western scientists are hilarious

[Anonymous No.11822798]

reminder that mathematicians
(https://www.quantamagazine.org/titans-of-mathematics-clash-over-epic-proof-of-abc-conjecture-20180920/))
and physicists
(https://www.nature.com/articles/263198a0))
are fucking retarded, have no idea what they're talking about, accept what follows from historically contingent definition-making as truths, and that STEMfags are like the blind being led by the blind

[Anonymous No.11822808]

Hegel predicted all this

[Anonymous No.11823096]

reminder that S fags are demigodlike Chads and TEM fags are autistic proles

[Anonymous No.11823364]

Anti-intellectual moron. Do you have a Ph.D. in math and or physics? Are you an authority on these topics? It doesn't seem like it since you just shit out this low effort ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.11823365]

math exists but physics is astrology

[Anonymous No.11823399]

>>11822798
You have a fundamentally misunderstanding of mathematics. It is abstract, so the discussions are based on frameworks that are constructed.

[Anonymous No.11823400]

>>11823365
>math exists
Math is invented, not discovered

[Anonymous No.11823401]

>... Who claims Truth, Truth abandons. History is hir'd, or coerc'd, only in Interests that must ever prove base. She is too innocent, to be left within the reach of anyone in Power,—who need but touch her, and all her Credit is in the instant vanish'd, as if it had never been. She needs rather to be tended lovingly and honorably by fabulists and counterfeiters, Ballad-Mongers and Cranks of ev'ry Radius, Masters of Disguise to provide her the Costume, Toilette, and Bearing, and Speech nimble enough to keep her beyond the Desires, or even the Curiosity, of Government...

[Anonymous No.11823403]

>>11823364
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.11823405]

Reminder that the entire cosmological model of modern physics doesn't actually work in reality and they've had to invent invisible and undetectable dark matter and dark energy to avoid admitting they're wrong

[Anonymous No.11823418]

>>11823405
It works, just not on that scale.

[Anonymous No.11823648]

>>11822798
I literally do not understand the point you're making here. Mathematicians arguing over a proof shows that they don't know what they're talking about? Are you serious?

>>11823405
Lambda-CDM is still the best account we have, no one pretends that it's perfect. More research will of course reveal what dark matter actually is and will lead us to a btter more detailed account.

[Anonymous No.11823657]

>>11823400
Elegant fractal patterns are common in nature, and that mathematicians clearly discover rather than invent them. It's innate

[Anonymous No.11823665]

>>11823364
yes

go science

build this stuff to the moon

block out the stars

trust the plan

WWG1WGA

MEGA

[Anonymous No.11823676]

>>11823418
>>11823648
>dude banal abstraction will save us if we can just reverse all laws of physiognomy lmao

[Anonymous No.11823687]

>>11823676
What are you talking about

[Anonymous No.11823691]

They are not retarded, they just have taken their pretend game too seriously

[Anonymous No.11823705]

>>11823676
tf

[Anonymous No.11823707]

>>11823657
Yes but math is not “elegant fractal patterns.” Math is the language used to describe those patterns. Math is a system imposed onto the fabric of reality which happens to explain it very well.

[Anonymous No.11823711]

>>11823707
yeah right with (((Axioms))) which basically boil down to "things that I don't know how to explain but will take for true anyway"

Pure hogwash

[Anonymous No.11823719]

[Anonymous No.11823731]

>>11823711
>meme echoes
>doesn't understand what axioms are
>thinks that even helps his argument
yep, it's a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11823736]

>>11823719
no arguing against it

[Anonymous No.11823741]

>>11823687
So this is the power of mutation in the mind...

[Anonymous No.11823746]

>>11823719

[Anonymous No.11823752]

>>11823746
>English, Einstein!!

[Anonymous No.11824157]

>>11823418
>>11823648
Come on dudes. If we are honest with ourselves, dark matter is phlogiston or luminiferous aether tier. The model is wrong, we just don't know how

[Anonymous No.11824173]

>>11823676
what?

[Anonymous No.11824208]

>>11822808
Do you have a source on that?

[Anonymous No.11824221]

>>11823401
History is my waifu.

[Anonymous No.11824292]

>>11823711
Never said math was perfect.

[Anonymous No.11824307]

>>11823711
lmao dude you know descartes was just fucking around right not to mention the “turtles all the way down” problem induced by his “light of nature” bullshit.

But also the absolute state of “hey there’s some uncertainty here, hmm must be real abstract entities lmao”. How does that not strike you as equally or more absurd?

