/sci/ - Science & Math

What's the difference?

>>10480120
Platonist - logic, math, ideas that make sense.
Aristotelian - experiment, observation, things you can sense with your senses.

>>10480131
>sense with senses
Pseud detected

>>10480148
Originally wanted to just write "you can sense", but I saw the "make sense" just above it, and added the other part. Its for your benefit.

>>10480131
Both sides make good points.
Logic must be fundamental though because otherwise we wouldn't be able to learn from or derive logic from experiments.

>>10480181
this.
logic and mathematics precedes physics

>>10480182
You can derive physics from observation, you don't need to calculate them.

>>10480184
Whether or not you calculate them doesn't mean they dont require a logical and mathematical framework that they are governed by

>>10480181
logic is human made, its not fundamental
you can logic as much as you want, but you cant know if youre right until you test your prediction
the framework we have for physics is just an approximation, its not fundamental

>>10480203
>logic is human made, its not fundamental
No it isn't human made, it is discovered much like physical or mathematical laws.
>you can logic as much as you want, but you cant know if youre right until you test your prediction
Irrelevant.
>the framework we have for physics is just an approximation, its not fundamental
The framework we are trying to put together is an approximation of the actual framework, we aren't done yet. The framework still exists and is fundamental.

>>10479922
>>10480131
Plotinus and Heraclitus > Plato and Aristotle.

Reminder that Athens tried to build a society purely on science and logic and it was a complete catastrophe. They returned to religion because Mysticism>Science.

>>10480221
>Reminder that Athens tried to build a society purely on science and logic
What. When?

>>10480203
How do you test a prediction without logic?

>>10480223
In the period between Aristotle and Plotinus. Neoplatonism literally developed as a reaction to the shortcomings of Aristotelianism. Plato was revived but with a far more mystical interpretation.

>>10480221
democritus and epicurus >

>>10480214
>No it isn't human made, it is discovered much like physical or mathematical laws.
Nice claim
Cool justification

>>10480214
Logic is invented, the same way language is. Would you say language was discovered? Sounds stupid. Yet logic is much more similar to language than it is to astronomy, for example.
Basically philosophers invented logic so they could abstract things, as opposed to measuring things. It was a way of crafting knowledge that didn't rely on the senses.

>>10480261
>Nice claim
It's not a claim, humans can't "invent" logic in the same way we can't "invent" gravity.

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

>p. 114 Bxxiv: ... logic deals only with the form of thinking in general.
>p. 194, B 76: ...we distinguish the science of the rules of sensibility in general, i.e., aesthetic, from the science of the rules of understanding in general, i.e., logic.
>p. 194, B 77: A general but pure logic therefore has to do with strictly a priori principles/ and is a canon of the understanding and reason, but only in regard to what is formal in their use, be the content what it may (empirical or transcendental).
>p. 195,B 78: As general logic it abstracts from all contents of the cognition of the understanding and of the difference of its objects, and [general logic] has to do with nothing but the mere form of thinking.

>>10480266
>Logic is invented
No it isn't.
>the same way language is
See "universal grammar"

>>10480271
>see Chomsky's unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim
No, I'd rather not, I get mad when I look at it.

>>10480267
youre an idiot
boolean truth didn't exist until humans made it

>>10480278
Aren't truth tables like 100-120 years old?

>>10480274
>No, I'd rather not, I get mad when I look at it.
Because it proves you wrong lmao
Fucking retard
>>10480278
No, Bool didn't invent boolean logic, he just wrote down the rules that already existed externally.
If all humans died logic would still behave in exactly the same way it does.

>>10480287
Logic doesn't "behave", its an idea. It wouldn't exist without humans, since it only exists within our heads.

>>10479922

I'm Faustian and actually capable of understanding more than 2 dimensions mathematically.

>>10480291
Logic is a ruleset that governs behavior, that we can encapsulate in symobls. The symbols aren't the underlying idea it's describing.
If all humans died, the laws of logic would still be there governing all behavior in the universe.

>>10480299
The laws of logic are just what we see as observers. They don't govern shit. Its us taking a photo of whats in front of us.

>>10480304
holy shit you're an idiot lmao
if there is behavior, then there is a ruleset governing it.

>>10480299
the rules of chess is a rule set that govern behavior
humans invented chess you loon

>>10480309
Yes, but humans didn't invent the logic that is required for the laws of physics to exist in the first place that allowed us to evolve and then invent chess.

>>10480320
there is no fucking logic to the laws of physics
there is ONLY the laws of physics

any deeper connection that you see is a product of your imagination

>>10480323
>there is no fucking logic to the laws of physics
HAHAHAHA
If your only argument is "n-no it doesn't exist" then we're done here

>>10480320
This is an arbitrary distinction that you are making in a poor effort to substantiate your inane claims.
Logic isn't needed for the universe to exist. Logic was created by humans in an effort to explain the universe existing. The system predates the ideas used to explain it by one observer.

