/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11385963
the idea is that superdeterminism is contradicted by what we try to do in the lab. in the lab we say "oh now let's change our measurement device to check something else" and if the theory still holds then we are reassured that the theory isn't bullshit.

if we believe in superdeterminism, then maybe there was some sort of "cosmic conspiracy" that made us change our measurement at just the right time so that our bad theory would turn out right even though it is a complete crap description of actually how things work. since in superdeterminism the real theory could and would and would have to dictate how i choose to make my measurements. it would dictate whether i choose to measure my polarization along the vertical or horizontal axis. so me drawing conclusions from me changing horizontal vs. vertical would be explained by some crazy theory that is dictating MY behavior rather than the behavior of the thing i am measuring.

this is why superdeterminism is a nonscientific path. it leads you to the cosmic conspiracy.

even 't Hooft, who i respect, and who is a superdeterminism proponent, acknowledges that this is an issue. he uses the words "cosmic conspiracy" explicitly, multiple times, in his writings on these things.

i'd rather not assume the entire game is rigged so that i can't measure whatever i want. i do not feel anything that dictates my actions, so i assume i can change my dials however i want in the lab, and any theory that tells me "your decision was dictated by some unknown rule of nature" seems to violate occam's razor for me.

>>11218414
Continuation from previous post
>set theory
>not math
lol what set theory is mathematical logic, are you really going to say it isn't math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
>probability
>you won't understand it
>topology
>see above
Maybe a brainlet undergrad CS students, but if you go for TCS in grad school or a PHD in TCS you have to learn probability and topology
>game theory
>not math
Oh come on studying things mathematically is math. You're not going to tell me physicists do no math now are you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>decision theory
>see above
>utility theory
>see above
>social choice theory
>see above
lol I'll give you these, these aren't math
>discretization
>gay
Not an argument
>operations research
>not math
Kinda iffy on this one, it seems to be a subset of applied math but its kinda vague so I'll give you this one.

>>11218041
>combinatorics
gay
>abstract algebra
gay
>group theory
gay outside of physics
>commutative ring theory
gay
>representation theory
gay outside of physics
>commutative algebra
gay
>algebraic geometry
gay
>number theory
you won't contribute anything to this field
>lambda calculus
brainlet
>computability theory
not math
>graph theory
trivial
>calculus of finite differences
an abomination
>discrete calculus
see above
>discrete analysis
see above
>set theory
not math
>probability
you won't understand it
>topology
see above
>game theory
not math
>decision theory
see above
>utility theory
see above
>social choice theory
see above
>discretization
gay
>operations research
not math
>discrete analogues of continuous maths
proof-read your posts
>hybrid fake and gay
see above
>complex analysis
lol
>real analysis
omega lol
>automata theory
not math
>differential equations
lol
>stochastic processes
lol
>discrete geometry
extremely gay

>>11218013
brainlet level CS, do TCS so you can take as most math as possible, a few examples being Combinatorics, Abstract algebra, group theory, Commutative ring theory, Representation theory, Commutative algebra, algebraic geometry, Number theory, lambda calculus, Computability theory, Graph theory, calculus of finite differences, discrete calculus, discrete analysis, Set Theory, Probability, topology, Game theory, decision theory, utility theory, social choice theory, Discretization, Operations research, Discrete analogues of continuous mathematics, Hybrid discrete and continuous mathematics, complex analysis, real analysis, Automata Theory, Differential Equations, Stochastic Processes, and Discrete Geometry.

>>11217804
http://math.mit.edu/research/applied/comp-science-theory.php
TCS is not a math that's why it's in MIT's applied math program.
>can't do maths
Combinatorics, Abstract algebra, group theory, Commutative ring theory, Representation theory, Commutative algebra, algebraic geometry, Number theory, lambda calculus, Computability theory, Graph theory, calculus of finite differences, discrete calculus, discrete analysis, Set Theory, Probability, topology, Game theory, decision theory, utility theory, social choice theory, Discretization, Operations research, Discrete analogues of continuous mathematics, Hybrid discrete and continuous mathematics, complex analysis, real analysis, Automata Theory, Differential Equations, Stochastic Processes, and Discrete Geometry. These are all not math apparently.
>has not contributed to mathematics
Holy shit are you joking? Forget theoretical computer scientists, normal computer scientists have contributed to math. You don't think mathematicians use computers holy fuck.
>claims to be a mathematician
>mathematicians don't claim to be computer scientists and do not consider computer science mathematics
You're right on this Theoretical computer scientists aren't mathematicians they're theoretical computer scientists, however that's not to say that TCS isn't mostly math. Thats like saying physics don't do a lot of math because they study the natural world. TCS is an extremely hard topic with problems that mathematicians are trying to solve and can't like the famous P!=NP problem