[Anonymous No.11824320]

>>11822798
>getting my STEM PhD
>actually get paid to do research
>tfw only non-materialist subjectivist in my cohort

[Anonymous No.11824342]

>>11824157
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Scientists weren't idiots for suggesting phlogiston either, they found a better account for what was going on but it made sense at the time. Same with dark matter. Until we figure out exactly what's keeping galaxies together dark matter fits with all current observations.

[Anonymous No.11824346]

>>11823364
>tfw actually an authority in my limited area of STEM
suck my nuts materialist

[Anonymous No.11824567]

>>11824342
>Until we figure out exactly what's keeping galaxies together dark matter fits with all current observations.

LMAO, how is this any better than saying its god?

[Anonymous No.11824574]

>>11824342
Who's calling them idiots? I'm just pointing out our current model is incomplete and almost certainly wrong. Don't understand your butthurt

[Anonymous No.11824578]

>>11824342
I understand that physicists don't like it when people suggest that maybe the gravity model is wrong rather than there being dark matter, they say that this doesn't align with the math, and since I can't do the math I can't comment on it, but it strikes me as somewhat of a meme. It really just looks like the gravity model doesn't fit what we are seeing, positing the existence of invisible undetectable matter seems like such a leap

[Anonymous No.11824618]

>>11824578
It is even worse, its not like dark matter and dark energy are just a tiny correction to the current theory to make it fit.
It needs to account for like 95% of the whole effect, its fucking ridiculous

>Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%,

[Anonymous No.11824915]

>>11823365
>>11823657
>>11823711
>>11823719
>platonism
How can anyone take philmath discussion on /lit/ seriously when memes like this are still around?

[Anonymous No.11824955]

>>11823364
people who drop out of highschool and talk about wanting to be "physics majors" and types who espouse neil degrasse tyson b.s are usually some of the most anti intellectual people you'll ever meet. Not able to understand the need for ethics they then confute the notion of inherent virtuosity in the STEM fields, they themselves are usually robots feeding the will of professors that actually have experience in the humanities, because of the fact that "scientific writing" used to actually be the most important part of the field and not just being a pretentious retard.

[Anonymous No.11825005]

>>11823400

The symbols are invented, the rest isn't.

[Anonymous No.11825019]

>>11824915

>2k18
>not being a platonist

lmao look at this brainlet

[Anonymous No.11825038]

>>11823400
>Math is invented
What is this philosophy called?

I'm ignorant on the subject, but I don't agree. Math is independent of human conscious.

[Anonymous No.11825054]

>>11825038
>what is this philosophy called
Different interpretations believe math is moreso invented than discovered. Formalism
and Fictionalism are examples of philosophies which believe math doesn't exist in a platonic sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
>>11825019
You don't need to post a self-portrait

[Anonymous No.11825084]

>>11825054

t. butthurt by realism

[Anonymous No.11825096]

>>11825038
It's called nominalism, and it's all of a piece, meaning the person who is a nominalist towards mathematical objects, is a nominalist towards all concepts.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-mathematics/

[Anonymous No.11825099]

>>11823400
>Math is invented, not discovered

[Anonymous No.11825288]

>>11824578

> since I can't do the math I can't comment on it

Then don't.

[Anonymous No.11825291]

>>11823711

If Axioms are spooks, how do you base knowledge?

[Anonymous No.11825303]

>>11825099
god im hungry for some grayons right now

[Anonymous No.11825442]

>>11823400
Math isn't invented or discovered, it's constructed. We abstract upon real concrete properties we observe in the world and then extrapolate. Highly abstract math doesn't need to describe the real world to be logically consistent, so you may be tempted to think it's fully self-contained -- but it is still traceable back to real properties of the concrete world (consistency, distinctness).

[Anonymous No.11825451]

>>11825291
Not him, but ideally you favour knowledge that demonsrates predictive power. 100% certainty/completeness of knowledge is both unreasonable and unrequired.

[Anonymous No.11825471]

>>11824567
>Evidence says x
>It's the Jewish Tribal deity!
>New evidence says y contradicting that
>No, that evidence is wrong, you're lying!

vs

>Evidence says x
>It's Dark Matter
>New evidence says y
>Some of what we thought about Dark Matter was incorrect, we're going to amend our models in light of this fact so that they can explain x and y
Low-IQ comparison, tbqh family

[Anonymous No.11825514]

How is math discovered? The entirely of math knowledge is supported by a bunch of axioms that are impossible to prove.