>>10480325
>n-no it exists!!!

>>10480326
>This is an arbitrary distinction that you are making in a poor effort to substantiate your inane claims.
it is not arbitrary at all.
>Logic isn't needed for the universe to exist
Of course it is. What isn't needed is for the specific elements or laws to exist. You can easily construct a consistent logical universe with an entirely different table of elements, for example, but you can not construct a universe where the law of identity doesn't hold.

>>10480325
your only argument is "I-it really does exist" you dumb nigger
like a child trying to prove that santa exists, you have no proof, just your feelings

>>10480131
the most basic bitch dichotomy of the two think. you know aristotle wrote a book on logic right? one that pretty much influenced modern philosophers like kant and hegel?

>>10480331
>You can easily construct a consistent logical universe
so we invent logic, but not when its to describe *our own* universe, huh
thats just blatant special pleading

>>10480327
Not only can we rationalist that it exists a priori, but we can see that it exists in literally all empirical observations that we make. As the other anon said, if the universe wasn't governed by a consistent logical framework, then we wouldn't be able to make observations in the first place. Behavior requires a ruleset that governs it.
>>10480332
No it isn't you retard

>>10480333
Guy asks "whats the difference", I am not going to write ten volumes to explain him in a post on an anonymous anime forum.

>>10480337
Logic exists a priori, and using it you can then construct any ruleset so long as it does not violate the logic and is consistent with itself.
That is, so long as the hypothetical universe's laws are logical, any universe can exist.
What can't exist, is a universe that doesn't follow the underlying logic ruleset

>>10480339
>No it isn't you retard
you cant claim that, you havent offered any argument
you think that theres something deeper in the universe than the laws of physics
theres literally no helping you

>>10480348
The laws of physics requires a logical framework in the first place.
If you don't understand this, it's just a limit of your own intelligence. There is literally no helping you.

>>10480347
define logic and logical
and justify "so long as the hypothetical universe's laws are logical, any universe can exist."
>>10480352
>The laws of physics requires a logical framework in the first place.
>im right, because im right
kys

>>10480352
OUR UNDERSTANDING of how the universe works, which we call "physics", requires logic, which we CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
You are saying that the universe wouldn't exist if you didn't have eyes, since you wouldn't be able to see it.

>>10480352
Truth was invented by humans to classify linguistic statements
Logic is a method to determine which statements get to be called True and which are called False
And so Truth precedes Logic
However, Truth is not fundamental
"There's a particle right there" has different Truth values depending on the observer.
As such Logic is not fundamental.
QED & Eat My Nuts

>>10480355
>define logic and logical
This was already done two thousand years ago
>>10480356
>You are saying that the universe wouldn't exist if you didn't have eyes, since you wouldn't be able to see it.
Okay, now I know you are stupid, because this is what YOU are saying. YOUR argument is 'if humans died logic wouldn't exist anymore" MY argument is "logic exists a priori regardless of humans being here to think about it".
You don't even realize what the argument is.
"our understanding" of the universe is incomplete, but that means nothing. Once it's complete (which it will be) it will also necessarily be finite, and logical, as if it weren't it would lead to a contradiction, in which case the universe wouldn't be able to exist in the first place.
Prove right now how a universe can exist where the law of identity doesn't govern it.

>>10480366
You're an idiot, this just shows you don't have a real argument.

>>10480367
>Prove right now how a universe can exist where the law of identity doesn't govern it.
are you retarded?
imagine a universe with nothing in it
the law of identity doesn't govern such a universe

>>10480371
cry more, you have even less of an argument

>>10480377
Nothing is equal to nothing, and is not equal to something.
¬A = ¬A ≠ A
law of identity holds
>cry more, you have even less of an argument
Nope

>>10480384
the point is that if you have a universe with nothing in it, then theres nothing to use the law of identity on you fucking moron
you think that "nothing" is a thing that can be compared under the law of identity
what the fuck is wrong with you, dont use things like "the law of identity" when you dont understand them

>>10480395
>the point is that if you have a universe with nothing in it, then theres nothing to use the law of identity on you fucking moron
False, O = O
>you think that "nothing" is a thing that can be compared under the law of identity
See above
>what the fuck is wrong with you, dont use things like "the law of identity" when you dont understand them
You clearly don't understand what the fuck youre talking about, and are mad (for some reason) that logic and mathematics are required to build a framework to govern physical laws.
First there is logic, mathematics, and computation, AND THEN you can build physical laws, and then a physical universe can exist that is governed by those laws.