All shit contributions

>Abelian von Neumann algebra
abelian = trivial
>Affiliated operator
more like deflated
>Amenable group
hate it
>Artificial viscosity
artificial
>Axiom of regularity
boring
>Axiom of limitation of size
dicklet detected
>Backward induction
backwards
>Bounded set
think outside the box for once
>Cellular automata
one celler-brainlet
>Class (set theory)
bourgeoisie shit
>Commutation theorem
good riddance
>Continuous geometry
tautology
>Coupling constants
constants don't do shit
>Decoherence theory
incoherent
>Density matrix
you're dense, bro
>Direct integral
don't tell me what to do
>Doubly stochastic matrix
literally random
>Duality Theorem
make a decision, fag
>Durbin–Watson statistic
plagarized
>Ergodic theory
ergo wrong
>Game theory
geek shit, get serious with your life
>Hyperfinite type II factor
why not type I
>Inner model
V=L or smaller
>Interior point method
stop fingering your asshole, creep
>Lattice theory
fucking veggies
>Lifting theory
looks dyel
>Merge sort Middle-square method
even sleep sort outperforms this
>Minimax theorem
dicklet cope is evident
>Mutual assured destruction
get fucked
>Normal-form game
once a pleb
>Operation Greenhouse
how dare you
>Pointless topology
every cat is a topos
>Polarization identity
shizo
>Pseudorandomness
can't even get that one straight
>Pseudorandom number generator
wow, my baby can do that
>Quantum mutual information
you know nothing
>Quantum statistical mechanics
bravo, let's just add two things
>Rank ring
cope
>Self-replication
please don't
>Software whitening
biggot
>Spectral theory
such spooky wow
>Stochastic computing
randomly hitting the keyboard
>Stone–von Neumann theorem
stoner all along
>Subfactor
subpar
>Ultrastrong topology
making up words to sound cool

>>11022946
>cantor and set theory

Not memey enough at this point. The memes of the current zeitgeist are game theory, decision theory, epistemic logic, proof theory, and type theory. Niggas are really into formal models of normativity n shieeet

>>11024131
>philosophy professors are liberal

Nah man, this is a very naive statement. Most philosophers are centrists or classical liberal types. This goes wayyyyy back before the current iteration of the culture war to the early analytic philosophers like Russell and Moore who denounced the relativism and scientific scepticism of the early continental philosophers, most notably the adherents of German Idealism on the one hand, and early nihilists/existentialists on the other. This disparity was only magnified by the positivist epistemology and social philosophy, which basically provided the foundation for the development of contemporary economic theory in the works of Hayek on macroeconomics, and even more importantly, the decision theory and game theory of von Neuman, Oskar Morgenstern, Syndney Morgenbesser, Kenneth Arrow, and Amartya Sen.

This takes us to about mid century. At this point, philosophy departments in the anglo-american world are thoroughly centrist/liberal, and this tendency will only continue to grow in response to the emergence of contemporary thinking on political liberalism and ethics by philosophers like Rawls, Parfitt, and Nozick on the one hand, and the emergence of cognitivism in linguistics and philosophy of mind on the other. I won't say too much about the former trend, but regarding the latter, it can be roughly said to originate in the formal work of Alan Turing, Noam Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, the ecological psychologists and phenomenologists like Gibson and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. By about the 60s, several results and finding in (proto)cognitive science came down conclusively againt the tabula-rasa crowd. This of course cause an immediate wave of nativist speculation in cognitive science and philosophy regarding the origins and flexibility of human cognition, and obviously spawned a lot of criticism of cultural relativism.

Moving in the 21st century, the story gets even more complex, but the same essential trend continues.

>>10960374
Self interest is at the heart of human rationality. Plus the flavor of group interest. There are no irrational human beings. Every human makes rational decision according to their situation. Thus Game Theory works.