[Anonymous No.11825534]

>>11825442
Can we really observe the real properties of the world? Mathematics doesn’t reveal any property of the world. A set of (hopefully not contradictory) properties is postulated and mathematicians work on it without knowing if it’s true or false.

[Anonymous No.11825570]

>>11825038
mathematical anti-realism

[Anonymous No.11825681]

>>11825514
You don't need to prove an axiom, it's an assumption, a mathematical system will follow from the appropriate axioms in any case. It just werks.

[Anonymous No.11825739]

>>11825534
How could you have any concept of quantity without having observed distinctness? Why would you care about logic if you had not observed consistency and predictability in the world -- what would 'true' or 'false' mean without that?

[Anonymous No.11825763]

>>11824567
See >>11825471

>>11824578
>I can't do the math
>It really just looks like
Jesus christ, did you not think of how dumb this sounds when you typed it?

>>11824574
Because it is incomplete and most certainly incorrect, you're not saying anything revolutionary. But you're acting as if this invalidates cosmology and the work behind the Lambda-CDM model, which it does not. It is - still - the best account we have.

[Anonymous No.11825797]

>>11825038
>What is this philosophy called?
Stupidity

[Anonymous No.11825811]

>>11824578
Is the issue applying mathematical models to reality? Many sciences do this to help explain phenomena.

[Anonymous No.11825875]

>>11825514
right
the point of a mathematical argument is to persuade the reader of the conclusion. the axioms are those facts of which the writer can assume the reader does not need to be convinced.

[Anonymous No.11825889]

>>11822798
Being an elitist about any academic discipline is shitty and unproductive. Trying to devalue any field, be it STEM or humanities, is anti-intellectualism. Real niggas do their best to understand both disciplines so they can have a broader perspective on how the world works. I'm not too good at math but I make an effort to learn about mathmatics and science when I have a spare moment.

[Anonymous No.11825926]

>>11825889
you're gonna make it, chum

[Anonymous No.11826007]

>>11825451
Don't pretend you are without de facto axioms in such a system. You didn't start from nothing. You will always have assumptions all over the place you are ignoring.

[Anonymous No.11826057]

>>11824173
Get scienced faggots.

[Anonymous No.11826094]

>>11826007
No, I'm not ignoring... It is you that is ignoring where those assumptions come from. Where do they come from, if not from our experience with the world?

The fact that you can't expand your assertion into an arguement is telling.

[Anonymous No.11826108]

>mochizuki
>western
Incredibly embarrassing brainlet bait thread

[Anonymous No.11826134]

>>11825889
That's mostly a platitude, anon. Good intentioned no doubt, but there is a crucial difference between actually disciplined 'disciplines' and those which aren't bound to objective, predictive standards. Ignoring that difference is truly anti-intellectual. That is how we get nonsensical garbage like 'race is a social construct'.

[Anonymous No.11826311]

>>11826134
>implying race isnt a social construct

[Anonymous No.11826329]

>>11822798
>mathematicians theorize theory
>100yr timegap
>scientists find natural-world connection to theory
>100yr timegap
>engineers devise way to practically apply theory
>100yr timegap
>fagosophers jerk themselves off over not understanding theory
rinse and repeat

[Anonymous No.11826348]

>>11826311
Is 'birds' a social construct because its a taxonomical term describing a whole spectrum of species? Then why would 'race' be a social construct if it's a taxonomic term describing clusters of ethnicities?

[Anonymous No.11826375]

>>11824208
I mean pretty much the entire preface of PoS touches on what is mentioned in the OP.

[Anonymous No.11826443]

this thread is proof that /lit/ is the stupidest board

[Anonymous No.11826458]

>>11825038
Generally, anti-realism (which is the standard in STEM).

[Anonymous No.11826484]

>>11826311
>>11826348
Meaningless notion because everything we think and are is interpretive, given we have a brain/mind. Colour is a social construct, life/death, and so on. Perceiving anything from your senses, such as geometry and depth, is just a biological construct, not reality. Geometry and depth as concepts have two part biological and social construction. Time is another good example, given that socially it is very extensive but is also an experiential thing.

All of this says absolutely nothing. Nonsense throwaways to avoid engaging with anything.

[Anonymous No.11826488]

>>11826484
>Colour is a social construct

[Anonymous No.11826508]

>>11826348
Yes... all taxonomies are constructs, whether by scientists or normal people.

