/sci/ - Science & Math

I realized I should've asked this question a long time ago but I didn't for some dumb reason.

How do you guys study something you're not interested in (but are forced to by the curriculum)?

When can we expect to see a logically sound foundation of mathematics?
Do you think it will never happen?

>>12215039
I think it's perfectly consistent to have a materialist notion of consciousness and free will while still believing it and not being a determinist. Keep in mind that materialism does not imply determinism, nor does it say that consciousness is an illusion. It merely states that consciousness supervenes on the physical, i.e. for changes in consciousness to occur the physical must change.
And that seems consistent with our experience. We know that drinking alcohol, doing drugs or having a brain injury can significantly alter your consciousness, that it's closely related to the physical. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it's an illusion of some sort.
There's a lot of strong evidence for materialism in many areas of life, in that a lot of experiences and phenomena that were thought to have nothing to do with the physical later turned out to be mostly physical or closely related to the physical. Think about all the magic tricks that were later figured out, or natural phenomena such as rain and thunder which we used to think have mystical nonphysical cause.
The problem is that there is also a lot of good evidence that there exist nonphyiscal things, and things that don't supervene on the physical. Mathematics comes to mind. This also might suggest that consciousness is not purely physical, since we are able to access the world of mathematics which has nothing to do with the physical, though it's obviously not a hard proof of anything.

Had enough self-discipline today to both go for a 8km jog and finish my maths homework. Feels great.

>>11670512
>>11670513
Where is the circular reasoning in my argument?
And how does it make sense to call something an illusion without implicitly assuming that there's a reality that it's not a part of? It's a valid question. Clearly you don't accept the common meaning of the word illusion as "something that seems real but is not", so what do you mean by the word "illusion"?
From your inability to form a valid criticism of my argument and the overly emotional tone in your posts I get the impression that you're either low IQ or a woman.

>>11614104
You should probably choose the problems where you show that bijectivity is equivalent to having an inverse. If I remember correctly, the first example of a group Herstein gives is the set of bijections from a set to itself and their composition. The group structure depends on invertibility, so those problems are quite essential, unless you have already showed that those properties are equivalent on a course or something. Anyway, good luck to you and good night to everyone else (and to you later but not yet)!