/sci/ - Science & Math

/sci/ seems dominantly atheist. trying to avoid a god debate, I am curious what /sci/ makes of many mathematicians' professed belief in god. obviously pascal was very religious, it has been remarked so was euler. cantor was obvious obsessed with religion to some degree. godel fought against a view of the universe without some theistic being.
---
do you think this has had an impact on mathematical thinking? are physics and math ultimately tied up with the same metaphysical thinking to some extent? turing's view on mathematics and some of what has been happening in group theory, computational theory, automata theory, quantum mechanics, etc. have led me to believe there is a possibility for a new open kind of thinking, but i want to know what you guys think.

pic related

>>3277246
I will never use a tripcode. I don't believe in them. If you want to pretend to be me, KNOCK YOUR FUCKIN SELF OUT!

>where would you even begin trying to experiment on something like that??

We will start small, and work our way up (like all good scientists).

The first experiment I want to try, will be to affirm that anti-partciles physically do travel backwards in time (it is not just a mathematical concidence). Tons of physicist already ackknowledge this, but there is still debate on the actual meaning of the "math". I am currently working out the details of how to perform this.

The next experiment, will be to physically transform a particle into its anti-particle (reversing its flow of time).

I have an anti-matter source at my disposal. And more then enough resources, as well as a team of engineers to do the grunt work. Still, working out experiments is fucking hard...lol.

I often find insight in the most mundane or irr-related things. Hence this post on 4chan. I need a "Dr. House" moment here!

>>3004185
The experiment is a thought experiment, to show that Quantum Mechanical effects are insignfigant on the macro-level, as they "smooth out"/"approximate" to classical mechanics anyway.

Basically, If you put a "cat", and some "random cat killer", in a box. Incorrect use of Quantum Mechanics would tell you that until you observe the system, the cat should be thought of as "dead and alive". However, that is fucking retarded., it is the "incorrrect use" as demonstrated by the experiment.

The cat and the random cat killer are on the macro-level, meaning that all the billions of billions of quantum mechanical wave functions have interacted fucking countless times already. There is already all sorts of fucking wave function collapse, and "fixing of quantities". The cat will either be dead or alive, NOT BOTH, NOT A SUPERPOSITION OF BOTH, AND SHOULD NOT BE THOUGH OF AS "DEAD AND ALIVE". It doens't fucking matter if you "observe the cat it or not", it's dead doesn't depend on observation.

The only thing observation will accomplish, is to convey the information to you, it doens't actually create the information (like a real quantum system).

>>2215662
>cannot say that any infinity is larger than any other infinity

I would like a word with you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

Not all infinities were created equal, son..

/Although this is way above the heads of 99% of /sci/. Don't even know why I come here.