[Anonymous No.11826512]

>>11826488
The word, deliminations (of colours), theorising (such as in digital or art media), meaning, associations (such as emotions or ideas), etc. all are, yes. They have biological part, too, but this biology is contained within an arbitrary meaning-system and has no relation to 'objective reality' (which cannot be defined or 'experienced' without negating its objectivity, to do so is to store and experience it in terms of the aforementioned system and not what it really-really is), thus, it is on the same level as a social construction.

[Anonymous No.11826526]

>>11826512
You aren't one of those materialist retards, are you anon?

[Anonymous No.11826666]

>>11822798
>western mathematicians hilarious
Article about Japanese mathematicians, that sounds a lot like indian mathematicians from a thousand years ago.
It sounds like a fun little puzzle desu.

[Anonymous No.11826696]

>>11824320
same

[Anonymous No.11826713]

>>11826311
I happen to really like social constructs.

[Anonymous No.11826769]

>>11826512
Extreme epistemological skepticism is beyond useless. If all your experience is suspect, then you can't be certain that you -aren't- continuous with and experiencing objective reality (even if to a limited degree, which doesn't invalidate what we do apprehend). In the abscence of 100% technical certainty, we must work with knowledge that demonstrates predictive power and accept this as more objective than that which does not.

You of course realize that stating anything is a social construct is an objective truth claim itself...How can this be done if there objective grounds for knowledge and classification (as in biology)?

You're drunk on metaphysical semantics, go home.

[Anonymous No.11826774]

>>11826769
*'...there are no objective grounds...'

[Anonymous No.11826782]

>>11826508
Constructed upon observations of what? Taxonomy is not just a matter of whim, it categorizes real differences. Are you really this fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.11826942]

>>11826134
Learning and respecting the validity of two disparate fields doesn't mean you have to hold them to the same standards of proof. You can't empirically prove the nature of literary merit but it is still worthwhile to study it.

[Anonymous No.11826989]

>>11826942
Agreed, but the only studies which can claim authority in describing reality are those which are predicated upon the observable, testable and predictive. This distinction is the issue at hand.

[Anonymous No.11827318]

Philosophy nerds btfo eternally

[Anonymous No.11827336]

>>11827318
HOLY FUCK.

I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT LIKE THIS.

ABSOLUTELY BASED SCIENTISM!

[Anonymous No.11827338]

>>11825797
Excellent argument my brainlet friend

[Anonymous No.11827365]

>>11823400
>Math is invented, not discovered
Tell that to Erdős

[Anonymous No.11827383]

>>11827336
Holy fuck that pic made realise that capital is sentient!

[Anonymous No.11827388]

>>11827338
It was intended as an insult. I’m not trying to present an argument.

You honestly don’t think mathematics is interwoven into this universe? It is the language of God

[Anonymous No.11827494]

>>11827388
>mathematician conflates literally everything under the veil of mathematics
Every fucking time. Here's a redpill for you: mathematics is superficial. Yes that's right, mathematics is concerned solely with magnitude, quantity and the relation to other magnitudes and quantities. 'How much?' and 'how many?' are fundamentally the only questions answerable by mathematics and even those questions can only be answered by making subjective assumptions about whether an object can even be counted and placed into a group. If you want to increase the complexity of mathematics you have to increase the abstraction. A triangle isn't a real object it's an abstraction of nature that removes so much substance that it has little resemblance to anything real. Mathematics is just a language of abstract thinking, the universe doesn't care about the perfection of a right-angled triangle. What a ridiculous notion that maths is the language of god. God must be a dull creature that he can only think in terms of quantities and magnitudes. Imagine the almighty sitting in his palace, constructing the universe from equations on a chalkboard that he learned from a textbook, is there any idea that could be more demeaning to humanity?

[Anonymous No.11827647]

>>11824955
i never met those people nor will I ever meet those people

[Anonymous No.11827658]

>>11827494
t. failed high school calculus

[Anonymous No.11827660]

>>11827494
>almighty sitting in his palace, constructing the universe from equations on a chalkboard that he learned from a textbook
you ironically lack creativity

perhaps god would be forced to start at first principles, but he would instantly see the need for advanced tools

[Anonymous No.11827678]

>>11823405
>>11824578
>>11824618
It's not like they're doing anything new though. When ever people find new evidence contrary to the current model they're forced to modify the model until it works or rework it from the ground up. People tried modified gravity as a solution, and it didn't work. Further evidence that lead people to propose dark matter was observations from systems like the bullet cluster. And it's not like people aren't trying to figure out what's going on through different methods as well, some propose it's not new matter but caused by black holes. And they are using gravitational waves to test that hypothesis. So it's literally business as usual in the scientific community.
>>11827494
Alright, you got me, this is pretty good bait. But you clearly don't know much about mathematics or about the connection between mathematics and science if you really think this.

