In these days, teachers and students of our world say that teaching and learing science is difficult.
Teaching and learing is not a difficult task, if one concentrates “on the origin of science”.
In our version - [size=150]The human attempts to distinguish the invariants from the variants produce science and philsophy.[/size]
We need the comments of research and philsophical community to comment on our work posted at: http://wwf.edula.com
SIVASHANMUGAM
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLGY AND BIOINFORMATICS
JAYA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
TIRUNINRAVUR
CHENNAI - 602024 - INDIA
I would review your whole effort.
If I throw food out for the sparrows regularly in winter, they are waiting before I open the back door to throw the food out. They have seperated the variants from the invariants.
ive actually had a look now, and it doesnt actually seem to say much. Apart from having lots of needless repetition, it doesnt seem to conclude anything at all. I still have no idea what the “Origin of Science” is meant to be from all these statements.
I can accept that entropy ensures that reactions will produce more and more irreversible effects eventually resulting in a state where nothing (major) changes forever. I also accept that already there may be certain laws (states of the universe) which are completely immutable.
However, this doesnt have anything to do with a concept of God I know of. For starters he would have a beginning and wouldnt be conscious.
I fail to see how a cup of coffee in a sealed room becomes a god once its temperature matches that of the room. Smells kinda Spinoza like to me, and ive never seen a reason to like pantheism.
Can anyone in the world list the true invariants the science and philosophy found so far?
So far, NEITHER SCIENCE NOR PHILOSOPHY HAS FOUND A TRUE INVARIANT. It is the human search for a true invariant that produces every science and philsophy!
Of course, science tells about many invariants!!! But a deep look tells that they are not true invariants.
Our work at wwf.edula.com is at the level of working draft. Gradually, the linguistics errors will be corrected soon. Of course, the editor is not a native englishman to put the his thoughts in a perfect English!!
We need the cooperation of the world learned community in this regard
Do all things constantly vary?
What about the characteristics?
For instance, all that common to a small and a big cirlce are the characteristics of a cirlce.
Do the characteristics of a circle vary constantly?
I see your problem as much more severe than one of grammatical or linguistic mistakes.
The site you link starts off describing scientific processes in basically accurate, if romantic, terms. The problem arises when one moves from factual descriptive statements to hopeful metaphysical statements. For example, there are lists of what the “variants” are in the sciences and in other fields, contrasted with the “invariants” of that field. Nowhere is the argument made that the state of being “invariant” is this mystical property that, when fully realized, will allow us to (insert description of wonderful results here) - it is simply assumed. After pages’ worth of descriptive statements, suddenly we get the above “conclusion.”
In his article “The Elimination of Metaphysics,” A.J. Ayer points out that quite a bit of English-language metaphysics is based on faulty thinking that is the direct result of English grammar. It sounds like the Tamil language is also vulnerable to this. A “God” has little or nothing to do with the “invariants” described on the site you linked; the two concepts are distinct and have entirely different meanings, connotations, intellectual realms, and existential consequences - at least in English. One must be incredibly careful when one treads into the realm of metaphysics - like as not one’s “beliefs” are the result of faulty assumptions which have no grounding other than the perceived definition of some word like “is.”
Then what is the difference between a character and a characteristic?
For instance, a human may vary from one state to another state. - what remains as an invariant are the characteristics of a human!
A small circle may vary to form a big circle. - what remains as an invariant are the characteristics of a circle!
If there exists no invariant, the human logical system will fail. The human logic look for the common invariant terms in the premises!
If there exists no invariant, no human can predict the unknown! The invariants are shared by the known and the unknown, the invariants are shared by the known past, present and the future!
If there exists no invariant, the evolutionary theories will fail. The look for the homologies, the invariants among the species!
"If there exists no invariant, the human logical system will fail. The human logic look for the common invariant terms in the premises!
If there exists no invariant, no human can predict the unknown! The invariants are shared by the known and the unknown, the invariants are shared by the known past, present and the future!
If there exists no invariant, the evolutionary theories will fail. The look for the homologies, the invariants among the species!"
Yin&Yang? the universe is not in balance, entropy exists.
mathematical principles do not vary, but new ones are added. “1” is only a value, and that value is always constant. You could argue that mathematical principles dont apply to the real world, but you’d have a hard job since physics is working quite well.
And yet, no balance can be reached, it is a constant downward spiral. The seesaw may be level (and only in a system with a big influx of order, such as say, energy from the sun), but its still careening sideways downhill on a skate board.
Imagine everything becomes invariant, in balance and basically, frozen…
Time will disappear, then what would happen? Space disappear? Yes. End to all. The end.
EVERY VARIANT HAS AN INVARIANT.
This is what the link at wwf.edula.com tries to say.
Finding the invariants of the variant:
A variant reveals its invariants when it varies!!!
Disturb and observe the response!
please, stop with the caps and multiple exclamation marks.
of course, knowing a few constants is useful, but far more useful is the interaction of variables. In alot of physics the constants are just conventions to overcome our oddness with using degrees instead of radians and such.
Pi is a complete invarient of course (as is the result of most maths ).
so how can a universe with entropy be called balanced, you havent answered my question. In all systems chaos increases, and order buggers off, so in what way are they in balance?
pi is an invariant; but pi is the invariant of the variants: the cirucumference of a cirlce and the diameter of the circle!
For more about pi: cecm.sfu.ca/pi/pi.html visionengineer.com/ref/pi.shtml
Pi is an invariant, but why so far its value has not be fixed?
It’s value varies, everybody tries to fix its invariant value.
That is everybody makes attempts to find the invariant
am i correct?
Suppose, if the human attempts to distinguish invariants from variants is not the origin of science and philosophy, what else could be the origin?
Science has one origin or multiple origins?
What is a pattern? a pattern is the invariant of the variant. Human mind is a pattern recoginzing system, that is, the human mind recognizes the invariants of the sense data. Our sensory organs cannot sense the invariants. our sensory organs can sense only the variants.
Is is possible to distinguish an invariant without varying a variant?
5.What is the difference between sensing and realizastion? (a variant is sensed when it varies, an invariant is realized from the sense data; no sensor can sense an invariant)
