/sci/ - Science & Math

The concept of infinity is inconsistent, circular, self-contradictory.

Let us review the definition of an infinte set:
>"A set is infinite if and only if for every natural number the set has a subset whose cardinality is that natural number."

The definition presumes the existence of a set "natural numbers".

Q: Are the natural numbers infinite?
A: Unless you dismiss the entirety of logic, they cannot be infinite!

2 arguments:
1. Since the naturals are more fundamental than the idea of infinity, they are not allowed to satisfy the above-stated definition without invalidating it by circularity.
2. The empirical argument. Infinity of the naturals is a hypothetical limit of "If I kept counting forever ..." You cannot count forever. No matter how far you count, the set will remain finite. You will always stop at a finite number.

Zero is the biggest number and here is why:

Nothing is bigger than infinity. And zero means nothing.

“People who feel their life is part of a larger plan and are guided by their spiritual values have stronger immune systems, lower blood pressure, a lower risk of heart attack and cancer, and heal faster and live longer,” says Harold G. Koenig, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical Center.

http://www.healthytheory.com/habits-of-the-worlds-healthiest-people

theory X is true
if and only if
it cannot be falsified by evidence
if and only if
theory X is unfalsifiable

Therefore all of the following are true:
evolution, string theory, dualism, time travel, quantum consciousness, probability theory, anthropomorphic climate change

Hey sci,
I see often here that you use latex. How did you learn it? Where do i start?

>Enviromental factors
>Socioeconomic bias
>Class structure

Poor people is poor because they're either lazy or retards. And that explains income inequities both in our society and the state of the rest of the world.
PERIOD

Logic is based on axioms.
How do we know it's okay to believe these axioms?
We do so because we evaluate them to be true.
How do evaluate them to be true?
By means of logic.
There I said it.
Logic is circular and just invalidated itself.

Consider a theory. The theory is either correct or wrong. If it is wrong, there has to be evidence, e.g. a counter-example, to prove it wrong. If it is correct, it will never be proven wrong, because it will hold whenever being tested. In this case it accurately describes an aspect of reality. The alleged unfalsifiability of a theory implies by definition that said theory is never to be proven wrong.
In conclusion an unfalsifiable theory is always a correct theory, just like a correct theory on the other hand is always unfalsifiable.
Now why do we have two different terms ("correct" vs "unfalsifiable") to describe the same thing? The only reason to do so is to spread confusion. People who for whatever reason want to reject a correct theory, like to dismiss it as "unfalsifiable", not seeing the logical fallacy they are abusing.

I thought you should know, /sci/, and I hope you will be more careful in your choice of words in the future.

lol at /x/tards believing there are phenomenons not fully explainable by current scientific means.
Human emission deflected by a gaussian belt. Case solved

ITT: looney toons

>>4080465
>Buddhism
>Religion
Pick one

>>4072924

>>3921502
are you really that butthurt because your tax money are going to this antiscientific shit?

Because you must be really dumb if you are really telling that neutrinos faster than light are actually possible.

CERN CALCULATIONS ARE WRONG, NO MATTER HOW YOU DISGUISE IT.

lrn2 fucking relativity

>hurr we broke lightspeed!!11oneone!

We fucking didn't because that's IMPOSSIBLE.

>but hurr people said so about flying

Flying is hpisically possible, FTL travel IS NOT and NEVER WILL. Just look at the gold. There is a 99.9% possibilities of a mistake in CERN calculations. RELATIVITY IS AN AXIOM. IS THE CLOSEST THING WE'LL EVER GET TO AN UNIVERSAL TRUTH. PERIOD.

God, I hate these kiddies filled with sensationalistic bullshit
-.-

>Homosexuality
>Not a choice

Pick one

http://en.lichess.org/sdh8821a

>>3285899
at least the chinese will OP. This makes me happy since I'm asian. Also higer average IQ's- it's just evolution.

water is a solid matter, that just flows quickly, because of that, it SEEMS like a liquid.
similar to glass, which flows too, but very slowly. hence it seems like a solid, when in fact its liquid.

>>3194539
>implying anyone would want to be a dentist or pharmacist
>it should be either real doctor or bust
>implying engineering wouldn't make over 9000 times more than being a pharmacist
>implying health care is even worthwhile to enter right now
>implying health care won't be nationalized imminently

Also,
>implying the technological singularity won't eliminate the entire health care industry altogether
>implying biology won't be utterly useless after the technological singularity