[Anonymous No.11827683]

>>11827658
Use maths to answer a single question that begins with ‘why’ without resorting to a tautology.
>>11827660
If god created the universe merely to stretch his mathematical legs so to speak then he is a fucking dipshit. War, disease and suffering all created in service of numbers. What a joke.

[Anonymous No.11827724]

>>11827678
>But you clearly don't know much about mathematics or about the connection between mathematics and science if you really think this.
You just summed up the problem with mathematical cognition. People who are enamoured with mathematics believe that it can be used to answer any and all questions regarding existence. It's almost impossible to convince someone who is too deeply embedded to see the limits of mathematics because when you challenge them they attempt to reframe your challenge back into their system. The same is true with any science or discipline, there will always be people who take their pet-science and claim that all other sciences can actually fit into it. They are so adamant that this can be done they don't even notice how much nuance and complexity needs to be shaved away for their ideas to work. Trying to imagine god as a mathematician is the height of this silliness.
>I believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each would ascribe to God its own attributes, would assume itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-shaped.

[Anonymous No.11827732]

>>11827683
>dude positivism lmao
you have nothing of value to say or contribute, and the rest of humanity will ignore you while you rant and rave about your oh so superior intellect and accomplish nothing

[Anonymous No.11827744]

>>11827724
Damn, Plato kept you rabble out for a reason.

[Anonymous No.11827746]

>>11827732
I was very clearly arguing against positivism but I guess my intellect is only superior when compared to how fucking retarded you are.

[Anonymous No.11827779]

>when inderned mathematicians itt haven't read Mathematics Without Numbers

this board, christ!

[Anonymous No.11827780]

>>11827724
>You just summed up the problem with mathematical cognition. People who are enamoured with mathematics believe that it can be used to answer any and all questions regarding existence.
I don't believe this. I'm fully aware that mathematics as it stands doesn't describe everything. I'm not sure, for instance how someone would use mathematics to describe history in fine detail. But at the same time your characterization of mathematics is totally and completely flawed.

[Anonymous No.11827784]

>>11827744
I'm not anti-maths and I was arguing about the nature of pure mathematics not esoteric pythagoreanism. Also why do so many brainlets think that Plato had the exact same beliefs as Pythagoras? I've encountered so many people that think that forms are just describing geometrical shapes. Of course Plato appreciated maths but I'm pretty sure there's more to Plato than whatever drivel is in that pic (if I could read it, try a higher quality version next time).

[Anonymous No.11827790]

>>11824578
thing is, even if you could do the math, you can't comment on it except from within a structurally-defined position in which you must take certain things that ipof ought to be up for debate for granted

[Anonymous No.11827793]

>>11827780
Says the same guy who literally said that 'mathematics is the language of god.' >>11827388

[Anonymous No.11827796]

>>11827746
>Use maths to answer a single question that begins with ‘why’ without resorting to a tautology.
the only people who think this is a challenge worth answering are positivists, you're retarded and uneducated and you didn't even bother to learn what mathematics is before shitting up this board with your pitiful half-baked hot takes. Either read a fucking book or jump off a bridge.

[Anonymous No.11827825]

>>11825442
>consistency is a real property of the concrete world

[Anonymous No.11827833]

>>11827793
Why are you assuming that I'm >>11827388? The formatting of that post and mine are different. I'm >>11827678 >>11827780

[Anonymous No.11827837]

>>11825875
you know you're retarded when you talk about the point of a mathematical argument instead of the function of argumentation. looks like you didn't read the first link. "This follows from the definition" is literally how mathematical argumentation works. mathematicians critique one another by looking into the definitions.

[Anonymous No.11827847]

>>11827796
>>11827796
Congratulations you aren't a positivist. How about you explain your beliefs before you start going:
>look at this idiot he asked me the WRONG question!!!
>How about next time you ask me the CORRECT QUESTION THAT I CAN ANSWER EASILY.

