[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 144 KB, 854x859, 1348808126204.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6369005 No.6369005 [Reply] [Original]

>mfw I realized mathematics is the logical conclusion to philosophy and vice versa

>> No.6369010
File: 1.79 MB, 2550x3300, 1398056508690.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6369010

>>6369005
awesome dude tell me all about it

>> No.6369131

Math has nothing to do with philosophy, its a man made system just like language.

>> No.6369169

>>6369010
>existentialterror.jpg

>> No.6369172
File: 174 KB, 680x583, 1427049414765.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6369172

>>6369131
>

>> No.6369190

>>6369131
>its a man made system just like language.
no proof of this, so pure ideology

>> No.6369217

>>6369005
lol you high? xD

>> No.6369469

>>6369190
>proof
Do you mean Empirical Validation Mr. Analytic?
also
*tips*

>> No.6369496

>>6369172

he's right

cute frogs btw

>> No.6369641

>>6369131

Same with philosophy

>> No.6369668

Mathematics is symbolic logic, and logic is philosophy

>> No.6369676

Math is pure human thought without any of of the icky elements of emotions or questions about human existence or arguments about truth.

Not entirely sure how this is supposed to "conclude" other philosophies though.

>> No.6369709

>>6369469
>Do you mean Empirical Validation Mr. Analytic?
yes, since it is what a proof is in 2015

>> No.6369810

>>6369010
fucking crazy pic dude

>> No.6370157

>>6369010
>not using the four seasons system

>> No.6370223

>>6369005
You solved it all anon, lets pack up the board and go home to our caves.

Mathematics extends through meta-physics sure, but philosophy is more than pure logic.

>> No.6370243

Really? Tell try to prove an axiom. Philosophy tries to solve them.

>> No.6370703

Do you mean the

"Philosophy->Math->Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Psychology->Philosphy"

thing?

>> No.6370718

>>6369709
Empirical Validation counts as proof now?
Shit, that means I've solved over 100 unsolved problems! THANKS DUDE!

>> No.6370726

>>6369005
Fedora tier post

>> No.6370753

>implying math wouldn't exist without us
>implying we are not just using a system of numbers, symbols and formulae to merely represent actual math just as we are using words to represent our feelings, thoughts etc.

*tips*

>> No.6370772

>>6370753
all the different overlapping mathematical formalisms are counted as maths buddy

>> No.6370790

>>6370753
How is Platonism still alive?
Serious question.
I thought it was obvious to anyone who has studied low-order mathematics (or even the history of mathematics) that it's just mental mastubation which is occasionally elegant and often useful.

>> No.6371130

>>6370790
maths are arts in disguise, it filters out the bad weed which goes to the humanities since it is all that their feeble mind can handle.

>> No.6371140

>>6369131
2+2=4 no matter what species you are or which star you orbit, that's a fact and we phrased it with language.

>> No.6371167
File: 52 KB, 600x450, 1361308061956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6371167

>>6371140
>2+2=4 no matter what species you are or which star you orbit, that's a fact and we phrased it with language.

"Welcome to universe-sim7, human2. Unfortunately, despite it appearing three dimensional to you, you are actually in a non-euclidean five dimensional simulation reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 1=1 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation from our greater perspective meant that items we were using for reference, say 1 cat = 1 cat, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of particles spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't detect. In actual reality 1 is never 1.

Also, despite you thinking you are real, you are actually a simulation of a brain created by us. You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, programmed over thousands of what you perceive of as years, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have our best researchers trying to understand your perceived map of reality.

Well done, though, the linguistic map you invented to describe what you think of as your surroundings looks quite impressive. Totally flawed, as you lack most of the variables, but still impressive.

>> No.6371178

>>6371140

Nah dude, 2+2 only equals 4 in sum cases

>> No.6371180

>>6371167
ayy lmao

>> No.6371185
File: 48 KB, 320x240, 0th_Doctor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6371185

>>6369005
>natural conclusion to philosophy

Which philosophy?

