Photons physically exist.

Abstractions can be written down on paper. Descriptions of photons are abstractions. Actual photons are moving at the speed of light, or they aren't photons. Paper can't move that fast.


What are you getting at with chromosome/database comparison?


OK. So what?


Unless you're using a quirky definition for 'directly observe', this is simply false. Every time you look at something, you are directly observing a large quantity of photons.


What is 'the raw form of information'?



This is scientific modelling using computers, not computer science.


The whole field isn't just math, but the theoretical side is.


Algorithms are math. The study of algorithms is a mathematical pursuit.


No.

If you really think that algorithms appear in nature and are not man-made, then tell me where quicksort was observed in nature. And, while you're at it, where algorithms specifically made for sorting using magnetic tape drives appeared in nature.


If you aren't even going to reply to my questions about your objections to my way of posting, I can guarantee that I will not change my method.

I already did answer your 'objections' they were just in another post not directed at you that you didn't read. Read it. TL;DR version: it's inappropriate (and a waste of my time) to cut up a post and reply only to individual sentences as if they're self-contained arguments. They're not, so stop doing it. You're continually leaving out key supporting information from my arguments that's inconvenient to your dogma, and it needs to stop.

First, you have a very basic understanding of "existence" and movement. Photons are quantum objects that have two forms and according to some interpretations of the universe, don't move at all - simply exist at different places at different points in time. Whether or not anything actually 'moves' isn't even known yet. They just won't tell you that in your algebra-based physics class.

And your definition of "observe" is myopic at best. "Observe" in science means 'detect with sensory tools for measurement'. The truth is, you can't measure both forms of a photon in their entirety simultaneously. I'm not explaining why, look it up.

"What is the raw form of information" is the very thing string theory tries to answer. Sit tight and stay tuned. Yeah, that's right; humans don't know everything!

The rudimentary understanding of programming isn't helping, either. That C++ class you had in high school does not cover what algorithms mean, only how to write one that does something in the console. Sorting algorithms intended for specific purposes that you've seen in technology are not the algorithms studied in academia. What you've seen are cut-down, jury-rigged snippets of much more complicated systems that were created for one purpose, and one purpose only. You need to think larger your limited experience with technology. Once again, you ignore the statement that everything is just information, and that mass and energy are just different types of information. Information can be stored in databases (cells) can be manipulated by algorithms (the thought processes in the human brain that control our bodies to further manipulate other objects).

The other thing that probably isn't clear is that I'm not even talking about the purely theoretical portions of computer science. So get off it. What I'm talking about is practiced empirically, and the foundation it's built on.


No. Again, you're ignoring the statement that information is nature, and that the systems can be tested by writing agents that will (hopefully) use it and be able to manipulate other forms of information. AI labs have been trying to model the in-born algorithms in human brains passed down through genetics/biology for decades, and it's because of this very idea that mass and energy are information.

Since you're clearly more interested in preserving your own dogma than making a counter-argument (you literally have nothing other than 'theoretical computer science is just math' without realizing that I'm not even talking about the purely theoretical), I'm done here. Putting someone on the defensive all the time is a good tactic, but you can only get away with it for so long before you actually counter them or annoy them into leaving. You've accomplished the latter. If you simply refuse to buy the majority view that mass an energy are information, then it'd be conducive for the both of us for you to just say so and leave it at that.

That gives me an idea.

Something like a database of theory and equations written so it can be accessed in real time by people working in research. But it could do more, the database could be written in such a way that it can be interactive with the software that carries out such research. I picture something like being able to take an equation in wiki format and plug it right into the project so to speak. Physics/chemistry/biology/astrophysics/science simulator? What you think Oodain?

I found only 2 instances that might be this 'answer' you're talking about. In the first, you accuse me of taking things you say out of context, which is something I don't do. If you think I'm taking something you say out of context, then either I failed to understand what you said or I thought it irrelevant. If you disagree, don't whine about it, point it out.

The second was what I was objecting to in the first place. My objections, BTW, were to your 'childish conduct' and 'respecting arguments' verbiage.


I quote to remind myself (and anyone else) what points I am responding to. The reply is directed to your argument in general, as well as the individual post and sentence (or longer fragment).


I am not doing this. If I were, it would be easy to debunk what I said by merely pointing this out.


Since you apparently didn't understand my argument, let me rephrase.

Information can be written on paper with ink. A photon cannot be written on paper with ink. Therefore, a photon cannot be said to 'be' information.


If you're defining an observation as something which violates the uncertainty principle, that is a very odd definition indeed. It would mean that an observation can never occur.


As far as I can tell, string theory is like epicycles - and immense theoretical monstrosity that never makes falsifiable predictions. I could be wrong, of course, but even if I am, this doesn't answer my question.

If you don't even have a working definition for 'raw information', perhaps you shouldn't use the term.


Riiiight. This from the guy who thinks doing simulations is what computer science is.


Your assumption about my education is way off.


Wrong, plain and simple. Sorting is actually quite a big deal in academic computer science. I refer you to volume 3 of Knuth's 'The Art of Computer Programming' entitled 'Sorting and Searching'.


No, I objected to this and you never answered.


Cells are not databases and thoughts are not algorithms.


The question we're debating is whether computer science is a science. The theoretical side is a large portion of what computer science is.


And 'the foundation it's built on' is the theoretical side.


Sometimes AI is trying to model something in nature, sometimes it is trying to make something resembling intelligence in any way possible.


As I've said repeatedly, my position is that theoretical computer science is math, and practical computer science is something else that most closely resembles engineering. This leaves nothing that could be usefully labelled a science.


If you are not going to present an argument for this point, then I won't buy it. But if I did buy it, so what? What would this have to do with computer science being a science?

Biokinetica, would you care to provide a citation for your claim that your beliefs here are the "majority view?" I work with a lot of scientists, and I highly doubt any of them would agree with the things you are asserting.

And please refrain from insulting other members, especially while chastising them for their allegedly "disrespectful" posting styles.

Electronics is my favorite. I guess that's technically physics but I voted for other because I think of physics as mechanics and that kind of stuff.

I once was beaned by a baseball. That baseball is just information (or data)? Boy it sure felt harder than that and the lump it raised -- was that lump just information (or data). It was ugly as hell and eventually turned brown and purple before it went away. Some information that is.

ruveyn