>>10480406
the O should be the null set symbol. I could just write it as {} = {} I guess

>>10480148
>Empirical evidence means you're a psued
Lol

>>10480323
>there is no fucking logic to the laws of physics

Because the universe is not "physical".

>>10480325
You cannot see what is not manifest. Does not mean it's not there.

>>10480356
>OUR UNDERSTANDING of how the universe works, which we call "physics", requires logic, which we CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Physics quantifies it. Ex: It will tell you how many apples there are, but it won't tell you what an apple it. It will sit there and measure every aspect of it and describe it till it's blue in the face.

>>10479922
A Platonist's goal is to become Aristotelian, that's why they practice this method of refinement called "Philosophy". They simply admitted that it would be practically impossible to force that amount of virtue to the dumbest of the populous.

>>10480252
This is an important post, but Plotinus I feel doesn't revive him in a mystical way. He goes into depth and explains why mysticism forms around its teachings and even argues "Against the Gnostics" in one of his enneads. Holy shit he can be hard to understand at some points though. A "too deep for you" kind of man, but only cause he spent so much time in contemplation of things. Also he never really wrote down his own thoughts, only his students such as Porphyry bothered to record what he said.

>>10480406
the set of all things in the empty universe is not a thing in the empty universe
you've just said "the universe is equal to itself, therefore logic is fundamental"

>>10480367
>Okay, now I know you are stupid, because this is what YOU are saying.

Are you not saying that without logic the universe wouldn't exist?
And isn't logic the means through which humans study the universe?
How is logic not our eye which we use to observe the universe, and how are you not saying the universe needs us observing it with out made up eye to continue existing?

>>10480416
>physical: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete
Good to know that you live in a fantasy

>>10480420
>you've just said "the universe is equal to itself, therefore logic is fundamental"
Yes, and that is the case because of the law of identity. Assume the law of identity is not fundamental, then the universe is not equal to itself, in which case there is a contradiction and it can not exist. Thus, logic is more fundamental than the existence of the universe.
There can be a universe wherein, instead of atoms, it has "gloopglobs". They don't have electrons in valence shells, they have "shmurkidels" and they form bonds by combining their shmurkidels in powers of two. There is no gravity, instead there is zippzappity. You get my point. This entire theoretical universe would be completely different to ours, and yet it will still require
>excluded middle
>identity
>non contradiction
to exist. 2 glooglobs would still be less than 5 gloopglobs. A shmurkidel is still equal to itself. The laws of physics are irrelevant, they can be whatever so long as they are consistent and logical.
>>10480424
>Are you not saying that without logic the universe wouldn't exist?
Yes
>And isn't logic the means through which humans study the universe?
If the universe wasn't logical, we couldn't use logic to study the universe.
I don't understand your last line.

>>10480416
>Physics quantifies it
How could you know this if you don't know any physics whatsoever

>>10480439
>If the universe wasn't logical, we couldn't use logic to study the universe.
We made logic the way the universe is. The universe is some way, thus we made our logic that way. We made the hammer to suit the task of hitting nails.
The universe is only "logical", because we made logic to look at how the universe is.

>>10480443
>We made logic the way the universe is.
No, the universe acts logically and we have been able to express that logic symbolically. The underlying logic is fundamental.
>The universe is some way, thus we made our logic that way.
EXACTLY. The universe "is some way" (i.e. it IS LOGICAL) and so we can talk about the logic that governs the universe. The fact that you are saying the universe "is some way" is directly admitting that there is a logical ruleset that exists that governs the universe so that it can behave in "some way".
>The universe is only "logical", because we made logic to look at how the universe is.
We can use logic to analyze the universe because the universe is built on logic. We can't use fake logic to analyze the universe, because that isn't how the universe works in the first place.

>>10480452
>No, the universe acts logically and we have been able to express that logic symbolically
Not the same guy, having read the entire thread. But this isn't even close to true. You are basically suggesting that we have a complete description of how the universe works. You sound exactly like a know-it-all undergrad.
>the universe is logical
try telling that to the greatest physicists who ever lived

>>10480452
>We can use logic to analyze the universe because the universe is built on logic.
We can use logic to analyze the universe, because we looked at the universe, and organized our findings into what we call logic. We created logic according to what we saw, from where we are, with the instruments we have, at the time we did this.
Outside the observable universe, there may be a different "logic". In a black hole, there may be a different "logic". 15 billion years ago, there may be a different "logic". 15 billion years from now, there may be a different "logic".
Logic is a human idea, made by humans, to explain what humans see to other humans. It isn't fundamental. It is artificial. Its a thinking tool, like rhyming or numbers.

To the people saying logic is fundamental: Are colors fundamental? Are numbers fundamental? Are species fundamental? Because those are all man made tools to have an easier time organizing our knowledge.