[Anonymous No.11827853]

Reminder that the accepted model in which gravity is privileged is constantly failing and physicists will one day accept an equally failed plasma cosmology model with some brilliant new stipulations

[Anonymous No.11827854]

>>11827833
Yeah I did think you are the same person. Wish this place had IDs or something.

[Anonymous No.11827862]

>>11827854
back to the upbote site dip shit. you're not cut out for this one, since it requires some minimal reading skill and intuition

[Anonymous No.11827870]

>>11827854
please leave

[Anonymous No.11827877]

>>11826134
>when you have no background in biological anthropology but want to make centuries-old claims that have been thoroughly debunked
>"Actually,, actually disciplined disciplines"

oh shit, what a perfect fucking post, you retard. bless your heart.

[Anonymous No.11827893]

>>11827862
>Doesn't realise that other boards in this shithole have IDs and it works out fine
>Assumes that it must be super easy to differentiate your posts even though you are the one who made them in the first place.
>Can't imagine that someone might change their posting style when confronted with criticism.
I think you are the fucking redditor.

[Anonymous No.11827895]

>>11827388
>when you read The Golden Braid and think you're an expert because you can regurgitate some dip shits that you presume-to-know tf they're talking about

[Anonymous No.11827900]

>>11827854
I mean, that's part of the anonymity. I guess you try being like /pol/ or /soc/ but that won't stop shitposters. If it helps, I'm not >>11827862 or >>11827870

[Anonymous No.11827905]

>>11827893
it's great when dip shit redditors expose themselves as /pol/ morons, as well. you're not cut out for this site

[Anonymous No.11827909]

>>11827847
it's not about the question being right or wrong, it's about the question being worthwhile or worthless
the fact that you think the question merits raising betrays your ignorance
>explain your beliefs
I don't need to have any beliefs to call out stupid fuckers on the internet. You don't even understand why you sound so fucking dumb - you lack the basic background knowledge to even recognize the scope of the discussion you're attempting to enter. No, I will not tell you what you got wrong, or what you should be concerned about instead. It's not my job to spoonfeed you and I'm also not going to give you room to bullshit your way into some kind of sophistic "victory" when you start from a knowledge base of []
>>11827854
you're fucking blind. The entire appeal of discussions on /lit/ as opposed to r/literalfaggots is that there is no competition for internet points. You have plenty enough context from post to post to handle ideas as they come, unless you're arguing in bad faith and unable to defend your retarded statements from attack, in which case you go on the offensive, trying to distract from your own failure by accusing the person talking to you of hypocrisy. That's entirely irrelevant here. This is not a debate. You don't win by making the other person look like a fool. You only win if what you said is right, or at least carries some modicum of intelligence. It doesn't. You're mentally incompetent. Stop posting.

[Anonymous No.11827912]

>>11827905
>Has never heard of /soc/, /int/ or /bant/
The fucking irony.

[Anonymous No.11827916]

>>11827912
ids are garbage honestly, anybody not completely retarded can tell whose post is whose in a dicussion

and there is no reason you cant assume two different voices in one thread- that is part of what makes this site magic, it allows you to become different things and see what they are completely bereft from prior associations of self, it is honestly extremely informative as far as personal manifestations of self directed into particular identities or ways of expression are concerned

[Anonymous No.11827930]

>>11827916
>it is honestly extremely informative as far as personal manifestations of self directed into particular identities or ways of expression are concerned
I too enjoy larping as a black person on /pol/

[Anonymous No.11827937]

>>11827909
>writes an essay to avoid answering a question
Damn I guess I am a stupid sophist.
>No, I will not tell you what you got wrong, or what you should be concerned about instead. It's not my job to spoonfeed you and I'm also not going to give you room to bullshit your way into some kind of sophistic "victory".
>tfw too smart to explain myself
Don't worry I will now go out into the world and learn many things so the next time I can hit you with a question that is intelligent enough to warrant a response. I sure wouldn't want to strain your beautiful mind with a question that is really stupid.

[Anonymous No.11827947]

>>11827937
>I will now go out into the world and learn many things
no you won't, stop posting
your question doesn't matter. Flip a coin, roll some dice, pretend that's the answer, it literally doesn't matter
I'm not very smart, you're just very stupid

[Anonymous No.11827948]

Can we say mathematics is discovered because axioms tend to naturally emerge in human mind? They are not discovered in the world of things, but in the mind itself.
And you build the rest on those.

[Anonymous No.11827954]

>>11827912
>actually i go to /soc/, or /int/, or /bant/
>i'm not a dip shit moron
pick 1

[Anonymous No.11827964]

>>11827948
you can say that, but it's really dumb. why don't you read up on the subject before posting about it, instead?

