/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15174081
>which suggests you don't think the universe thinks. However, you and I are thinking, and part of the universe, so we are the universe thinking.

And if all of that is true, then it's still "undefined". Thoughts are not objects and therefore cannot be described with quantity. You took it one step further though. Thinking if not even defined as an action is certainly not something in and of itself that exists in reality. It's basically retardation before the actual quantifiable action.
If the universe wasted energy thinking about how many moms are fucked then it wouldn't have time to make the people who fuck them or the moms.

>>15098909
That's true though. Math is a silly game that's useful because we can use it to describe physical laws.

>>15030338
>He thinks there's some magical camera sensor that registers light faster than the light hits it.
>This digital rendition is proof
It couldn't make sense if you tried.

>>15030362
*when it's digitally altered to slow down that much.
ftfy.

>>15001080
>Who are you quoting, schizo?
>who
Do I need another human being or something to leech words off of? Who was Einstein quoting when he made up spacetime?

>>15000714
Because all mathematicians are schizophrenic

>>14972728
>Why am I so addicted to equating explanations to a metric used by a groupthink of people who do fuck all.

idk, please tell us (if you can).

>>14888543
>you revealed you dont have as many cards as you want me to believe
You don't say? No wonder I asked so many questions in that post.

>marrying matter/time/energy into a single unit.
There is nothing actually "quantitative" about any of those though.

>>14888700
>Come back, fucker...Im not finished with you.
Do you want me to ask more problematic questions for you or something? I don't think I will for your own benefit.

>>14866911
>Photons are verified by the photoelectric effect,
>Verified by a description

You had "photon" as the description. How many more will you conjure up before you actually show me an experiment that proves the existence of a photon particle? No, an equation is not an experiment. No the assumption of an "electron at rest", is also not a substantial foundation for reifying another magic bumping particle.

>I'll take that as a "no"
Correct. Spacetime cannot be tested. Also; Neither can a model I never mentioned or made up.

>there is nothing to discuss.
Exactly. Stop talking about "space". There is literally nothing for you to talk about.

>The fact you can't give a single straight answer shows quite that the emperor has no clothes.
You just think I'm the same anon is all. I'm not. Unfortunately for you there is more than one person who doesn't believe in a magical place that doesn't exist.

>>14846721
>Feelings were hurt

>>14847892
>Depends on how retarded your definition of "is" is
It depends on how much you want to be at defining undefined. Contradiction taken to tryhard levels of autism.

>Now, what IS 2√?
Undefined

>It's a number.
Undefined

>It has the property of being irrational,
>property
Undefined

>which means it can't be expressed as the ratio of any two integers.
Which makes it "Undefined".

>Now here's the punchline: There are more irrational numbers than rational numbers
You really will never explain the universe using math.

>To say that it doesn't exist (in whatever sense you mean) implies that whole branches of mathematics should be discarded
You call it "math" yet what's being quantified isn't a number. How is that math?

>the fact that they're logically consistent
How could it be with the principles you just explained?

>>14668901
>You can count how many 0's you have in the empty set.
>You can count no quantity

Sure, you can deconstruct and contort the meaning of "math" but then you'd find there were no point to using it. Just like any other language we've successfully killed using memes.

>>14520251
>pepe
>I want to hear opinions from people who actually understand the field. Not some backwater incel who read some internet memes.
Lol
>B-But college is a scam!
>Yes, but
Lol

>>14520269
>No, but you do need some basic credibility.

The only "credibility" a book learned retard has nowadays is shutting the world down for two years and causing an upcoming famine from the shipping delays. You've doomed us all, but it wouldn't have been the first time would it? You're just too smart to be wrong aren't you?