>>10480439
>Assume the law of identity is not fundamental, then the universe is not equal to itself, in which case there is a contradiction and it can not exist.
You fucking idiot, oh my god lmao

You assume that the law of identity isnt fundamental, and then you say A=/=A is a contradiction.
If you assume that the law of identity isnt true, then thats not a fucking contradiction lmao

>>10480455
No I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that in order for there to be behavior, there must be a framework that governs the behavior.
Are you suggesting that once we figure out the TOE it will not be logical? If it were inconsistent, it would mean that we could prove anything, in which case the universe would not be bounded, even though it clearly is.
>>10480459
No, there can't be a place where a thing isn't equal to itself. There can be different laws of physics, but not different logic or mathematics.
>>10480465
Numbers are fundamental. Colors and species are not.

>>10480438
>physical: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete

Good thing to know your senses are all knowing and omnipotent. Nice to meet you, One.
"How physical is it?"

>>10480442

>How could you know this if you don't know any physics whatsoever
Because math quantifies things. That is its intended purpose you know. How something behaves does not pertain to what it is, just as you are not your beliefs.

>>10480467
My point is you can't even assume it isn't true you retard.
Build find a framework where the law of identity isn't required. Go ahead.

>>10480473
>be anon
>trying to prove A
>its so easy, watch this
>assume A isnt true
>then theres a contradiction
>cuz A is totally true, trust me

>>10480469
>Numbers are fundamental
>

>>10480476
>be anon
>try to argue that things can have behavior without a ruleset to govern their behavior
>can't do it
>but that totally doesn't mean the ruleset isn't fundamental
>>10480481
Yes, logic and mathematics are fundamental.

>>10480473
Cope.

>>10480484
>Yes, logic and mathematics are fundamental.
proofs?

>>10480489
He doesnt have any

>>10480485
Not an argument.
Again, show how you can have a framework that governs a physical universe that is logically contradictory
>>10480489
>proofs?
I've already given it itt multiple times. It's on you guys to show how there can be consistent behavior without a logical consistent ruleset to govern the behavior.
Protip: you won't be able to do it because the very notion is a contradiction.

>>10480484
I can make a ruleset that treats the same exact thing differently
Collapsing a wavefunction is inherently probabalistic, even if we use the same wavefunction twice
So the ruleset doesnt give a shit about the law of identity
And then the law of identity isnt fundamental

>>10480503
>It's on you guys to show how there can be consistent behavior without a logical consistent ruleset to govern the behavior.
You mean if we assume logic to not exist, that would be illogical? But being illogical in a situation where logic is assumed to not exist isn't wrong. Basically if we assume no logic, then no logic, so its not illogical, so there's no contradiction.

>>10480494
You are an idiot
This guy right here >>10480443 literally admitted that the universe must work "in some way" without realizing that necessarily implies that there is a framework to govern the behavior.
>>10480509
Quantum mechanics are not in violation of identity, non contradiction, or excluded middle.

>>10480513
>This guy right here >>10480443 (Me)literally admitted that the universe must work "in some way" without realizing that necessarily implies that there is a framework to govern the behavior.
It works in some way. Logic is the part of that some way that we can observe. Logic is the human knowledge of the universe. Its not fundamental and is very much a human thing.

>>10480513
>Quantum mechanics are not in violation of identity, non contradiction, or excluded middle.

>wave particle duality
>no explanation to gravity
>field actions are things

>>10480472
So the universe isn't physical. What is it?

>>10480472
>physics is math
?

>>10480484
>Yes, logic and mathematics are fundamental.
What mathematics, ZFC? ZF? New Foundations?
What logic, Binary? Ternary? Fuzzy?

>>10480512
So then show that a consistent framework can exist without logic existing.
>>10480522
If it "works in some way" then that means there is a framework that is "the way" it is working. This really isn't a difficult thing to understand.
Show how that framework can be inconsistent (i.e illogical) while leading to a consistent framework. You can't.

>>10480535
ZFC is on the track but is incomplete, mathematics is infinite and has an consistent ruleset of infinite cardinality.

>>10480539
>consistent framework can exist without logic existing.
>consistent
>without logic

>>10480539
>If it "works in some way" then that means there is a framework that is "the way" it is working.
And this "some way" can be different before and after the Big Bang, before and after the Heat Death, inside or outside of Black Holes, etc.
And this "some way" may not be what we can observe, while "logic" is what we can observe, since we made logic based on what we see, you fucking hemorrhoid.

>>10480539
while leading to consistent behavior*
>>10480547
THATS THE FUCKING POINT YOU IDIOT
ANY FRAMEWORK THAT IS CONSISTENT IS LOGICAL, ERGO LOGIC IS FUNDAMNTAL TO THE FRAMEWORK.
You can construct two different frameworks of laws of physics, but so long as they are consistent (i.e. logical) then they can exist. see >>10480439
therefor, logic is fundamental while the laws of physics are not.