Because the logical conclusions of rationalism and nihilism are completely different. The term "philosophy" is too broad. Mathematics implies, at least on the base level, that there is an order to the universe. An existentialist would say that you make the order of your life, and that you can decide it. But mathematics doesn't care about your will--2 + 2=4; I don't care how much "will" you have. Heck, certain types of mathematics can imply certain types of philosophy, but even that's questionable.

Can mathematics solve the trolley problem (I know that's babby's first philosophy, but I'm trying to prove a point here.)? Sure, you say--find the solution that gives the greatest profit. Okay, that's utilitarianism. What about all the other philosophical systems?

And, futhermore, how does philosophy lead to integrals? Or calculus? Or differential equations?

It seems what you mean is "I realized the philosophy of an, ordered, calculable world understood by mathematics is the logical conclusion to philosophy." Which, fine, but please be clearer. And if that's not what you mean, explain what you mean, because just saying "philosophy" and "mathematics" encompass two very big fields.

>> No.6371203

>>6371167

All of this is total fucking bullshit.

One neutron and another neutron together make two neutrons.
One electron and another electron together make the same total sum of electrons.

Fill in anything you want for one and two and neutron and electron, this always holds.
You can try your best to obfuscate this with concepts you don't understand, but that doesn't change anything about the fundamental truth.
Your argument is "God exists because rainbows" tier, as I'm sure someone used that argument 10.000 years ago.

>> No.6371204

>mathematics
lel
Q: You buy 100 lbs of potatoes, which are 99 percent water by weight. You let them dehydrate in the sun for 2 minutes until they're 98 percent water. How much do they weigh now?

A: 50 lbs.

>Why?
100 lbs of potatoes, 99% water (by weight), means that there's 99 lbs of water, and 1 lb of solids. It's a 1:99 ratio.

If the water decreases to 98%, then the solids account for 2% of the weight. The 2:98 ratio reduces to 1:49. Since the solids still weigh 1 lb, the water must weigh 49 lbs.

>mathematics
Not. Even. Once.

>> No.6371250
File: 36 KB, 640x360, clangers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6371250

>>6371204
If the water decreases, then the entire proportion changes. The total water is part of that 100%, so when it decreases, the sides of the proportion no longer add to 100. So, the ratio becomes 1 pound of solid+98 pounds of liquid, or 1:98.

Math wasn't even my best subject, and I figured this out.

>> No.6371253

>>6371203
>One neutron and another neutron together make two neutrons.
>that doesn't change anything about the fundamental truth.

"One" is not an inherent part of a neutron. Can you open the neutron and show us the one-ness form or essence? Thought not. What is this one then? it's an abstract concept that you have invented and not a part of what you are describing. You then create a framework called language and juggle around in this framework with your 'one' concept. One exists only in language as an attempt to describe. Language isn't infallible, paradoxes are possible, and you can only attempt to verify something within your framework not outside of it.

1 is given another linguistic concept called an 'axiom' and treated as 'true'. This doesn't mean it's objectively or actually 'true', it means there appears to be coherence within the framework until more data is accumulated.

>> No.6371267
File: 56 KB, 1023x586, potatoes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6371267

>>6371250
>. The total water is part of that 100%, so when it decreases, the sides of the proportion no longer add to 100. So, the ratio becomes 1 pound of solid+98 pounds of liquid, or 1:98.

You're wrong.

>> No.6371287

>>6371140
Yes.
But the problem is defining
"2", "+", "=" and "4".
such that
"2+2=4" is true in the context.

This is no easy feat

>> No.6371290

>>6371267
Well, then. I screwed up.

But, then why were you saying "not even once" for math?

>> No.6371311

>>6371290
Because it's not correct. Mathematically it's completely correct, but if you were to actually weigh those potatoes you'd find it wasn't. There are thousands of other examples like that too.

>> No.6371328

>>6371253


oh.. I didn't realise I would have to lower myself to this level.

