/sci/ - Science & Math

Are there any branches of mathematics that are solved with nothing more to be discovered in them?

>>8959219
>hierarchies exist in nature just look at the queen bee.
Who's to say that the drones are not at the top of the hierarchy? The entire colony depends on them to find their food. Then you have the worker bees working for a living. Finally you have the welfare queens at the bottom, mooching off the system and shiting out babies.
See hierarchies are abstractions realized by arbitrarily drawn boundairies. Not actual entities.
You are making arational conclusions from empirical evidence and are doing science wrong. Empiricuck mindlet get good.
>>8959233
Apply the counter-argument above to your own argument.
>>8959253
>so you want someone to first formulate an ontology, then formalize it, and then derive a proof from it?
there's absolutely no way you'd be able to do the corollary, which is to prove with a formal ontology that hierarchies do not exist in nature, so this is not just a ridiculously high standard of proof but also a hypocritical one
Good job.
>if you mean hierarchies in general:
1. hierarchies exist wherever priority exists
2. priority exists in causation, time, organization, etc.
3. causation, time, and organization exist in nature
4. hence hierarchies exist in nature
good job, I didn't make this thread expecting a coherent response. I'm not denying that incremental levels of composition exist. For example cell>organ>organism>population
What I mean by hierarchy is universal stratified levels of organization.
as in level n is often not realized solely by level n-1
I'm not really sure what else to say right now. Good thing i didn't come up with this argument.
https://philpapers.org/archive/POTTLO-2.pdf

>>8906422