>>10941730
because mutts themselves have identifiable traits. it's not like all mutts are one population. a chihuahua-shihtzu mix looks quite different from a retriever-spaniel mix. it doesn't mean they're not both mutts.

>>10941727
>implying that familial love is a low IQ trait
a common low IQ fallacy: conflating nihilism/atheism/cynicism with intelligence.

>implying that high IQ people don't see the value in cooperation
>conflating game theory with truly intelligent strategy
game theory seeks to minimize loss by preferring a strategy indifferent to the other party's decision.
but an "optimal" rock-paper-scissors strategy is breakeven, even against a retard who literally can't unclench his fist. a higher IQ player considers all factors and exploits for maximum gain. so it is for social cooperation. playing a truly selfish strategy is actually a low IQ trait.

in short, good work citing a fucking retard.

>>10854640
An excerpt from How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking' by Jordan Ellenberg:
PART I

"ABRAHAM WALD AND THE MISSING BULLET HOLES

This story, like many World War II stories, starts with the Nazis hounding a Jew out of Europe and ends with the Nazis regretting it. Abraham Wald was born in 1902 in what was then the city of Klausenburg in what was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire. By the time Wald was a teenager, one World War was in the books and his hometown had become Cluj, Romania. He was the grandson of a rabbi and the son of a kosher baker, but the younger Wald was a mathematician almost from the start. His talent for the subject was quickly recognized, and he was admitted to study mathematics at the University of Vienna, where he was drawn to subjects abstract and recondite even by the standards of pure mathematics: set theory and metric spaces.

But when Wald’s studies were completed, it was the mid-1930s, Austria was deep in economic distress, and there was no possibility that a foreigner could be hired as a professor in Vienna. Wald was rescued by a job offer from Oskar Morgenstern. Morgenstern would later immigrate to the United States and help invent game theory, but in 1933 he was the director of the Austrian Institute for Economic Research, and he hired Wald at a small salary to do mathematical odd jobs. That turned out to be a good move for Wald: his experience in economics got him a fellowship offer at the Cowles Commission, an economic institute then located in Colorado Springs. Despite the ever-worsening political situation, Wald was reluctant to take a step that would lead him away from pure mathematics for good. But then the Nazis conquered Austria, making Wald’s decision substantially easier. After just a few months in Colorado, he was offered a professorship of statistics at Columbia; he packed up once again and moved to New York.
And that was where he fought the war."

>>10782395
Combinatorics
Information Theory
Probability
Logic
Game Theory
Decision Theory
Formal Languages/Syntax
Social Choice Theory

Probability, game theory, logic, decision theory all excellent brainlet filters. The point is not that one needs to study these fields to be smart: actually the opposite - the general and widespread absence of any understanding of even the basic principles of logic or rational ecision making is a testament to that, and is not something that can be learned very easily (c.f. the entire field of behavioral economics). In fact, studies have repeatedly found that classes on subjects like logic and inferential statistics actually don't improve your tacit understanding of logic or valid statistical inference (mainly they just improve your ability to answer test question about things like confidence intervals and hilbert style deductions).

>>10733952
It depends on the department, your interests, and the classes you take. And of course there's a lot of overlap. A shit ton of overlap, in fact. For instance, there's a lot of interdisciplinary stuff going on right now where we're stuff in decision theory, game theory, logic, and information theory that's really philosophically and empirically interesting and also relevant to CS and math. There's also a lot of cross fertilization with population genetics, migration, statistics, and computationally itensive modeling techniques that I think tie in with data science and machine learning. Im sure there's plenty of other area too. IMO though game theory, logic, and information theory is where it's at.

>>10724293
please clarify, because I would love to hear how game theory is going to simplify the sheer amount of computation time into a feasible problem. Be specific, I know my game theory
constructing a game matrix for every specific game state will simplify nothing
trying to construct a vast strategy matrix is a huge waste of time because it means more computations than the original problem
truncating a decision tree means you have to spend uncountable years just constructing the tree. You cant truncate the branches early until you know the results of every possible consecutive decision, because what can seem like early unwinnable states still need millions of years to find a conclusive answer, and figure out how not to accidently put yourself into a losing strategy
you could spend lifetimes creating a comprehensive strategy guide (which none exists after thousand years of chess) which lets you eliminate the vast majority of unoptimal strategies, and wow you reduced it to a billion years of computations
solving a game means an analysis of every strategy, not just finding the obvious strategies, because especially for a game like chess, some of the best strategies have been discovered to be weak against a strategy nobody discovered until it was needed
Solving the game isnt just finding a handful of strategies that are very good and recallable in a feasible time limit like chess engines do. Giving them better processing speed and more time per move vastly improves their performance, which isnt solving the game. Solving the game means an analysis of every strategy and every counter strategy, which trillions exist of. There is no shortcut to skip that
even the best chess players and engines only plot out possible outcomes like 6 moves ahead, and their game theoretical approaches either are loose qualitative strategies, or valuation methods to approximate advantages because they *can't* solve the game from that point (until about 5 moves until mate)