'One' is most certainly part of a (NOTICE THIS ONE LETTER WORD?) neutron. That's why we call it a neutron. What makes a single neutron is very clearly defined of certain things that exist within our universe.

Your bullshit about extra dimensions is a stupid attempt to attach a 'magic' element to reality, obfuscated in really poorly applied jargon.

I understand your desire to attach undetectable concepts to real objects (or rather, objective reality), but its bullshit or insanity, depending on your level of intelligence.

Inventing alternate realities does not in fact affect our universe. The fact that 'one' exists in our universe, is a solid proof that it exists outside of it. Another interesting observation is that the whole universe itself is actually one.

>> No.6371333

>>6371311

>Mathematically it's completely correct

No its not. Its complete hogwash.

Are you succesfully trolling me here or is this REALLY the state of /lit/ when it comes to anything other than philosophy or reading?

>> No.6371336

>>6371140
>2+2=4 no matter what species you are or which star you orbit, that's a fact and we phrased it with language.
How do I get from 2 to 4? I can have 2.9, then 2.99, then 2.999, and keep adding those 9's forever. I can't even seem get to 3.

>> No.6371352

>>6371267

Look at that fucking picture you linked. Read the second sentence.

That assumption is false.

When you assume 2=3, a lot of things no longer make sense. That doesn't prove math doesn't work though.

>> No.6371361

>>6371336

That's an interesting subject in set theory and limits. Can I safely assume however that you never researched this subject at all? You just pondered it "philisophically" and then concluded you invented a paradox?

>> No.6371364

>>6371333
So is he right, or was my 1:98 solution correct? Because I'm confused now.

>>6371336
How many letters are in the word "Hello"?

>> No.6371373

>>6371178
Extremely underrated post. I don't think anyone here got it.

Good job, anon.

>> No.6371377

>>6371364

Yes your solution is correct.

The other guy's claim is based entirely on slipping in a false assumption early on when the reader isn't paying attention.

>> No.6371385

>>6371377
Thanks. I was getting worried for a second.

>> No.6371404
File: 74 KB, 687x500, 1408692175236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6371404

>>6371253
>"One" is not an inherent part of a neutron. Can you open the neutron and show us the one-ness form or essence?
>>6371328
>'One' is most certainly part of a (NOTICE THIS ONE LETTER WORD?) neutron.
Wow. I honestly didn't expect you to have this level of ignorance of philosophy of science. No, numbers are not inherent magical forms found inside things. What you are attempting to do is on the same level as saying a 'boat' contains a 'boat-ness' form. If I have one boat or one neutron, the concept of 'one-ness', 'boat-ness' and 'neutron-ness' are all applied by me.

>I understand your desire to attach undetectable concepts to real objects
You are attaching concepts and I am trying to detach them for you. I'm trying to explain to you how language gives a description of what we call empirical events. Language is not inside these things, it's our creation.

>The fact that 'one' exists in our universe, is a solid proof that it exists outside of it.
Even this James Franco meme image can show you why you are wrong.

For your level of philosophical illiteracy, I'd suggest pondering a concept like "wrong" until you can see how "wrong-ness" is not inherent in an action, but a linguistic statement made by an individual to describe the action.

>> No.6371414

>>6371361
>you invented a paradox?
Pretty sure it's Zeno's paradox.

>> No.6371422

>>6371404
>James Franco's radical new philosophy
But this isn't new? or radical?

>> No.6371446

>>6371364
Your solution isn't correct. These other guys are idiots.

If we have 100 lbs of which 1% is solids and 99% is water, and you decrease the water portion until water constitutes 98% of the total weight, then the solids will constitute 2%. 2% is 1/50 of 100% and since the solids still weight 1 lbs, the total weight will be 50 lbs.

Your solution would be correct if the water had been decreased to 98% of the ORIGINAL total weight, but nowhere does it say that. It says you dehydrate until the potatoes are 98% water. If the potatoes are 98% water, your solution is not correct because in your solution the potatoes are at no point 98% water.

