/sci/ - Science & Math

The brain named itself kek

Sorry to be nihilistic but what is the point of existing again with no prior memories? Or am I missing the bigger picture?

>>15641775
Mathbros, tell me why this is wrong:
- In a deterministic model of reality, all future states are determined by present states, usually by applying some function on the latter.
- Gödel's first incompleteness theorem says that any sufficiently complex logic (math) is incomplete: it cannot prove all of its true theorems.
- If a model's ability to determine future states is analogous to a formal system's ability to prove its theorems, then some "futures" in the model must be unpredictable.
-> A deterministic universe can only be accurately described with lower order logic, OR All physical observables could be deterministic, but then there must be metaphysical unobservables that aren't.

In a deterministic universe:
-> Things can't work like an algorithm. All truths are independent and notions of past, present, future, and causality are meaningless.
-> Any second order principles that might be used to understand the universe can't be absolutely true.

How can determinists claim to understand anything? How can anyone claim to understand things in anything but a mixed model?

>>15440831
>money launderers asking for more money

Ik this question has been asked many times
Im taking my first proof based math class modern algebra and the concepts make sense if i put in the time to learn it
But I have no idea how to even start doing HW problems so i have to look them up

what does proving something even mean?
prove a(bc)=b(ac)
- abc=bac=x
x=x
proven? i'm not even sure what it is that I did because of course a(bc)=b(ac) that's just obvious. do I need to prove x=x too?

>>15046821
This is what happens initially but then what is often described as a tunnel of white light appears. Some think this is the soul detaching. I do not know what it is, all I can tell you is what I've experienced, which was an extremely fast and high definition replay of all that I had experienced up until that point, followed by an overwhelmingly intense moment of reflection and choice. I was furious I would die pathetically at the bottom of a pool, regurgitated water and swam to the shallow end. I suppose it could just be some evolved phenomena that provides some boost of energy as cell death begins, but it is all understandably very difficult to study with current scientific tools. It would be safe to assume that anything is possible, given how remarkable existence is as it is, moderated by a sane and practical scientific outlook.

>>14984351
The answer I want to give is that physicists implicitly work within the framework of math. They assume mathematical facts are objectively true, and from that implicit order, figure they can make sense of the material universe. In a sense, math does the same "job" as god, being a timeless metaphysical from which truth and order can not only be derived, but must abide by because they're synonymous.
By contrast, mathematicians study math itself. They're more intimately familiar with its shortcomings, and alternative systems of doing math. They're more likely realize that mathematical principles aren't a sufficient substitute for even deeper metaphysical ones that sometimes approximate religion.

>Why 'x' ?
>Physicist: Because [physical principle]
>Why [physical principle]?
>Physicist: Because [mathematical principle]
>Why [mathematical principle]?
>Physicist: Eh, that's just how it is. It's the only way it can be.
>Mathematician: Actually no, that's not the ONLY way it could be. The fact that we do math in this particular way and it happens to work out is a total fuckin crapshoot. So, idk, god?

I think it's important to add that the epistemic foundations of science are slightly different from math. Science assumes that 'THE truth' exists, and can be known, at least in part. Mathematical 'truths' are only true in so far that the axiomatic assumptions they're deduced from are true.
I want to say all that. But if "god" actually refers to a specific (abrahamic) god, then the other anons are probably right. Mathematicians are easier to delude because they don't engage with reality.

>>14740339

>>12502527
>mental constructs define reality
"Yes"

>>12481842
i know it's a dumb meme but whatever

>>12458005
"How do you know we are not beholden to physical processes?"
Because if things were deterministic, then we can't prove that they were or were not, because they'd be deterministic.

>>12441388
You will see how relative it feels when I fart in your face

>>12387709
>assuming the world and brain are physical
Reject physicalism entirely. Embrace idealism.

>>12228063
>materialist
>believes in burden of proof
how did atheists get so retarded?

>>11624640
>just a chemical reaction
pussyass faggot

Why would you trust your chemicals to be chemicals?

>>11246362

Obligatory.

>>11065199
lurk moar

>>11062229
>Taylor Series
>High school mathematics
brainlet

>>11045807
>His eyeballs are empirically something that exists at least. They don't define themselves either so they don't just exist because of circular reasoning.
Your argument is also nothing more but "muh feelings". And I though I would never find an unironic use for this meme....

>A clock ticking [...] It's not going to shoot lightning or cause a compass to point at it. It's not going to slow things down or speed things up
Neither your eyes but you believe in them...

>>11042326
but thats the point nobody gets. the irrational cannot be understood by the rational, its subconscious, dreamlogic, religion etc. these things are very real in their consequences, yet cannot be understood with logic! It marks the limit of enlightment!