[Anonymous No.11827979]

>>11827947
Oh wait I just figured it out, you actually think I wanted a real answer to that question. Holy fuck dude maybe you should reread my posts. Did it not occur to you that maybe I posed an unanswerable question to prove a point about mathematics? now I understand why you kept insisting I was a positivist. Jesus please work on your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.11827982]

>>11827964
Why it's dumb you mean fuck

[Anonymous No.11827983]

>>11827954
I said 'heard of'. Not that I go on those boards. Jesus you are stretching right now.

[Anonymous No.11827992]

>>11827983
"we need IDs on this board, they use them on boards that i've heard of but don't go to"
stick to reddit pal

[Anonymous No.11827995]

>>11827979
you are so unbelievably uneducated that, again, you do not understand the nature of your mistake. Stop trying to figure it out, and accept that you have at least several days of study ahead of you before you come back to this topic again.

[Anonymous No.11828000]

>>11827992
>you can't be aware of the mere existence of other boards and not go on them frequently
>you can't notice that a certain quality of a board could be applied to a board you are actually interested in to improve discourse
ok now it's just getting ridiculous. just admit that you have only heard of /pol/ having IDs and that you made a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11828007]

>>11827995
Thanks for the input faggot. It definitely doesn't look like you aren't trying to mask your lack of reading comprehension. Nobody here can see through your little routine I promise :^)

[Anonymous No.11828047]

>tfw actual scientist watching you midwit chronic underachievers lash out autistically against theories that are beyond your meager ken

[Anonymous No.11828049]

>>11827995
this post is like the encapsulation of this entire board my lols are incestually procreating

[Anonymous No.11828051]

>>11828047
>t. codemonkey who thinks CS counts

[Anonymous No.11828092]

>>11828000
>this board needs IDs like other boards and sites have, so that i don't embarrass myself again by assuming two different people are the same person and calling out the fictional person i think i'm replying to, but who is actually two or more people, in the most grating and cringeworthy language possible
(literally nobody agrees with you on this board)
>the problem is this board, and not that my dip shit brain cannot recognize cadence and pattern

nobody agrees with you

[Anonymous No.11828101]

>>11828047
love to hear how you explain the existence of a pregalactic element as described in the op

[Anonymous No.11828143]

>>11828092
>literally nobody agrees with you on this board
I’ve seen multiple people say this would be a good thing for /lit/. Look I’m sorry that you didn’t realise more boards than /pol/ have IDs but you have to let it go buddy.

[Anonymous No.11828148]

>>11828143
where?

[Anonymous No.11828152]

>>11828143
every one of the four posts that replied to you told you to fuck off. nobody agrees with you. why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this? seek help

[Anonymous No.11828158]

is there anything more fucking boring than some STEM suit desperately trying to justify why they chose the correct life path when they themselves know theyre fucking miserable and boring?

[Anonymous No.11828162]

>>11828152
Wow dude it’s almost like more than four people use lit

[Anonymous No.11828199]

>>11828162
>i've seen multiple people say this ...
where?

you're the only person struggling to understand how posting on this site works and suggesting that a defining feature of it be changed in order that you not embarrass yourself again

[Anonymous No.11828251]

>>11828199
I know how this site works which is exactly why I think it would be easier to follow conversations and respond to the right people. What a controversial statement! Most people in this thread justified not having IDs by saying ‘it’s fun to pretend to be other people.’ Such a great justification to continue having a discussion heavy board devolving into shitposting. The only reason you’re so buttmad is that by accusing me of being reddit you showed how reddit you are by not being familiar with other boards. You’ve tried and failed to accuse me of being a redditor, a poltard and a /bant/ refugee to try and deflect the fact that: for someone who claims to be so familiar with 4chan, you actually don’t know shit about it. But sure keep responding, hopefully we’ll get far away enough that everyone will forget how woefully unfamiliar you are with 4chan as a whole.

[Anonymous No.11828260]

>onto certain aspects of the fabric of reality which happens to explain it very well**

Fixed that for you. Math can explain these strange numerical phenomena rather well, but that's it. It says nothing about the workings of consciousness, cognition, emotion or vulnerability.

[Anonymous No.11828274]

>>11828158
>Says a shitposter on 4chinz

Dude, this is THE glass house.