>>10480545
How in the name of fucking god can you possibly know that and
Name all the axioms of ZFC in their official form from your head

>>10480555
Youre assuming that consistency is fundamental without proof you triple nigger

>>10480529
A never ending nor beginning sefl-similar hologram.

"And, indeed, with respect to all effluxions of water, the falling of thunder, and the wonderful circumstances observed in the attraction of Amber, and the Herculean stone (magnets);- in all these, nothing in reality of attraction takes place: but, as a vacuum cannot anywhere be found, and these particulars mutually impel each other.-hence, from the individuals when separated and mingled together tending to their proper seats, and from these passions being interwoven and from these passions being interwoven with each other, such admirable EFFECTS present themselves to the view of the ACCURATE INVESTIGATOR.
-Plato, Timaeus 80b.

>>10480552
>And this "some way" can be different before and after the Big Bang, before and after the Heat Death, inside or outside of Black Holes, etc.
That "way" will still be logical
>And this "some way" may not be what we can observe, while "logic" is what we can observe, since we made logic based on what we see, you fucking hemorrhoid.
We can only observe logic because it exists to be observed.
Construct a framework where identity isn't fundamental/a priori. Seriously, do it.

>>10480565
>A never ending nor beginning sefl-similar hologram
Is this bait?

>>10480556
extensionality, unordered pair, axiom of subset, axiom of the sum of sets, power set, infinity, replacement, choice, foundation, and empty set.
>>10480564
Show it isn't fundamental

>>10480567
How do you propagate?
Why do you suppose ACTUAL holograms exist?
What happens when you split a cell?
What happens when you split a magnet?

It makes a copy of itself. IT is self-similar. A hologram. Cannot logically have an end nor a beginning. From nothing comes nothing and something does not turn into nothing.

>>10480566
Its funny, because if I replace "logic" in your post with Logos or God, you are basically writing theology.
Logic that we know of may not be the complete picture. It maybe wrong, because there are things we can't observe and we can't account for in the logic we wrote.
Thus if when you write "logic" you mean "the absolute truth including all unknowable truth" or something like that, then write that, and stop writing logic. Logic is what we can see of the universe, and we made it, and it doesn't account for what we can't see.

Please think for 5 minutes instead of assuming everyone else is wrong and everything you write is fundamentally true. You are being illogical.

>>10480572
>Show it isn't fundamental
>im right until you prove me wrong
Not how it works,
And thats not what i meant by offical form
I meant give me every fucking detail of the axioms

But more importantly, you still have given no proof that ZFC is how the universe works instead of ZF or New Foundations.
Rather, since the universe is finite, ZFC is just fucking false
There is nothing infinite in the universe ZFC requires an infinite set

>>10480579
>Its funny, because if I replace "logic" in your post with Logos or God, you are basically writing theology.
that doesn't mean anything. This is clearly an attempt to say "God is clearly not real, therefore if I compare what you're doing to an argument that attempts to prove that God is real, I have proven you wrong automatically". That isn't going to work here. And I don't care for an argument about god right now.
>Logic that we know of may not be the complete picture.
Mathematics is neccessarily infinite, I know we'll never have the complete picture of math (it's not possible) but that doesn't mean that logic somehow isn't fundamental.
None of you have been able to explain how you can have behavior without a framework existing to govern the behavior, nor how you can have a framework that is illogical yet leads to consistent logical behavior.

>>10480182
actually, I'm pretty sure physics came before maths, the development of maths often occurred in response to a physics problem i.e. newton with calculus. But yes, logic would've preceded physics.

>>10480597
It all makes sense now, you're a finitist brainlet. I can't believe I just wasted time arguing with a fucking finitist loser

>>10480578
(You)

>>10480599
You continue to continue to continue to write "logic" when you mean "all of truth". Thats not what anyone means when they say "logic".
Logic is what we know. It isn't fundamental, since its what we know. It requires us, the observer, to observe, and calcify our observations in this "logic" thing we made.

>>10480602
Im not you retard
Youre contradicting yourself and im pointing it out

“The universe follows ZFC”
But the universe doesnt have anything infinite in it
Which contradicts that it follows ZFC

Youre just fucking wrong

>>10480612
>its what we know
But that is a terrible description of logic

>>10480614
The universe is infinite you moron, I'm not even going to continue this conversation with a guy who unironically watches Wildberger.
Also, protip dude: I'm arguing that logic and mathematics precedes physical laws. That is, even if this universe were finite (it's not) that makes zero difference to my argument, as you can have a finite subset of an infinite superset.

