/sci/ - Science & Math

This is a very interesting topic and I'd love to learn more about it, however, i doubt he midwits on sci will offer any meaningful discussion.

So let me ask OP, do u think the abstract realm in any observable way impinges on our reality and/or experience of the world?

>>14994584
>>14994680
This is more of a philosophy topic there is no evidence for a meaningful, non-extensive ontology applicable for "abstract" entities. The word "abstract" itself implies "abstracted-from", or generalized from phenomenon observable in the material world.

>>14994690
>non-extensive ontology
what is that?

Yeah this is more of a philosophical position like mathematical realism

>>14994731
are you saying it doesn't have a true or false answer?

>>14994584
Lay off the drugs you faggot

>>14994733
It does, but it's a matter outside of nature and so most likely outside of the domain of science. Unless quantum mechanics gets further along so its many interpretations get narrowed down

>>14994584
>There IS what neither is nor isn’t.

how is this logically possible?

>>14994803
Many of the properties of the quantum-realm are abstract.

However, there’s infinite aspects of reality that are beyond logic, proportion, concept, and notion.

>>14994969
>>14994744
>>14994731
>>14994690
Relativity: every thought is a universe.

All is infinite multiverses simultaneously connected in an abstract realm of infinite Big Bangs compiled together.

Each atom and quark and abstraction etc is its own infinite Big Bangs. To say otherwise is semantics.

>>14994680
Yes.
All is the abstract realm.

All is infinitely abstract.

All is simultaneously the place before time.

OwO UwU

You know what's not abstract, OP? Your meds

>>14994998
Me and people like me dominating you and your ilk in every way forever is an abstract medicine.

OwO UwU

this is something that is given infinite thought

>>14994584
It’s a crime that our universities have been subverted in the past by Israels evil etc and thus avoided such important topics. Similar to the theft of our taxes for Israels free healthcare instead of funding for genetic engineering. Israels evil shall be punished swiftly. These crimes are crimes against god and all human potential.

>>14994733
Science isn't about trueness or falseness, it is about empirical observability and repeatability.

>>14994969
That seems too rational to be illogical wouldn't it make less sense for there to be square root of negative infinity times pi aspects raised from the power of e?

>>14994983
Semantics is when you try to use words instead of numbers to model reality which is exactly what you are doing to come up with your framework of reality.

>>14996193
>>14996193
No.
We’re not going to limit our potential.
This is only the beginning of science. As everyone achieves absolute divinity, science will progressively get more abstract.

Besides, don’t limit yourself either.

>>14996196
No. You’re engaging in semantics. Be honest. You can understand what’s being inferred.

>>14994584
There's nothing to discuss. It's an abstract concept with no concrete definitions. You can throw around buzz words into what sound like sentences but there is no content here and it clearly isn't science or math

>>14996194

what’s the laymans terms of what you’re saying?

>>14996199
>You can understand what’s being inferred.
Yes because of semantics and the way words are given specific meaning to describe specific phenomenon rather than abstract values that can be plugged into some computer to simulate some model, but observation and the scientific method are already abstract, the steps of the scientific method are just a linguistic abstractions instead of numerical abstracts that get used in more specific models like quantum mechanics or the electromagnetic formulas.

>>14996200
I think there’s a hidden layer to your behaviour.
This is the same as discussing the quantum realm. Or anything really.

We shouldn’t limit our knowledge of the aspects of reality that control reality. To do otherwise is anti-science.

>>14996203
Laymen aren't abstract or beyond logic enough to have a term for it.

This is finally talking about what’s in Schroeders box. The realm between what is and isn’t.

The abstract place in Schroeders box is real and has properties we have yet to discover.
There’s infinite abstract realms to explore.

The abstract realm has properties that aren’t as abstract because it has governs all that is and isn’t. We can infer aspects of the abstract realm through what is and isn’t.

>>14996213
Laymen are abstract. All is abstract.

The abstract realm can be explored via abstract logic.

>>14994969
>However, there’s infinite aspects of reality that are beyond logic, proportion, concept, and notion.
So your concept and notion is a logical statement, that there are infinite aspects that concept notion and logic can't apply to?

>>14996193
what about mathematics?

>>14996223
Mathematics is an axiomatic logical model the nature of value and value manipulation.

>>14996231
What's the difference between something being empirically observable and it being true? Aren't certain things in math true or false?

Also, what do you mean "empirical observability", obviously you would think the sun will explode in a few billion years or even that it will rise tomorrow even though it is impossible to observe or repeat that event right now or before then. So is saying that the sun will rise tomorrow "not science"?

>>14996223
Yes.
However, we can create new kinds of concepts, notions, and logic to explore the aspects.

How abstract can abstract get and how far can we explore it. Let curiosity decide.

We ARE able to explore the abstract realms scientific properties.
Like a witch in a magical world seeking to discover the science of magic.

