/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10587859
They hate you because you're right, and accepting your point of view would take too much glucose to reorganize their neural structure to reinterpret reality under viewpoint.

Try explaining it when they are on psychedelics, you might have more success in triggering a Cascade which allows them to reinterpret reality platonically.

>>10587859
>not being a formalist

>>10587859
based
>>10587873
sort of based but sort of "dude weed" at the same time

pic related

>sort of "dude weed" at the same time
Most people shouldn't take psychoactive substances, but if they do they should at least be exposed to good information.

>>10587891
imagine thinking geometric constructs are string manipulation

>>10587859
Because academia has been over taken by mediocrity which has been degrading the intellectual culture for many decades. Literally all corporate scientists are sellouts, and most professors are too. Everyone is fighting over positions that offer no dignity or opportunity for creativity. The people who actually have a talent for it, who are creative and want to understand reality at it's deepest level, they either die inside and sell out like everyone else or they forsake the rotten culture that has overtaken the field they love and become starving artists, continuing their struggle to understand the puzzles of reality without ever having the respect of the sellouts who own the world. Fuck this gay Earth.

>>10587859
>durr if i cant see it, it does not exist
fuck you pleabian faggot. go back to your numerical analysis homework and let the big boys do the heavy lifting for you you fucking brainlet .

The only "underlying structure" is the human brain and how it interprets what we call reality.

>>10587859
>Falling for a meme ideology
I don't even need to insult you

>>10587859
>why does everyone lose their shit when i say that im a mathematical realist?
They do it out of love. They feel its a very schizo thing to think and they want to help you cut ties with your delusions.
> i just believe there exists underlying structure and a priori intuition
Most people would think "He is confusing the phsyical and the metaphysical, is this the start of psychosis?".

>>10589147
Imagine writing a whole book on why Rei is better than Asuka. That's like 0.4% how terrible it is to be a guy like Lakoff. Reifags get the gas btw

>>10587859
how do you justify logic dummy

>>10589309
turing machines

>>10589147
That brain is a structure that is within reality such that it attempts to approach a model of reality. Thus the brain approximates a true mathematics. We believe the objects we see are real, even though they are just a model generated by our brain, so we should also believe math is real too.

>>10587905
You never should, but yet we do. It can be quite enjoyable, and once you realize legacies don't mean shite, you won't mind wasting a little bit of your time to have some fun for once.

>>10589256
>>10589316
This, for some reason the formalists always claim that you are the one engaging in metaphysics, im saying that there absolutely no way to talk about mathematical structures without intuiting they have properties that are not a priori apparent

>>10589388
the properties are not a priori
the properties are what we define them to be
groups composition is not associative because associativity is built in to the cosmos, its associative because we require it to be
we like working with things that are associative so we require it.
thats all, anything besides that is metaphysics

>>10589388
> This, for some reason the formalists always claim that you are the one engaging in metaphysics
You misunderstood my point. I am pretty sure that an honest formalist admit that they engage in some deal of metaphysics when they do math. Their rules are metaphysical entities that influences how they can manipulate their strings of symbols, regardless of whether these symbols are metaphysical or not.

No person that does math should have a problem with metaphysics. It does not make sense for any philosophy of mathematics.

I accept that for some strange brew of mathematical realists, the mathematical objects exists as physical entities, thus they are not metaphysical, but this does not imply the metaphysical is nonexistent in all aspect of mathematical activity. When you say
> im saying that there absolutely no way to talk about mathematical structures without intuiting they have properties that are not a priori apparent
It sounds like you do not really believe in your position, that it is a delusion you willingly give into because of its usefulness. That is completely fine of course, but it is a little more nuanced than saying
> im a mathematical realist
like you did in the OP. If you only LARP as a mathematical realist for gainz, then you should admit that mathematical objects are metaphysical, but you percieve them otherwise when you do math.

>>10589282
Based and LCLpilled>>10589282

>>10587891
>>10589147
>>10589316

unless a metaphysics takes the position of radical immanence and posits that givens have no structure of being given, the metaphysician must impose his own cognitive structure on reality and posit it as correct. of course, the problematic of philosophy already auto-posits and presupposes itself as explaining reality's structure so to do otherwise is reprehensible. the next logical step is to realize this phenomena and then come to the conclusion that the universe itself conforms to some cognitive structure who's limiting formulation is formal language and model theory

it is due to this observation that i am both a 'platonist' and a 'formalist'. platonist in so far as i recognize there is some algebraic structure of the universe that it must conform to in order for any of our descriptions or perceptions of reality to make sense. formalist in so far as the fact that the universe IS the string manipulations anyways. which is also why i am not a finitist

my influences are laruelle and the ctmu btw

>>10589579
oh yeah that is another thing to recognize. the natural attitude is not only an injection of the subjects own internal attitudes but always an implicit assertion of reality mirroring the mind's own processing. i think langan generalizes it to the M=R principle which is basically an explicit assertion of this isomorphism for observations of the external world to be valid.

one thing that i am cautious with the M=R principle is that it appears to totally discard kant's notion of noumena. this then implies that the entirety of reality follows kant's principle of sufficient reason. the only way metaphysicians are really able to posit this not being the case is by calling idea that kant makes reality dependent on the conditions with which humans observe it. of course, this requires a vehement rejection of M=R as well as kant's own phenomenological duality. the only issue with this notion is that it then gives radical chaos. this is what i call the langanian gambit. to deny his axioms very easily denies the possibility for perception in the first case.

so if we follow the langanian gambit and now have a phenomenological dual-aspect but not dualistic reality, we now must admit that every structure (where any structure of reality analogous to a cognitive one) must have an explanation. this leads to infinite regress of explanation until there is something pre-cognitive for reality to build itself from. UBT which is also effectively nothingness. this is what made me from the first place stop reading the ctmu and slowly find my way to non-philosophy. UBT is an assertion of some meta-paradoxical ex nihilo autopoiesis of reality. i have some suspicions that the M=R principle overlooks some subtlety that saves metaphysics as an enterprise from having to admit some holotheistic god-concept

anyways had to unload these thoughts sorry

>>10589642
also i forgot to make the observation that when the greeks first posited laws, they framed it as though the world is guided by a rational Nous (mind), of course now we take as there having physical laws as a truism but we try to ignore the metaphysical (and unfortunately mystical) connotations of such non-skepticism

>>10589316
Yea, except, what basis do our thoughts have in reality? A thought or emotion is an abstraction that takes place outside the physical framework. We can observe the consequence of thought and emotion, but we can't quantify the experience of it.

>>10589579
>>10589642
>>10589718
> Strong synthesis

>>10589492
The angles of triangles are not immediately apparent in "three sided polygon" and no formal definition will ever capture all properties of a triangle, because triangles properties are relations that are defined in terms of some substantive relationship with another structure. It follows that every mathematical structure is defined by how it touches tendrils with other structures. This does not mean the structures don't exists in intuition because only an intelligence that grasps intuitinistic drive can explore these properties.

>>10589826
>The angles of triangles are not immediately apparent in "three sided polygon"
polygons are made of line segments
line segments make angles

>>10587859
Lord of the rings has underlying structure too. What doesn't?

>>10589316
Mathematician speaking about reality is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>10587859
>I dont think there is some magic world
>he doesn't even use fairy logic

>>10589282

Asuka is a shitty human being and math is real, 0/10 (See me!)

>>10587929
imagine thinking they arent

>>10587859
I've never met a smart person who isn't a platonist

>>10591119
probably haven’t ever met a smart person who is a platonism either, sorry bro

>>10591119
probably haven’t ever met a smart person who is a platonist either, sorry bro