Thread: Chemistry/Physics/Biology

Yea, that.

Physics. That's where the magic stuff happens in the realms of quantum and astro physics. You don't really hear the words "biology" or "chemistry" much when discussing the big bang theory. Or in engineering onboard the Enterprise when a breach in the anti-matter containment field is either about to cause the warp core to explode or send everybody back to the 19th century. I took a major in it and the great thing was I only had to take one chemistry class and ZERO biology classes.

Seeing as I did several years of a Chemistry degree, I'd go for ... Chemistry!

Yes all the other sciences are ultimately based on Physics, though I'd like to see an explanation of evolution using only physical laws. That'd be pretty tricky. :p

What are you talking about? Of course you can. If you know the electron arrangement of two elements it's trivial to predict what substance they are going to form. We do it all the time in chemistry.

If that's not predicting a chemical reaction using physics I don't know what is.

This is clearly based on a large degree of ignorance of Chemistry as there are countless reactions where this is far from trivial.

First of all you ignore the conditions of the system, energy levels of the various electrons in the various compounds, pressure, other chemicals that influence the system (and their concentrations). This can dramatically change the reaction.

Secondly we don't tend to do many reactions using pure elements, compared to the millions we do using complex compounds (particularly so in organic chemistry).

I could make more points but I have to get back to work. But if you want to see how "trivial" chemistry is, try reading an undergrad textbook.

The maths just becomes impossibly complicated for any compound with more than around one or two atoms.

Well, and there's also the fact that we only have the wave function solved for Hydrogen, with all the other ones being approximations, even without the maths being insanely complicated.

Cool, I didn't know that, about only solving it for hydrogen...

That's probably the main reason I dislike Chemistry so much... there's just no master pattern you can use. Every single thing you learn is really completely limited in application to itself, unlike physics where you can apply your knowledge to a huge range of new situations, or pure maths when the basic content is extremely easy to learn but the range of applications is pretty much unlimited.

That's probably the main reason I dislike Chemistry so much... there's just no master pattern you can use.

Maybe not, but certainly knowledge gained can be reused. Many drugs are synthesised by using extensive knowledge of functional groups and the methods to modify/replace them. There's a lot to learn, but with a good understanding, the limits on what chemicals you can synthesize are essentially unlimited. Perhaps it's fairer to say that you need a much broader knowledgebase than many other fields to be able to apply it successfully instead.

Perhaps the main problem with chemistry is that it's generally not an exact science, with side reactions occuring, different isomers of chemicals being produced, and so on.

Originally Posted by Xei

I win. Scum.

Saying math is more pure than the sciences is about the same as saying english (or russian or latin, etc.) is more pure than philosophy.

...why?

The only one of the three I've taken is Biology and I could never get the information to stick in my head. I would know it for as long as it took to study for a test, but when that was over, it all fell out.

I love geology, so I think that I would (possibly?) enjoy taking both chemistry and physics. From what I heard, physics makes more logical sense so I would probably find it easier to learn, but formulas do also stick in my head so chemistry might have a chance as well.

[/assumptions]

Really, I like all three except when you are plugging in equations and formulas in chemistry; one small error can seriously screw up your answer(and in chemistry it can be really easy to do). This goes for all math using subjects of course.

I voted for all three, but I'd have to say that Biology was my favourite, because it was through biology that I became aware just how amazing science as a whole is. I disliked maths a lot in school mainly because I have a short working memory and so screwed around in class a lot, and because of that I disliked physics and chem. But biology opened me up to a lot of the wonder of science mainly because I could study it and then look at my hand and think "wow, my cells are metabolising right now."

Having said that, I'm now gradually re-learning maths with the hope of studying physics and chem out of self-interest.

Oh, and if anybody is going to get into a debate concerning greatest importance, I'm happy to say that philosophy owns you all. No contest. Without philosophy we would not have had any tools of rational enquiry to start off with: we'd be debating which element we like best out of wind, earth, fire and water. And comparing homeopathic recipes. And cranial measurements to rate our criminality.

Actually maybe not that much has changed.

I was watching a google video while reading this thread and saw this. Not making a statement, but I think this is seemingly relevant.

Yeah, but isn't mathematics "just a sort of a philosophy" until you apply certain parameters to make it into physics? So you can operate with the universe n'stuff...