>>10480616
Logic is what we know about how the universe works. It doesn't include what we don't know, because we don't know it, so we couldn't have logic include it.
We made logic based on what we know from out observations.

This is super basic and simple stuff, I can't understand whats wrong with you not getting it. My dog is nodding along as I type this.

>>10480622
not only can he prove logic is fundamental
he has solved an unsolvable problem in physics and has shown the universe is infinite,
despite being trapped within the particle horizon

I dont fucking watch wildberger you shit stain
Just keep lying and acting like youre the smart one here tho

>>10480622
>The universe is infinite you moron
Proof? I'm not a finitist nor the guy you are arguing with, but what a stupid claim.

>>10480636
I'm clearly the smart one here.
I will ask you again: explain how you can have consistent behavior without a framework that governs the behavior, and explain how you can have a consistent framework that isn't predicated on logical foundations.

>>10480656
>I'm clearly the smart one here.
Sure you are bucko

>>10480656
>explain how you can have consistent behavior
God ;)

>>10480656
So you're arguing if something is consistent it is therefore logical? Care to provide proof?

>>10480656
No reason to expect consistent behavior in the first place

>>10480656
If the behavior is probabalistic, then theres a chance it will always give behavior that looks consistent while just being probabalistic and you cannot tell the difference

>>10480565
>>10480578
did you just use a 2500 year old proto-"""scientist""" and a bunch of begged questions to back up your claim?

>>10481134
Yes, I used one of the main sources of science and philosophy to illustrate a point. Do you not like plato because he didn't have a degree? Do you think degrees and (peer review) are what make people smart? No, and the same man proved it. I suggest you start with "First Alcibiades".

No, I used empirical evidence and a proper explanation of how a hologram can exist. Unless you'd like to provide an explanation as to how a hologram "starts" and how the universe isn't holographic in nature. I eagerly wait your reply.

>>10481475
>can exist.
meant "exists". Don't go having a field day with that one.

>>10480131
Both.

>>10480120
One is pointing up (denoting something iunno) and the other is holding his hand out (this might mean something but fuck if I know what lmao)

>>10480131
I.e. rationalism versus empiricism. A battle that rages on even today. That's why they say all philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato (and I guess Aristotle too)

>>10479922
Whichever one hated democracy more

OUT OF MY SUN MACEDONIAN FUCKING SHITS!

>I'm a big Peirce guy.

>>10480203
>logic is human made, not fundamental
t. has not seen the glory of the forms.

Logic is logic and independent of physical law or physical knowledge.
A = A is true, independent of man's perception of it. It would be true in a dead and barren universe devoid of perceptive life.
A tree falling in the forest does make a noise, even if no one perceives it.

>>10480465
>colors
No, they're arbitrary divisions of EM radiation based on our evolutionary physiology.
>numbers
In a sense, yes. The concept of "oneness" and "twoness" and so on is independent of physical reality.

>species
Arbitrary groupings of lifeforms based on our understanding of evolutionary biology.

>>10480333
No only modern philosophers, but also mathematicians. The works of Boole and Frege, which laid the groundwork for modern mathematical logic, each serve as an expansion to Aristotle's logic.

Boole fully accepted and endorsed Aristotle’s logic, and Frege included Aristotle's square of opposition at the end of his Begriffsschrift to show the harmony of his theory with the Aristotelian tradition.

Do the laws of logic exist independently of human or animal consciousness?

>>10480287
quit arguing with that guy, he is a dense moron not worth trying to enlighten. let him believe that humans created all these rules of logic and that it is just a creation of our mind. this is his coping method to deal with the fact that he is a total failure in life because logic is subjective and man made according to him.

>>10480332
your stance is the one of arguing feelings you stupid kike faggot.

>>10480656
You are consistently illogical, but that dosn't imply logic is fundamental.

>>10482682
your gay

>>10482320
Fucking LEL
>Based Diogenes

>>10481475
>>10481476
>I used empirical evidence
>berserk doesn’t know what empirical or evidence means
Go figure

>>10483604

Last time I checked, holograms,magnets,cells and (you) exist in reality. Try again you intellectual pedestrian.

>>10484156
>holograms exist because i quoted an ancient philosopher and begged 10 questions
try again retard

What is going on in this thread? I see Wojaks and Pepes and Berserks. What would Plato and Aristotle think if they saw this?

>>10484193
>What would Plato and Aristotle think if they saw this

"Holy fuck there are tits on the internet"

>>10484208
Never mind that they liked little boys more, but never mind that.

>>10480287
>boolean logic is fundamental
>which means ternary isn't
nice unjustified distinction
when you understand why you reject ternary as being fundamental
you will see why i also reject binary as being fundamental

>>10484164
>holograms exist because i quoted an ancient philosopher and begged 10 questions

No it's because they actually exist you dumb cunt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8OEiTe8_Dc

Another thread ruined by this retarded schizo. Ban him already.

