/sci/ - Science & Math

Seconded. I reject this assumption based on the fact that quantum particles themselves are multiple potentialities before the wave collapse, philosophy aside even nature shows this isn't the case without some outside observation causing influencing the outcome.

>>11006012
nuh uh

>>11006012
Only by finding same shaped patterns.
Also, Koishi deserves bulli for not existing.

>>11006023
There's no sharp existence without observation. Existence without observation is blurry and unknowable.

>>11006106
koishi is not for bully and also i remain unconvinced

>>11006114
If it is the same it will do the same things. In fact the reason things don't scale in our world when same sized is because they tend to be made of these little orbs of energy/mass called atoms which throw absolute space out the window except in Cirnos Perfect Math Class, but Koishi would know all about that because she is mostly empty space.

>>11006012

First you need a set and a relation defined. The relation being equality (=) i assume.

So since equality is an equivalence relation, it means it is reflexive. That means things are equal to themselves. More generally, things are related to themselves if the relation is reflexive.

>>11006142
even ignoring reality (which doesn't exist, but that's a different topic) and going straight into the theoretical, the concept of equality is still dubious under that definition. how do we know there is not some currently unknown operator foobar where
>foobar 2 != foobar 2

>>11006012
Euclid's first common notion is this: Things which are equal to the same things are equal to each other. That's a rule of mathematical reasoning and its true because it works – has done and always will do.

>>11006180
Because to you or I foobar 2! would seem in motion and foobar 2 would be in stasis depending on the dimension it is presented in. This checks out for all dimensions above 1 until 3. Now when you get to 4D the rules will be inverted and you will have to just trust based on your limited information present that the object either is or is not known or unknown depending on the calculations performed. The question is, if we were to develop a dimension 0 or minus zero, would it still be the same as a plus one? What about non-euclidean space? Are we doomed to just 'trust' in the rules of a game set by whatever made us!? IS IT ALL A DREAM!? ARE WE JUST A MEME?!
AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaAAaaaaAAaAAH

>>11006226
Mate ur fucking bonkerz innit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB401RfGMlM

>>11006195
>That's a rule of mathematical reasoning and its true because it works
but that holds for anything we say is true, isn't it? it's true until, suddenly, we find something that shows it isn't. you could have used the same reasoning a thousand years ago to argue for geocentrism
just because something has appeared right every time so far does not mean it is absolutely right all the time, especially using something as flimsy as experiential reasoning

>>11006112
Yes, but also at the same time evidence suggests that being "unknowable" isn't synomynous with "it is the observed result but known" but rather is a multitude of states as potentials that has yet to be revealed as one. A wave which collapses. The implication conceptually is that although we observe A, "A" in fact shared and very well could of been B. This part is less scientific and more philosophical, but the implication of that is that all manner of existence shares a commonality which truly exists and the differentiated objects are merely spins and revealed potentials of each other. So A very well can equal B depending upon the perspective when you choose to consider to observe it. It is valid to consider reality, the experience we apprehend, as an illusory construct based upon the imposition of our observations while "true" reality is really a conflation of everything so as to A = B = C, etc.

>>11006114
I too love Koishi. no bulli.

>>11006226
>Foobar 2! would seem in motion
That depends on the rule of the given dimension not the number of layers of complexity. Brainlet.

>>11006239
why the homophobia?

>>11006277
Meant "it is the observed result but unknown" in that starting sentence, my bad

>>11006280
DAMN YOU! I WAS HOPING NO-ONE WOULD NOTICE!

>>11006282
if we can prove A != A, then homosexuality actually doesn't exist

>>11006277
Did someone say BULLI?

>>11006320
I said no bulli!

>>11006343
>"but it was too late, for it was already bulli"

>proving first principles
OP is a rerard

>>11006012
Unfortunately not. The principle of identity is one of the three fundamental axioms that underly logic. Even if you could prove them, you'd need logic to do so, which is circular reasoning and hence, ironically, illogical. Don't worry, it bothers me too, op.

>>11006012
How can equality even exist? There's no physical equal sign in life, so what is it really?

>>11007948
this
i've never seen a 3 dimensional cartesian space either. we let these mathematologists get away with too much

>>11007948
What is a weighing scale?

Look up what an axiom is, OP

>>11010756
but that's just stating they are true with no proof. it just says they're self-evident, but that sounds to me like working the conclusion into the premise. how can i be certain axioms are actually true?

>>11011091
You can't, you just have to pick the ones that make the least assumptions and hope that any observations you make based on them work together.

>>11006177
Prove equality is an equivalence relation.

>>11009055
how do i know the weighing scale tells me any truth?

>>11006012
Yeah, and I can talk about the space of all such proofs, realised as an infinity-groupoid.

>>11006012
context is god

>>11013510
there's not much context for this question. what is the proof that X = X?

>>11006012
cat face million find hello niles twerk.

>>11013510
Sadly it's only king, but it's still pretty darn powerful.

>>11006012
Study natural deduction and subset of it called Relevant Logic.

>>11006012
If you're interested in that question you might be interested in Godel.