Whatever it is, I think it's all very interesting. Too bad I'm so bad at it

Without math we'd be living in the stone age. Can you imagine not even having the ability to count?
You couldn't do basic commerce. You'd see that great big white ball in the sky but darn'd if you'd know how to figure out it's distance.
Even art (via the golden triangle and pi) is influenced by math. Your heart rate would be "unknown".
You guessed it. Not only am I an Amway salesman, I sell math as well.
If anyone's interested I can hook you up with a couple of quadratic equations real cheap. Don't worry, they're not hot. They're simply used.

Biology, neurology, biopsychology.

~

Originally Posted by Xei

...why?

Because math is a language that has no inherent meaning until you apply it to reality. By itself, math is useless.

But still, isn't math the only science that can implenent "everything"?

All dimensions with all possible outcomes? But then again, there is
the need to apply to reality. But still... (i don't know..)

edit: ah,I see your point..

Because math is a language that has no inherent meaning until you apply it to reality. By itself, math is useless.

That's philosophically dubious though. It could be the case that at the bottommost level of reductionism there is no distinction between mathematics and reality.

Originally Posted by Xei

That's philosophically dubious though. It could be the case that at the bottommost level of reductionism there is no distinction between mathematics and reality.

So you would agree with UM's position that math and numbers are an intrinsic part of reality? Where does math exist in nature? Is reality base 10?

No? Why would reality be base 10? Base 10 is a synthetic creation.

Think about quarks... they have no dimensions. They are just points; coordinates. The these coordinates move around according to simple mathematical relationships (it is conjectured). It's hard to distinguish between this reality and 'mathematics'.

It's a little similar the consciousness. The weird thing about consciousness is that it doesn't have a location. It's simply a result of a system; but the whole concept of 'system' is just a mathematical idea. This seems to suggest an objective reality to maths...

Of course it could all just be semantics. Human minds probably can't cope with these things anyway.

"Does mathematics exist independently of the human mind? The Platonic view holds that it does, that it is a body of concepts existing in an external reality. This implies that math is gradually discovered and mapped out, much as an unknown country might be. The opposing view is that math is internal, created by humans as the product of our minds and the way they function, so that we would describe mathematical innovations as inventions."

Do all other forms of science rest on the principles of mathematics?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Because math is a language that has no inherent meaning until you apply it to reality. By itself, math is useless.

From our human experience, what does?

Originally Posted by Xei

No? Why would reality be base 10? Base 10 is a synthetic creation.

Think about quarks... they have no dimensions. They are just points; coordinates. The these coordinates move around according to simple mathematical relationships (it is conjectured). It's hard to distinguish between this reality and 'mathematics'.

It's a little similar the consciousness. The weird thing about consciousness is that it doesn't have a location. It's simply a result of a system; but the whole concept of 'system' is just a mathematical idea. This seems to suggest an objective reality to maths...

Of course it could all just be semantics. Human minds probably can't cope with these things anyway.

The language in which we describe the positions and movement of quarks is mathematics. This doesn't mean that mathematics dictate the positions and movements of quarks. The sun is fundamentally hot, but the word 'hot' doesn't dictate any characteristics of the sun, or even our perception of what hot is.

Originally Posted by Howie

From our human experience, what does?

What does what?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Because math is a language that has no inherent meaning until you apply it to reality. By itself, math is useless.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What does what?

What has meaning?

The answer lies in the silence

chirp chirp chirp < --- supposed crickets sounds?

Originally Posted by Howie

The answer lies in the silence

chirp chirp chirp < --- supposed crickets sounds?

You are an impatient fellow, aren't you? Unlike most people on this forum, I attempt to think out what I want to say to make sure I get it right the first time. If I'm taking too long for you, you can just as easily discuss these things in a chat room instead of on a message board.

Originally Posted by Howie

What has meaning?

Everything has meaning (or nothing does), but thats not what I said. I said math has no inherent meaning, i.e. it is not an intrinsic part of nature. Although the sciences aren't intrinsic to nature exactly either, they are at least attempts to describe the essential characters of the world. Math on the other hand is merely the language that we use to describe. It is not capable of being either true or untrue; only accurate or inacurate by varying degrees, and only within the confines of the rules that we decide.

Now, Xei claimed through the medium of comic strip that math was more pure. I didn't necessarily disagree with that assertion, I only likened it to saying that english or russian then must be more pure than philosophy, or really any topic that one decides to talk about. I'm sure many linguists would agree with this to a similar degree as mathematicians.

To me though, what does purity have to do with anything? What use is the study of what can be said if you don't actually care about talking? At what point does the mechanism of description become more important than that which you are trying to describe?