you're a dumbass, period
you dont know what you're talking about
you dont know how markets work
you dont know how technology works
you dont know how game theory works
you dont know how emerging, DISRUPTIVE (not the marketing buzzword, the TECHNOLOGICAL term) work
you dont know how production costs work
you dont know how laws work
you dont know how human nature works, i bet you're a communist or democratic socialist fag from a US or west europe metropolitan area

yet you believe what popsci computer scientist who like to catastrophise for cheap facebook or buzzfeed clicks
yet you buy "horror stories of the time" they sell you made by jews from holywood

"robots" as you know them will either be implemented in medical care and brothels first for the general public and the stuff like "robo-slave" will be used by upper class snobs who buy what ever new over priced gadget they usually buy to show off to their materialistic friends.
artificial intelligence will be used to model the world around you as a decision tool, much like how excel was used when the first (pre)desktop came to the market, they will most likely be used as a smart cousin or father who can figure some stuff out quicker than your peers or buddies so you can be ahead of the curve, once everyone has that kind of tool we're all better off, who was displaced once the new IT technologies came out? nobody, it was a good for everyone, all the "displacements" that occurred was due to the 2008 economic crash. You're over thinking this

This young professor dude at my old university. He seems to have published and taught in everything ypu can think of. He is currently in the philosophy department at UMD, taight math at Stanford before that, did his postdoc and the ILLC in the Netherlands and has literally dozens of publications ranging from math, to philosophy, to computer science, to economics. Mostly stuff related to game theory, modal logic, and decision theory. He could go from talking about Wittgenstein's philosophy philosophy, to functional programming, to generative grammars, to functional analysis, to microeconomics without trivializing any of it.

Mathematical Physics: there are now over 200 different types of algebras. More mathematical wankery and the proliferation of distinct formalism with the same predictive capacities as each other. No GUT, no progress. More higher dimensional shapes discovered with no real world applications or intuitive content, but physicists go ape-shit over it (admittedly for understandable reasons)

Pure math: More algebraic geometry. Riemann hypothesis solved, not that it matters because analytic number theory is already dead.

TCS: Polydimension quantum computational game theory, multivariable non-Euclidean decision theory, algebraic combinatorics and formals languages are still going strong. Machine learning has fizzled out as an academic field, but ubiquitous in everyday life and "engineering" applications. Multiagents systems emerges as its own field and splits off from computer science. Basically just more of the interdiscipliniary applied math/CS/cognitive science/economics shit that is really bug right now.

Game Theory, Decision Theory and derivatives are the foundations of statistical decision theory. So, anything related and used nowadays, like classification models, learning models and such depends on its definitions.

The effects of decision theory is more clearer in the study of statistical inference, as a tool to give properties to estimators. Game theory, as a decision theory to relationships, is resumed by >>10555264.

>>10518205
(1) all of empricial/rigorous economics that exists today: e.g. via social choice theory; rational choice theory and decision thwory; game theory; judgement aggregation and collective choice; coalitional logic

(2) Theoretical computer science: e.g. via the theory of formal languages as developed by Chomsky and Bar-Hillel; automata, as developed by Dana Scott; more general models of computation like Turing Machine and abacus machines (George Boolos, obviously Alan Turing); the development and application of type theory in general, particularly the typed lambda calculus (Bertrand Russell, Alonzo Church, Richard Montague); the development of categorial grammars (Joachim Lambek, Bar-Hillel), type-logical grammar (e.g. Montague, David Dowty); non-classical and modal logics, e.g. modal logics, temporal logics, intensional logics, neighborhood models for logics (C I Lewis, Saul Kripke, David Kellogg Lewis, Johann van Bentham).

