/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14833801
This is just appealing to a broader skepticism of "complete infinities" (which is one of the big topics in 19th century foundation of mathematics). That's perfectly fine, but it seems very arbitrary. If you're skeptical of the possibility of "completing" an "infinite decision", then it seems like you'd also be skeptical of the possibility of "completing" the construction of a infinite set of objects (the natural numbers) generate by the successor function.

In other words, if your qualms are about "complete" infinities rather than anything about the decision process in itself (say, in instances when only a finite number of "choices" are made), then you should feel just as skeptical talking about concepts as ordinary as the set of natural numbers as you do when talking about the axiom of choice. To talk about the "axiom of choice" or the "set of natural numbers", in both cases you will be presupposing the ability to speak meaningfully about "complete" infinities. Skepticism regarding the AC just boils down to the same old skepticism about infinite sets.

>>12694742
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRr_Ud7pyig

>>12537219
>>12537899
Sometimes weed is helpful sometimes harmful. It depends on the task and what I'm studying. It usually impairs my working memory, concentration, and attention to details,. As a result, I often make sloppy mistakes or forget my train of thought if I'm doing something like working on a proof, solving a problem, or writing code (which I don't do often enough, desu).

Sometimes though, it makes me more curious and obsessive about a particular topic. Like if I'm working on a really hard proof during the day, I often just give up. Then I might smoke some weed in the evening and the problem I was working on will return to my mind, and I might spend the rest of the night working on the problem and following up by researching related shit on Wikipedia. I think these are actually some of my most productive study sessions. It's usually really sloppy, and like I said, I'll make a lot of silly computational errors, but when I actually come to an understanding of a problem/topic/definition/theorem while I'm high, for some reason it generally seems even more interesting than usual and it really sticks in brain in a different way.

Anyway, I can't recommend any particular strains for doing math. I have the benefit of living in a state where weed is legal, but most people don't. The one piece of advice I do have is that a lot of people just go for the strongest strain with the most THC or other cannabinoids (as you probably know, in states where weed is legal, this info is always listed on the product label), but in my experience the odor, taste, and texture are a lot better predictors of the actual quality of the weed. You want fruity, aromatic weed that is sticky and hard to crumble. You want it to be as smooth as possible when you smoke it. If it feels really harsh and it leaves behind a nasty flavor in you mouth it's shitty. In my experience, those factors are more important than THC content or whether the weed looks frosty/dank in the conventional sense.

>>12461616
>>12461625
Not the same anon, and I am not a globalist cuck, but there is some truth to this. I read this paper a few months ago called The Evolution of Innovation-Enhancing Institutions by the evolutionary anthropologist Joseph Henrich.

https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/publications/evolution-innovation-enhancing-institutions

However, there is also evidence that a certain level of cultural homogeneity and a common epistemological framework are necessary to achieve technological innovation and dissemination of new ideas.

>>12450496
>What's not at all clear is how either interpretation furthers the behavior that scientists have in their labs. How does this matter to physics?

This is of course a good question. It's not directly useful in the same sense that a new device or instrument would be useful in collecting more data, or a new mathematical technique might be useful in creating more accurate formal models, but philosophical perspectives do have a huge impact on the way we think about things and approach problems.

The emphasis on mathematical rigor and an interest in formal notation in the 1800s is a good example. Karl Weierstrass and Richard Dedekind were very interested in philosophy of math, and particularly the epistemology of mathematics. none of this was really directly useful at the time, but it lead to people like Frege, Russell, and Hilbert, and eventually the development of computer science.

There are other examples too. For example, cybernetics was largely a philosophical movement that emphasized a "holistic" and non-reductive approach science, but it was instrumental in the emergence stuff like network science/complexity theory, systems biology, and cognitive science. In other words, the philosophical values of early cybernetic philosophers lead to different ways of looking at
natural phenomenon, and these new perspective ultimately produced new ways of doing science.

There are other examples too. Pythagorean philosophy and the emergence of mathematical approaches to physical and musical phenomenon in ancient Greece is another example. And in fact, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were very much influenced by a renewed interest in the Pythagorean philosophy of ancient Greece. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, scholarship mainly occurred within an Aristotelian/Scholastic epistemological framework. During the Enlightenment, many scholars reintroduced elements of Platonic and Pythagorean epistemology into their work.

>>12280774
I have definitely had some bad experiences and some good experiences on psychedelics. I don't think they're for everyone, and normies seem to handle them better.

Thankfully, however, I haven't had a really bad experience on them since I was in high school. Last time I tripped was sometime back in summer 2018. The biggest problem I have now with psychedelics is that I get intense chills, an upset stomach, and this weird weak feeling in my muscles. In other words, really unpleasant physical effects. I absolutely love the way they alter my thinking and my perception of music, but they also make me feel like my stomach is bubbling, like my skin is cold and clammy, and like I'm constantly on the verge of explosive diarrhea or something. I also hate talking to people when I'm tripping unless it's someone who's tripping with me. If it weren't for weed bodily sensations and awkward conversations at the gas stations, then I would absolutely love tripping every now and then. It's just wonderful to go walking thru the words listening to music and tripping balls. Or even try some math problems.

On another note, I would really recommend anons try listening to non-stoner music. Tbh a lot of people into drugs and psychedelics especially, are musically and scientifically illiterate. Some of the stereotypical stoner music can be decent, but I would really recommend any music when tripping, not just stone music or EDM or whatever. Personally, I have had some great experiences with black metal, hardcore punk, classical (especially baroque harpsichord), and industrial (Throbbing Gristle and Klaus Schulze are my favorite).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkXeOMSwdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OknyOYXFRc&t=919s

>>12137126
This is actually what I am in the process of trying to do. I am working with an old professor of mine and she has been very encouraging and I've been doing really good on GRE practice tests. I'm scheduled to take the exam on like Oct 2 or some shit. I actually think I will be able to get into at least a decent grad program. Not like Stanford or MIT or some shit, but I should be able to get into a decent state school. My biggest problem is that I have really niche interests, that basically lie at the intersection of applied math, computer science, and biology. The problem is most math programs would probably not let me spend much time on biology, and most biology programs and publications to not have the degree of mathematical sophistication and originality that I'm interested in. There are a few departments where there are people I've heard of doing really interesting work on mathematical modeling, so hopefully I can get into one, but I'm not sure. I think it will depend heavily on who reads my application. I wish math was like the natural sciences where you could apply to work with a specific faculty member or in a specific research lab.