[Anonymous No.11828282]

>>11826329
>engineer today bangs his toe on a coffee table, remains pissed off for the rest of the day
>enlightened philosopher bangs his toe on a coffee table, accepts the temporary pain and continues on with life

[Anonymous No.11828337]

>>11827825
It is, there is a predictability to most interactions, and where we must rely on probabilities it could be due to hidden variables. Even if quantum scales are fundamentally probabilistic, at macro scales there is an observable consistency to the behaviour of matter/energy. Futhermore, if you can reliably determine probabilities, some kind of consistency is still apparent.

All of your abstract concepts are traceable back to your experience with the concrete. If you actually have an argument to the contrary, do present it.

[Anonymous No.11828417]

>>11827837
Have you ever studied mathematics, or much philosophy of mathematics? Genuine question. Not sure how technical to make my reply and wouldn't want to use jargon you wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous No.11828420]

>>11828251
i've been on 4chan since 2006. don't use reddit and don't want this board to have IDs like reddit.

you're the one wanting to change the defining characteristic of this site in order to make it more like reddit, in order to avoid being embarrassed again when you show, again, that you're not cut out for this site.

[Anonymous No.11828422]

Actually, I can't be arsed to spoon feed you. Just read some philosophy of maths. Or keep false beliefs - they're relatively harmless.

[Anonymous No.11828434]

>>11826484
Listen, "social construct" is not some spooky lefty synonym for "doesn't exist". Think about chemical elements. There are many ways you could categorise them. "Transition metal" is an objective category (better term: natural kind) whereas some categorisations are constructs (eg: valuable vs worthless - it's not ""objective"", nor relative to each individual, it's determined by the society using that categorisation, ie: it's a social construct). Jumping to completely indefensible relativism to challenge the notion that race is a social construct is stupid.
Also, the argument about the nature of the categorisation is independent of the political argument about racial conflict. There are racists who think that race is a social construct, and there are civil rights activists who think races are natural kinds. I'd recommend the Stanford encyclopedia article on social construct, and natural kinds

[Anonymous No.11828459]

>>11826782
Helpful to think about the following taxonomies, so you don't make silly assumptions like: categorises real differences -> not based on a whim

1) group by which day of the week they are born (objective, unnatural)
2) group by ancestry (objective, natural)

Also ancestry doesn't even work for ethnicities, because humans ancestry isn't a tree-like. Also discovering that some racial group has some biological characteristic tells us nothing about status of racial categorisation.

[Anonymous No.11828484]

>>11822798
Reading about that jap’s million page proof that no one could understand for years reminds me of how I felt about EVERY FUCKING CRITICAL THEORY-BASED BOOK/ARTICLE IVE EVER READ.

God I hate that the humanities have been overtaken by absolute nonsense

[Anonymous No.11828561]

>>11827744
>le ebin map projection made for a specific purpose
Absolutely disgusting
t. GIS pro

[Anonymous No.11828565]

Reminder that science also relies on axioms

[Anonymous No.11828663]

>>11822798
ITT: /lit/'s inferiority complex exteriorised.

[Anonymous No.11828669]

>>11828422
i've read Mathematics Without Numbers, what is it that you wanted to explain, mathematician? throw the jargon at us.

[Anonymous No.11828985]

>>11825471
>religion arises from pure empiricism

Also what evidence contradicts the idea of god?

[Anonymous No.11829017]

>>11827784
>he hasn’t read the Timæus
Auditoriumfullofblondeslaughing.jpg

[Anonymous No.11829290]

>>11828051
cope more bithc boi

[Anonymous No.11829362]

Reminder that proper mathematicians (topologists, category theorists and logicians) are the artists of STEM, while the others are merely NPCs and subhumans.

[Anonymous No.11829382]

>>11829362
Reminder that chortling on mathematicians' balls makes you a faggot

[Anonymous No.11829416]

>>11829362
>category theorists
big fuckin nope. category theory uses far too limited and general of tools to really be expressive in a way that suggest "artist". logicians are also definitely not artists.

topology, abstract algebra, algebraic geometry, etc are all beautiful stuff though

[Anonymous No.11829420]

>>11829416
>algebraic geometry
If we’re thinking of the same kind of thing, it’s pretty cool but nothing more of a novelty. I mean the idea of Algebra is that it exists apart from geometry. But really all algebraic equations are fundamentally derived from propositions 3-6 of Euclid’s second book

[Anonymous No.11829568]

>>11829420
Abstract algebra, you fucking dingus