/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10486034
>”Math exists independent of humans in Platonic reality, which is not real reality, it’s like another reality that’s still real but not actual real reality.”

>>10486034
>ZFC is fundamentally true
>no im not saying that just because its the only axiom system im used to

>>10486054
>>10486034

>Semantic arguments
Let's just stop here boys, nothing good will come of this thread

>>10486054
>"I believe in physics and science and observation but am too stupid to realize that necessarily requires a logical framework to govern the consistent behavior that I am predicating my epsitemology on. I am literally too stupid to understand that if I accept that there exists an objective set of physical behavior that we can use to make predictions, that requires a consistent logical system to govern the behavior of the system that we are studying and using to make predictions"

>>10486092
>he’s proven that the universe behaves consistently

but why does it matter?

>>10486116
>He assumes the universe doesn't behave consistently
>He then argues that we can use empirical observation as a valid epistemology, not realizing that is a contradiction
>He then goes on to insult philosophers by strawmanning them and their discipline as "you can't know nothin" without realizing he himself is saying that "we can't know nuthin"

>>10486092
The photon does not care which formalism we use to describe it. We impose E = mc2 (plus or minus a few terms) to it and we find out that it works very well.
That's all there is to it, and it works for everything. We develop a formalism, inspired historically by reality but existing and growing independently of it, that we compare with Nature and that we try to adjust if possible.

Nature is not the Laws of Nature.

>>10486161
>He then argues that we can use empirical observation as a valid epistemology, not realizing that is a contradiction
>this didnt even happen

>He then goes on to insult philosophers by strawmanning them and their discipline as "you can't know nothin" without realizing he himself is saying that "we can't know nuthin"
>again, this didnt happen. I know we “cant know nuthin” you dumb faggot, stop putting words in my mouth

philosophy theads suck. can we go back to talking about IQ or something?

>>10486166
this guy gets it

>>10486166
>he doesn't realize that if the behavior is consistent and can be formalized, then that necessarily requires a consistent system of rules that governs the behavior, regardless of our current level of personally formalizing the complete system
>he doesn't realize that if the framework were inconsistent, then there couldn't be consistent behavior to formalize
if there is behavior, there is rules to govern the behavior, and we wouldn't observe consistent behavior in the first place. So you're just admitting that empiricism doesn't work.
>>10486168
Im sorry you're right. Help me shit on these empiricists though
>>10486176
This isn't philosophy though, it's just showing that if you admit that you can use empirical observation to model behavior and make predictions, you have automatically admitted to there being a consistent ruleset that governs the behavior (otherwise it couldn't be modeled and predicted).
>>10486179
>he says he gets it when he doesn't, and doesn't realize he is saying >>10486161 while pretending not to be

>>10486187
The main difference is that I can try to form a very different approach to reality that is equally valid despite having a widely different form. For instance, Classical Mechanics is perfectly valid at the scale we apply it, but so is using Quantum Mechanics directly. Those two approaches have, however, fundamental differences ; an equation I use in physics is valid within certain hypothesis that depends on the scale of the object. F = ma (or Hamilton equations...) is a universal truth about mechanics, but in experience, I might see some slight variations from what I predicted.

However, in the case of maths, the perimeter of a circle is always pi*r2. This relation is true, was true, and will always be true if we accept the axioms we invented to formalise mathematics.

>>10486166
this. math is a human construct which encapsulates some well-known phenomena though it also bring some new things. For example the axiom of infinity and infinity itself. You can't really 'see' infinity or imagine it. But we can understand the idea which leads to infinity like adding things forever or dividing things forever.
Nature itself is most likely impossible to be represented by math. There's a huge debate about the consequences of Godel's theorems for that matter.
All in all, don't think so highly of yourself, human. And certainly don't worship our achievement as the new God.

>>10486234
Yes you can see infinity, just look at a circle, infinite vertices. We've begun to realize that math can be applied to even biology, and at that point we should question if anything cannot have math applied to it. What you're thinking of is chaos, nature is not inherently chaotic, but even uncertainty can have math applied to it, since we know that even chaos is consistent. Math is the new god, name one physical thing that cannot have math applied to it.

>>10486947
>name one physical thing that cannot have math applied to it
singularities inside black holes and at the big bang

>>10486949
What tells you that we will always be unable to describe those phenomena with math? The only reason we even discovered that black holes exist or the big bang happened was because physics/math told us.

>>10486947
>Yes you can see infinity, just look at a circle, infinite vertices
a circle has no vertices, not infinitely many
besides, perfect circles don't show up in physics

>nature is not inherently chaotic
>what are dynamical systems

>>10486176
You mean talking about our dicks? I’llstart.

My IQ is pretty big.

1-9 are signs we use to represent the processes of an ordered set of eternal objects located within the Godhead.

>>10486034
I Never was able to come to a settlement on weather or not it is a human invention.

>>10487041
A circle lacks sides, but has infinite vertices, and sine/cosine waves are parametrizations of a circle. I am 100% confident they show up in physics.
Energy's goal, by definition, is to attain the lowest energetic state, and symmetry represents this. Chaos, by definition, is the lack of symmetry or patterns. Ergo, energy, and by extension everything made up of energy, is predisposed to not be chaotic.

>Science discovers objective truths about the world

>>10486166

Which means all scientists do is make maps and models?

>>10487071
>Energy's goal, by definition, is to attain the lowest energetic state, and symmetry represents this.

Don't you confuse chemical binding energy of electrons in atoms and molecules with energy overall?

>>10487125
Yeah no shit, what else did you think they did?

>>10487138
they do experiments too

>>10487130
Symmetry is in gravity, electromagnetic fields, and even light.

It's a language that describes the world. In this sense, like actual languages, which also describe the world, it is invented.

>>10486034
>Math isn't a human invention to describe natural phenomena

>>10487068
This one is pretty good. From where does distributable knowledge come from, and how do we impart confidence on that which we inherently sourced from the void?