Sunny Liu (28) 3.16 POD essay We must first define senses, sciences, and mathematics.

For most people, humans only have five senses: taste, sight, smell, touch and hearing. There are some who insists on the sixsense but due to its broad range of claims from the ability to communicate with their pet to the ability to detect earthquake before it occurs until the ability to be like one person (especially between twins, some pairs can know what the other is thinking of), we will not look at the six-sense. Science is defined as knowledge in Latin [1]. However, many supernatural occurrence, or incidents that exceed our current knowledge of the world and nature, have doubted our belief in science. In addition, sciences have this tendency to hint the inexistence of our religion. Therefore the question is whether we can trust science. Mathematics is the stairway to science. However, under different conditions mathematics can be wrong. The common example of sum of angles in a triangle always = 180 0can be wrong if the triangle was drawn on a sphere. The final question is regarding truth. Truth is defined as many different ways. Truth also has this tendency to hurt people. What is this truth that we are seeing currently? This truth can it be trusted? People have this tendency to convert something unpleasant to be pleasing to the eye. Perhaps history was all wrong, since history is written by winners, and winners do not like to appear ugly in others eyes. While many would trust their senses, but are they really trusting their senses? Our brain interprets the raw information fed by the senses and thus we conclude from the information fed to us i.e., what many people trust is the conclusion, which may be false. For instance, sour could really be sweet in reality but our brain interpreted the taste to be sour. In that case, acids would not really be sour; they would be sweet, and probably that is why our brain interprets it as sour: should sour become sweet; people would be dying by drinking acid! Therefore there must be a reason our brain interprets something, probably due to evolution. Therefore senses can be trusted assuming we consider the interpretation obtained. Another example can be when you just ate a candy and immediately settled for some apples. Are the apples actually sour? They only taste sour because you just ate something very sweet, and the brain interprets the sweetness of it as very low and you are more sensitive towards the sourness of it. Another way of putting it will be that the sense of taste has to calibrate itself before using it again or there will be biasness in the interpretation of your brain of the taste of the food. The reliability of science had been questioned over the years. In truth, science is inconsistent-theories are constantly changing. What we used to have as gravity is now gone; what remains is the bending of the dimensions that leads to the attraction, or the uncontrolled falling, as illustrated by the diagram on the right. However, in order for the mass to fall with the slope, it requires gravity. A car only finds it hard to travel up a slope due to the gravitational potential energy of the Earth, due to its immense mass. That slope in the diagram has nothing to cause the objects on the top to fall inwards. Therefore how do we

know that Einsteins interpretation is right? Sunlight was known to be of white only, until Newton one day discovered that it was made of seven colours. Then we discovered that there are ultraviolet, infrared and other different light at different energy levels of the spectrum. Before the Newtonian era, people thought only centrifugal force is at work in a spinning top or any spinning objects. Newton, with his third law and perhaps luck, deduced that there must be a force pulling it inwards, or it will not spin, but instead move in a straight line. There must be something in the centre of the spinning with a force that holds it back. So Newton corrected the mistake of our ancestors. This once again shows how theories changes around and laws are derived. For all we know, the next morning we wake up we will be informed that atoms do not exist! Science does not answer our questions exactly either. It may tell you the answer but at the same time it raises even more question. Eventually, like peeling an onion, you will reach a point whereby it is impossible to answer. For example: Q: What is that light just now that appeared when the brick was rubbed against the cement with sugar between? A: Triboluminescence. It was light emitted by the sugar crystals as they get crushed. Q: oh, but why would they emit the light when they are crushed? A: The answer is unknown, but there are many theories. Once again, more onion skins are created. When answering questions, more questions are raised. Science is a never ending vortex with no end in sight. Mathematics is perhaps the most reliable of them three. There are many traditional ideas of 1+1=2 which can be proven wrong, or right. 1+1=2 can be proven as like one chicken plus another lamb gives you two animals. They would not mate, for they are different species. So the theory of one male plus one female give you two and perhaps more children is false. Once again, mathematics is only correct under certain conditions. Under the conditions of one water droplet plus one water droplet, you get one bigger water droplet, which, is still one. Hence you might want to consider the idea of using one ml of water plus another ml of water, and then you might actually get something that is two ml (assuming cohesive and adhesive forces are not at work). We can thus conclude that mathematics is only reliable if we are precise. There are, however, exceptions. To quote an example from Mr. Koh during one of the POD lectures, If you have an iPod Touch here and you give it to me. I decide to share it with myself only. There is only one iPod Touch averaged out. If I want to share the iPod Touch with two people, the average is half though we do not split. However, if I were to just leave it there, on the table, and no one touches it, there is still only one iPod Touch left, unlike how mathematics suggests it becomes infinity. This may sound sound, but in fact that by leaving the iPod Touch there, it was not in fact that it was left untouched; it was still divided by one. Since to divide among something is to split to equal portions to allow everyone to have the same piece. An iPod Touch divided by zero, frankly, I have no idea what it would be. It could be infinity, supported by

1/0.1=10

1/0.01=100 1/0.001=1000 . 1/0=infinity This is because as shown by the equation, the smaller the denominator, the greater the resultant. Dividing by zero is not even possible! After all, how can you leave something with no parts at all? If one is a whole, then zero is nothing. If it is to become nothing, the particle, the object, surface area, volume whatsoever may have to become infinity to compensate the increase. Just to show how mathematics may not be wrong at all, but instead it is humans mistake: 1. Many mathematical fallacies were in actual the mathematicians mistake, the math did not contradict itself. 1. a = b 2. a2 = ab 3. a2 b2 = ab b2 4. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Therefore 5. a+b=b However, many ignored the fact that by dividing equation 4 throughout by (a-b), we are also dividing the equation by 0, since equation 1 tells us that a = b. Therefore, it is proven wrong. There is another effect that people had previously commonly ignored. Looking back at a few infamous two times two makes five campaigns (by Russians to show that they can finish a five-year plan in four years), there is a psychological sociological effect that can be shown. When many people believe in something together, people will believe it. The world can say 1+1=100 and there may be 1 billion people believing it. By then, the doubts may be there. When at least half the world starts believing, the trend may show a drastic increase. This once again shows that mathematics may not be the one wrong, but the people using it. While in our world today, science, senses and mathematics may not be entirely correct, due to human errors or other reasons, we do have to admit that without science and technology, we would be nowhere near where our status in the world is at currently. Without the senses, we are worse than earthworms. At least they can have a sense of touch and hear sound. Without mathematics, the basis of our society breaks down. While penicillin can be discovered without mathematics, to mass produce and put it to industry requires the use of mathematics. Mathematics is invented, but at the same time many parts of it are discovered. Mathematics is not invented or discovered alone. Without sciences, there would be no PSPs, X-Box 360, Wii, PC, your everyday apple softwares/hardwares etc. Most likely this essay would be submitted in pencil and paper (not even pen, since pens are mass produce and the inks are a ratio of the various constituents). Perhaps in that kind of a world this essay would not even be submitted People are struggling for survival and there is really no point having education if we cannot even ensure that our species can live on. Hence no matter how much

we may loathe it, science, sense, and mathematics are part of our everyday life that is required for our living.

References: 1. Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage. ISBN 0-67976867-X.