>> No.6371454

>>6371422
>But this isn't new? or radical?
No, someone took a quote from Alfred Korzybski and plastered Franco all over it.

>> No.6371473

>>6371404

Hahaha are you seriously saying that right and wrong are linguistic concepts?
If you're talking about the relativity of morality, then I wonder why you felt the need to drag that into a completely unrelated subject?

My whole point is actually that I dont need to attach the concept, for objective reality to exist.
One neutron is one neutron, regardless of what I may or may not attach to it.

Ever heard about a tree falling in a certain forest? Well that's still one tree and it still falls, regardless of whether I even exist or not.


>objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic

Why does James Franco think that things are no longer objective when they get very small?
Maybe because he also likes to attach 'magic' elements to objective reality. Apparently he's dumb enough to think it automatically becomes magic when you make it small enough.

>> No.6371485

>>6371446

Ignore this.
Its either trolling or someone who has so thoroughly convinced himself that "math is wrong" that he is incapable of admitting he is wrong.

>> No.6371496

>>6371404
kek is he talking about himself in the third person?
Has he even read derrida? does he think any of this is new or radical? I thought he wanted to break through postmodernism?

how does
>You can't say nuffin
help do that?

>> No.6371505

>>6371485
I'm not the original guy, nor do I believe "math is wrong." The 50 lbs solution is correct though. This is elementary school level stuff ffs, maybe you should stop shitposting and learn some basic math.

>> No.6371511

>>6371505

>stop shitposting

Why would we?

>> No.6371523
File: 62 KB, 559x594, akor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6371523

>>6371473
>Hahaha are you seriously saying that right and wrong are linguistic concepts?
Am I being trolled here?

>If you're talking about the relativity of morality, then I wonder why you felt the need to drag that into a completely unrelated subject?
Because you don't seem to understand the notion of forms. If you can be taught to see how "Wrong-ness" is a linguistic concept applied to an action, or "big-ness" or "chair-ness" or anything else; if you can understand how these concepts are us describing things and there is no 'chair' form inside a chair and we apply the concept of chair ourselves, then you stand a chance of understanding why, as you claimed "One is most certainly part of a neutron." is fundamentally incorrect.

>Ever heard about a tree falling in a certain forest? Well that's still one tree and it still falls, regardless of whether I even exist or not.
The usual question is "does it still make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?" Regardless, relavant to our debate, you are still applying the notion of "tree-ness."

>Why does James Franco think that things are no longer objective when they get very small?
He doesn't, and that quote is actually from the mathematician Alfred Korzybski (pic related) not James Franco.

>> No.6371541

I'm this guy: >>6371364


>>6371505
Okay. Let's say I have a 100 pound jug of water. 99 pounds is water, 1 pound is the actual jug. I pour out 1 pound of water. How many pounds is the total weight now?

>> No.6371553

>>6371496
>Has he even read derrida?
That was written before Derrida was born and influenced a lot of what both Foucault and Derrida said.

>I thought he wanted to break through postmodernism?
The actual guy who wrote that is essentially the basis of postmodernism. He's the guy who broke logical positivism by bringing it into general semantics.

>> No.6371566

>>6371541
The total weight is then 99 pounds, and water constitutes 98.989898989...% of that weight. Which makes it a completely different problem. The potato problem didn't say we remove 1 lbs of water, it said we remove a quantity of water that makes the potatoes 98% water by weight. 98.989898989...% is not 98%. Do you really not understand the difference?

>> No.6371574

>>6369010
Where can I buy a poster of this? This is something I need on my wall.

>> No.6371579

>>6371566
Okay, I get it now.

So why'd he say

>mathematics not even once

Because then the solution of "50 lbs" isn't wrong, just nonintuitive.

>> No.6371586

>>6371574
Stick the image on a flash drive and take it to your local print shop. It'll only cost a few dollars.

If you want it really crisp, open up illustrator and remake the image as an .ai file. It'll only take you 5 mins to duplicate the circles. The print shop can open an .ai file.