ITT: everyone is a retarded dumb nigger with extra downs.
Also ITT: Everyone has an I.Q over 9000 as well as knowing the meaning of the universe.
Reality is that everyone is "pic related"

So let me get this straight, you guys are arguing logic doesn't exist in our universe because if a human can't percieve it then it doesn't exist? But isn't our entire universe only a human perception? Therefore logic should be everywhere we look. Right?

>>10484505
>you guys are arguing logic doesn't exist in our universe because if a human can't percieve it then it doesn't exist
thats not the position at all
and youre assuming that it exists in that argument anyway

if logic is fundamental then which logic is
theres more than 1, theres binary logic, ternary logic, fuzzy logic, etc

>>10484540
>if logic is fundamental then which logic is
>theres more than 1, theres binary logic, ternary logic, fuzzy logic, etc

What is one thing that all types of "logic" share?

Reasoning. Ideas. "Way of thinking". Correct? So does not everything "reason" with another thing? Including the things that don't think such as mass or pressure, osmosis and even electricity.

>>10484540
What is the position? I want to know. I'm confused.

>>10484555
none of what you posted means anything
Reasoning and Way of thinking are almost just synonyms for logic

>>10484567
The position is basically that Logic is just a human made method to determine what linguistic statements should be called "True" or "False" or "Not even wrong"
and that there isnt anything fundamental about True and False in the universe, they're just useful labels we made up

>>10482679
Humans observed how things interact, and created logic to explain those interactions. You are the dense moron, my dude.

>>10485362
Things interact in a logical way in the first place you dense moron, holy shit imagine not being able to understand this

>>10486020
Things interact in a way, that we observe, and invent "logic" to explain what we see. There could be unseen dimensions to how things interact, that aren't covered by our "logic" ruleset we made up.

Godel and Leibniz were strong Platonists. That’s good enough for me.

>>10479922
A Platonist, because Aristotle was a faggot.

>>10479922
FUCK GREEK PHILOSOPHY MASTURBATION. YOU EVER HEAR ABOUT EASTERN PHILOSOPHY?

CHAD Pythagoreanism of course

>>10487967
Yes, be a good sheep person.

>>10479922
>not being an Aristotelian Platonist
>not having a 160+ IQ and reconciling the differences on your own time
Nothing personal, plebs.

>>10489738
Confucius say: Man with erection who walks through airport doors sideways is going to Bangkok.

>>10489749
The sheeps are the "we're all just matter" materialist pop sci people, who do not understand the glory of the forms

>>10479922
neither are correct

>>10490711
>Muh forms
Even Plato admitted they were garbage.

>>10480439
>>excluded middle
>>identity
>>non contradiction

Since being removed from nature (fall of man), we need these things to start to make any sense of the world, and of course to communicate. But they're still just abstract concepts, the world doesn't need them. There isn't anything in the world that "is not", everything that is, is. Any identity you think of for something is just a pragmatism in the end, there isn't anything in the physical world that actually exists separately and independently, everything is one. I believe Reason predates everything too, but just because it feels right.

I'm a niggerologist

>>10479922
Diogenes

>>10492698
based

>>10479922
Plato believe that the individual is God. Aristotle believed that math and science is God. I like Plato’s ideologies better.

>>10480131
Aristotle L I T E R A L L Y invented logic dumb brainlet

>>10491352
cringe

>>10494653
So underrated kek

>>10492698
>>10492717
diogenes is reddit's philosopher

all his ""quotes"" were only accounted like 700 years after the fact. literally the book of mormon has more credibility than anything diogenes is said to have done

>>10489740
>literally muh secret occult math club
They weren't even pretending to do science, they were worshiping equations.

>>10491978
>Since being removed from nature
But humans are in nature. We are natural. We didn't make ourselves, and the definition of "artificial" is man-made. Man isn't man made. Yet.

>>10479922
I’ve tried talking to some platonists and literally none could define existence when they made claims like that numbers exist as abstract beings.
What’s up he point of saying something if you can’t even tdefine what it means¿
Anyhow, I would agree that some things exist as abstract theists. Take, for example, the US Congress. It definitely exists, and it has none of the properties concrete things have.

Also, this is a science and mathematics board, not a philosophy board, brainlet.

>>10495425
Try me.

>none could define existence when they made claims like that numbers exist as abstract beings.
Sounds to me like you've never talked to an actual Platonist. Not surprising since they don't really exist anymore, and most "Platonist/neoplatonist's" are just western existentialists in disguise.

>What’s up he point of saying something if you can’t even tdefine what it means¿
This is what Platonist's call "sophists".