(3) Cognitive Science/Linguistics: generative grammar, phenomenology, connectionism, cybernetics, embodied cognition. The first empirically accurate and mathematically rigorous thepries of human mental processes. The list here is really endless, and to a large extent was the primary concern and development of 20th century philosophy. Just to list a few name: Chomsky, Fodor, Dennet, Putnam, Jerrold Katz, Thomas Metzinger, Wittgenstein, Alva Noe, David Chalmers, Paul Smolensky. Essential the entirety of the MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford linguistics departments.

(4) Math and logic: foundations of mathematics (Russell, Skolem, Post, Church, Godel, Whitehead, Brouwer, Rosser, Haskell Curry, Hilbert). Homotopy Type Theory (Steve Awodey, Per Martin-Lof), Proof Theory, a decent amount of model theory. Algebraic Logic and Lindenbaum-Tarski algebras. Heyting algebras. Interior algebras.

Yes, you truly are a brainlet my friend. Dont worry though, you will never contribute the science, math, OR philosophy, so none of this really matters to you.

>>10418543
>>10418436
Funny how high school edge lord faggots that read pop sci but cant even tell you the difinition of an abelian group go around shitting on philosophy.

Youll find that universities (especially big ones) are unique and each have theur own particular culture, but many of the math professors Ive known hAve been deeply interested in philosophy, linguistics, and the social sciences. Stuff like epistemology, rationality, belief, collective decision making, welfare economics, agency, syntax, semantics, reference, and non-classical logics are all closely related to game theory, set theory, topology, logic information theory, and discrete mathematics/theoretical computer science. Only brainlet tier physics majors and 16 year old edge lords think philosophy is bullshit.

>>10416252
Because the "laws of economics" contain an element of human behavior in them. And we don't even understand the human brain or its decision making process so we can't be certain about the human element within economics.

Since you can't isolate economics completely from human elements we will always have an incomplete idea about the workings of economics until we actually understand humans precisely enough to predict and model individual behavior.

Basically economics has an unknown variable within their formulas making it impossible to make completely accurate predictions.

Doesn't mean economics is useless. Hell I'd say it's even more important because economics can account for and even define decision making processes that are independent of the human mind as is done within Game Theory which could even be applied to AI or Alien behavior.

>>10391585
PhD mate. The subject is very dynamic. New research is being published in heaps. Honestly a fair bit of it is fluff but the other part keeps beating older benchmarks consistently. Nowadays this whole thing is used in conjunction with machine learning(especially reinforcement learning) cuz there's always room for improvement as time progresses. And ML kinda automates that process, as some parameter is better learned as time progresses for better decision making.
>all this is vague and hand wavey
I know it's hard to explain this stuff and probably should use concrete examples. Take a look at this.
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03459
>a Harvard/LSE team is training NN's to design revenue maximizing auctions.
Now here they are only running this shit on very simple toy auctions and vanilla mechanism design can for the time being outperform them. But this is only a proof of concept, it's only a couple of years of refinement away for some faggot jewbird company to start raking in shekels using this ultra scalable method. I know one of the authors who was telling me bout how the model lacks online learning capabilities as of now and the next goal is to bring in reinforcement learning into play.
>game theory is there wherever more than one agents interact strategically
>strategic means that they are rational and intelligent
>both these terms don't mean what you think they mean
>rational means they are maximizing something towards some arbitrary goal
>intelligent means they can compute their responses efficiently so that they can behave correctly their benefit
In fact to analyze literally any strategic interaction you need GT Multi-Agent-Systems is a subfield of AI which like it's name says studies the behavior of multiple agents. And if you look at the most well known book in this field by shoham and l-b you'll see that it is essentially just a GT textbook
>it's free here http://www.masfoundations.org/

>>10391046
>I guess the question is: is there anything fundamentally different about today's civilization which would break past patterns?
In addition to what you've said, I think our biggest benefit now is our understanding of these systems which give us the potential to be proactive rather than reactive. However our greatest downfall is still the same as past civilizations, in that decision makers, people in power and people in general are not rational and will tend to act only in short term self interest. As described by the tragedy of the commons scenario in game theory. Efficient long term planning and forecasting is now very possible but remains a very unrealistic thing to implement if it's going to cost somebody a $ today.

>Inb4 I get called a socialist
I'm honestly a capitalist, but I think better accounting of currently uncosted externalities would lead to much more efficient systems in the longer term