/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10530318
>X is like a religion
Boring reddit-tier comparison

I expected better from based lubos

>>10530364

He is right though.

>>10530318
>I think that this philosophy that "isomorphic things must be considered equal" is no longer just a purely mathematical, impersonal, socially neutral meme. It is correlated with some other political and ideological movements that are increasingly ruining the Western societies. Look at the statements:

>Mathematical objects that are isomorphic must be considered equal
>All people and their groups – defined by sex, nation, race, sexual orientation, and more – must be considered equal in all circumstances and unequal outcomes must be considered a proof of someone's malice

>The second slogan is an umbrella slogan for identity politics – producing things like "reverse" sexism (feminism), "reverse" racism (multiculturalism), and related pathologies. These pathologies make common sense, discussions, and meritocratic choices impossible in the West

>But the first slogan is analogous and it seems plausible that its proponents – and proponents of "category theory" – are aware of this similarity. After all, Roberts' text is titled 'A Crisis of Identification' so aside from the left-wing "equality", we also have a word with the "ident*" root, something that has an obvious proximity to "identity politics". What is your identity? Can isomorphic mathematical objects discussed by a Japanese men accepted to have different identities, or is it politically incorrect? It seems increasingly likely to me that Scholze and Stix "don't want" to understand what Močizuki is saying because it conflicts with ideology that they place above everything else – and the ideology, while completely unjustified, is fundamentally inseparable from the politically ideological delusions of contemporary Western academics, too

>It looks very plausible that "identity politics" may also be blamed for the Westerners' incapability of catching up with the Japanese "arithmetic deformation theory", a topic that you would normally believe to have zero links with any politics or ideology!

>>10530318
I'm just a brainlet but I have thought about this too. At which point do you decide to generalize ideas? And what basis do you have for believing that those generalizations will be physically meaningful?

>>10530385

>>10530526
https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/11/scholze-stix-dont-have-magic-power-to.html
>This is not how mathematics can work, this is not how physics may work, this is not how courts may work, this is not how a civilized society may work. The accused person may also be right and this possibility mustn't be eliminated at the very beginning by some bizarre screaming and demagogic sociological would-be arguments. And criticized proofs may be solid, too. When a Scholze and a Stix fail to understand a proof, it doesn't have to imply a flaw in the proof...

>What we're seeing is that our institutions are being filled by dishonest and incompetent NPCs who claim to be competent but who always prefer to politically endorse an opinion that says that "there is even no proof to be read". It's so much easier for this lazy dishonest scum – a scum which praises itself, however – to join such a bandwagon than to study what they should study if they were actually fulfilling the moral duties that a mathematician really has if he or she is a real mathematician

>Needless to say, the critics of string theory, quantum mechanics, or natural sciences are analogous to one extent or another. They're lazy mediocre pseudointellectuals but because of the dropping standards and also affirmative action, they got to the system and they simply defend their political interests instead of doing honest scholarly work. They are building an infrastructure that makes sure that melodramatic self-declarations aligned with the collective interests of this lazy majority can politically beat genuine scientific arguments, including the most solid and profound ones. Incidentally, I think it's no coincidence that the target (Močizuki) is Asian – Asians (including people with names similar to Motlzuki and Nakamotl) are generally the main victims of affirmative action which is largely a new institutionalized racism.

>>10530318
>>10530385
He's right, but he could have literally just said {1, 2} and {3, 4} are isomorphic, but not the same set and made his point in one line.

>>10530385
But for example sexes have different morphism relations to "other objects in the human category" (you know what I mean but there's no way I can make this rigorous) and thus are not isomorphic.

>>10530631
That's lumo style, beatiful tirades referencing cultural marxism at every opportunity.

>>10530385
>>10530561
Seriously though, what the fuck is his problem?

>>10530704
redpill overdose

>>10530318
Did you know that the National Science Foundation, which provides most of the funding for math in the USA, had an embargo on funding category theory research until just a couple years ago?

>>10530385
This is coming from the same guy that religiously defends the the non-existence of preferred observables, variables, frames, etc in physics, which is literally just a special case of categorical equivalence invariance. Pretty sure he found at least a dozen+ other inconsistent ways to makeshift label people who think otherwise (e.g. Bohmists) as communists too.

>>10530704
He's heading down the well worn path of the asshole physicist. Right now he's near the final stage; he's beginning to tell experts in their fields why their field is useless.

It's a shame really, a lot of geniuses end up going down this same path. I have a hypothesis that being right all time coupled with often being the smartest person in the room leads to these people believing that they are [math] always [/math] the smartest person in the room. Or more simply, being smart goes to their head.

>its a "faggot physishit doesn't understand category theory" episode

Jesus Christ, Motl. How many times do I have to tell you to take your meds.
Category theory is an extremely useful tool for algebra and topology (and some other weird applications). If you really want to go full Don Quixote on isomorphic groups, then be my guest. You don't need to use it, if it really makes you uncomfortable. Still, the rest of us over here will use it to simplify our problems to the important parts.

>>10530561
>>10530385
is this based or cringe?