>Anyhow, I would agree that some things exist as abstract theists. Take, for example, the US Congress. It definitely exists, and it has none of the properties concrete things have.
>some things exist as abstract theists
>only some of the things some of the time

Nothing is "concrete" hence government has to be built around this paradigm. That's why every "solution" presented in the republic is still a paradigm modeling off the disparities always and forever present in humans. The most extreme is an Aristocracy, where newborns are taken from families and raised by more than one person. This way every person in society will never form bonds or "concrete idea" that will end up creating even more disparities. If everyone is point non-specific then there is no one to blame but yourself because everyone is literally equal to you in their "non concreteness". Kind of like how people here on this anonymous image board don't give a shit about you personally, only what you have to say. Because that's literally all they can do,

>Also, this is a science and mathematics board, not a philosophy board, brainlet.
Tell me the difference between physics and metaphysics. I dare you.

>>10496413
>>none could define existence when they made claims like that numbers exist as abstract beings.
>Sounds to me like you've never talked to an actual Platonist. Not surprising since they don't really exist anymore, and most "Platonist/neoplatonist's" are just western existentialists in disguise.

I like how you claimed you can define existence, yet don't take the time to define it. And by like I mean smug dismissive smirk irl as I stopped reading right there.

I don't recall Plato teaching the greatest human who ever lived.

>>10497831
>mass murderer who caused the collapse of the greatest empire the world had known at the time, and set fire to the capital of civilization

How about no?

>>10479922
Not being a Diogenist

>>10497830
>I like how you claimed you can define existence,
I like how I never said anything remotely close to that...just like a Platonist would.

>yet don't take the time to define it
>defining what is not concrete

It's the same as reifying a shadow. So what the fuck do you want me to say? About the only thing I can say that is remotely correct is "it is incommensurable", but math and science weenies don't like to hear that. I could go on and on about how the universe is a holographic paradigm, but I pretty much covered that in the lower portion of my post (which you admitted to skipping over). Don't ask questions without the will to seek answers. Read "Timaeus", "Parmenides", and "the republic" and you'll have your summary of Platonism and what the thought of existence.

>And by like I mean smug dismissive smirk irl as I stopped reading right there.

Well maybe you should take the time to actually read before inserting your own words in someones mouth.

>>10496413
>>10498658
Imagine depending on 2000 year old greek trite to explain the universe when GR and QM are well developed fields. Imagine not even knowing basic physics.

>>10498315
see >>10494689

>>10498705
>Imagine depending on 2000 year old greek trite

You say that as if it has any meaning. Last time I checked the holographic principle that the Pythagorean's/Platonists discovered, and even the Eqyptians before them STILL hasn't been proven wrong. You know why? Because morons today still can't answer two simple questions about reality and existence.

>From what?
>Explain how?

Nope. Can't fucking do it. Everything has to be random fucking particles with no explanation. Hey lets just throw in some "virtual" particles in there too, no one will know the difference right? As long as we keep counting things we'll...never find the order to any of it.

>to explain the universe when GR and QM are well developed fields.

>when the foundations of your field depend on an understanding of light is and no one knows what fucking light is
Good job moron, keep believing in your magical fairy-tale particles. Some of you retards actually believe in has a "speed" which is hilarious since it's an induced electrical effect.

>when you spend 2500 years dicking around to rediscover what a bunch of toga wearing deep thinkers already discovered.
Keep chasing shadows, mental pedestrian. I'd rather read "trite" then pure quackery. Now if you'll excuse me, all the "photon particles" have clogged my monitor up. Gotta go shake them out.

>>10498658
>"none could define existence"
>"Sounds to me like you've never talked to an actual Platonist."

The obvious implication here being that an actual Platonist could define existence.
>"b-b-b--b-bbut i never literally said that in those exact literal words, literally, forms"
Fuck off, retard.

>>10498658
>Read "Timaeus", "Parmenides", and "the republic" and you'll have your summary of Platonism and what the thought of existence.
I have read all of these, and it is absolutely not clear what a real Platonist would think. Unless it is so retarded as for me to dismiss it immediately and not even remember it.

>>10500665
>The obvious implication here being that an actual Platonist could define existence.
t.-still doesn't get the joke, that being that a Platonist would never do such a dumb thing.

>"b-b-b--b-bbut i never literally said that in those exact literal words, literally, forms"
Literally didn't say that either, but you're getting warmer. Do you even know what is meant by "forms"?

>Fuck off, retard.
Maybe you should try framing your posts in the form of a question instead of an insufferable cunt.

>>10500668
>I have read all of these, and it is absolutely not clear what a real Platonist would think.
Unfortunately it's at the disposal of modern day translators, try the Thomas Taylor version. Reread at least Parmenides especially when they talk of what "The One is" (or isn't!) and you will understand why it is impossible to define.