>> No.6371590

Everyone in this thread seems to be forgetting that Godel killed mathematics years ago.

>> No.6371603

>>6371579
Because he was shitposting.

>> No.6371625

>>6371586
Even better. I'm not tech-savvy, so thank you.

>> No.6372054

>>6369190

>asking for proof
>in the 2015 year of our Lord

>> No.6372060

>>6369010

I hate you, but I appreciate it

>> No.6372064

>>6371553
who actually wrote it?

>> No.6372074

Studying pure math eliminates the sloppy thinking that prevents one from truly understanding the humanities. Hence the reason that the study of "useless" subjects like geometry and basic number theory was considered so important for the majority of human history.

>> No.6372106
File: 15 KB, 315x429, mind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6372106

>>6371336
God dammit. Zeno's paradox is idiotic.

>>6371140
THIS. I am still surprised at how many people believe in naive realism and sense data. Like this fucking reptard >>6371167

>one can't equal one because I'm imagining a kitty cat and you're imagining a taco.

Once again: Physicality is not subjective. Despite the fact that I am not seeing the back of my computer right now doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Maybe read this and then have someone explain it to you.

>> No.6372125

>>6371336

>what is calculus
>why we must have a continuum order of numbers and why it's necessary to have it for calculus

>> No.6372128

>>6371140
2+2=4 is just symbols bro.

>> No.6372133

Reminder that real numbers don't real and that NJ Wildberger will save mathematics

>> No.6372142

Y'all need to read some Frege.

http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Frege,Gottlob/Frege,%20Gottlob%20-%20The%20Foundations%20of%20Arithmetic%20%281953%29%202Ed_%207.0-2.5%20LotB.pdf

Also,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

>> No.6372146

>>6372128
God fucking damn it. Are you people really this stupid? Of course they're fucking symbols.

Bro

>> No.6372158

>>6372142
Also,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quotation/#2.2
http://cs.lmu.edu/~ray/notes/usemention/

>> No.6373457
File: 1.82 MB, 300x277, 1391965212719.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6373457

>>6371178

>> No.6373478
File: 128 KB, 1300x1201, young-woman-black-cap-laughing-isolated-white-35238203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6373478

>>6371140
>2+2=4 no matter what species you are or which star you orbit, that's a fact and we phrased it with language.
>Fill in anything you want for one and two and neutron and electron, this always holds.

ok

me + me = ?

what does this equal?

>> No.6373490

In this thread: the platonists and the non-platonists

>> No.6373495

>>6373478
>me + me = ?
>what does this equal?
Twins/clones of you

>> No.6373499

>>6373495
not 1 me + 1 me, but me + me

>> No.6373508

>>6373499
WOAH DUDE
Pass the bong

>> No.6373513
File: 247 KB, 878x738, proof of.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6373513

>>6373499
here's a hint

>>6373508

>> No.6373517

>>6373499
me2

>> No.6373527

>>6373478

4 you

>> No.6373528

>>6373527
ooyyy rofl

>> No.6373534

>>6373495
me+you=true love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxaai8QJSl8

>> No.6373546

>>6369005
>vice versa

>> No.6373585

>>6373499
You can't be in both integers without first being a clone or having a twin.
If it's just you, it's: Me + __ = ?
In which case it's just you.

>>6373534
Okay :B

>> No.6373598

>>6373585
>>6373478
exactly, you cannot have more than a single thing, for they would be different things, as all things are different. summing a thing with the same thing is an impossible task.

the only truth is:

me = me

>> No.6373601

>>6369010
>ends at 77
must suck living in a third-world country

See you when I'm 100

>> No.6375127

>>6373598
dank meme

>> No.6375330
File: 484 KB, 450x350, HOLY SHIT.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6375330

>>6371178

>> No.6375335

KEK
/lit/ sucks nigger dick at math

>> No.6375388

>>6371203
twelve o'clock add one is one o'clock