>>14996242
Abstract concepts, abstract notions, and abstract logic to explore the abstract.
In abstract science.

>>14994584
If you're interested in it, you might start with Plato's Phaedo, he addressed that very issue regarding universals and particulars there.
>>14994690
>there is no evidence for a meaningful, non-extensive ontology applicable for "abstract" entities
Kek, what? The existence of the abstract realm is assumed and in every scientific inquiry. Not only in the scientific inquiry. but in any coherent discourse. The meaning itself exists only due to the abstract realm, if you deny abstract realm, you deny meaning and admit that you're completely arbitrary, according to such a worldview you can't even make sentences.
Numbers represent a simple evidence for the existence of the abstract realm.
>The word "abstract" itself implies "abstracted-from", or generalized from phenomenon observable in the material world
Generalized based on what? Similarities? But the very concept of similarity is a universal from the abstract realm, even Bertrand Russel wrote about it in his critique of resemblance nominalism.
In simple words what is common between 7 oranges and 7 hydrogen atoms?

>>14994584
>There’s a place called the abstract realm.
No, there isn't. Take your meds. Imaginary things aren't real.

>>14996232
>>14996223
The vital thing is that the same math is independently accessible to different humans. All the civilizations had the same Pi, the same Pythagoras theorem and so on. Only the notation varies, but the underlying concepts are absolutely the same. So if someone denies the existence of an immaterial abstract realm, he has to give an account for how various people and civilizations accessed and described the same concepts independently? You can say Homer's works are fictional, because you don't find the same Iliad and Odyssey across all civilizations. Every time you stumble upon a thing which was present in every civilization, it was always something real. Like Homer's works include concepts like love and anger, it includes day and night. Those features would be found in many other stories across the planet, because they're real. So if math is a mere construct, how come it shares the property of those "real" things?

>>14996426
So all maths is just imaginary?

>>14996524
Obviously. It always shocks me a bit how modern human cattle literally can't tell apart constructions in their heads from actual reality.

>>14996527
If it's a mere construction in their head then how come different civilizations accessed the same mathematical knowledge independently? I can construct whatever gibberish in my head and no one would access that. What makes math so different that everyone accesses the same constructions?

>>14996536
>If it's a mere construction in their head then how come different civilizations accessed the same mathematical knowledge independently?
Because humans have evolved this kind of quantitative comprehension and its basic principles are hardwired into our brains.

>>14996554
>quantitative comprehension
Before you said math is a construct, now you say that we evolved to comprehend it, so you imply that math exists on its own, otherwise what do we comprehend?
>and its basic principles are hardwired into our brains
Principles of what? You said math is a construct, now you say it's hardwired into our brains.

>>14996566
>what do we comprehend?
Quantitative relationships between the imaginary objects in our head. You sound heavily retarded.

>Principles of what?
Principles of the quantitative aspect of our perceptions.

>>14996554
And you didn't even address the question in the slightest.
Works of literature are made up, so you find different literature across the world. In those works however you find some common themes and things like there might be descriptions of trees, of the night sky, of sun, of emotions. Those things are common because they actually exist and aren't a mere product of imagination. Math lies in that category as well, but you equate math with gender studies. Gender scientists don't have access to the same realm. You would never make this stuff up yourself, but as for math, whatever you make up, another one can access independently. How does it happen if math doesn't exist on its own? So far your explanation assumes math is at least as real as matter.

>>14996576
>you didn't even address the question in the slightest.
Why are you lying?

>>14996569
>Quantitative relationships
Are those quantitative relationships also imaginary? In that case you're just pushing the problem one step further, but you don't resolve it at all. How come math is objective if those relationships are imaginary?
And if those quantitative relationships are real, then you again assume that math exists on its own.
>Principles of the quantitative aspect of our perceptions.
Is that quantitative aspect imaginary? And again perception of what? You said math is a construct, now you again bring perception up.

>>14996592
Well, perhaps you sincerely tried to answer. I just meant you didn't address the problem I raised. I reckon you may not comprehend what that problem even is. If you are younger than 20, then hopefully you'll get it.

>>14996599
> then hopefully you'll get it
some time later.

>>14996594
>Are those quantitative relationships also imaginary?
Obviously. How can abstract realtionships between imaginary objects be anything but imaginary?

>How come math is objective if those relationships are imaginary?
What does that even mean?

>perception of what?
Are you some kind of a mouth-breathing retard? Perceptions of whatever it is you perceive quantities in.

>>14996599
>you didn't address the problem I raised
I addressed it fully. You're just too low-IQ to understand what I said, so you follow it up with completely nonsensical objections and say I didn't address your nonexistent "problem".

>>14994969
What anime is that? It looks good!

>>14996606
>Obviously. How can abstract realtionships between imaginary objects be anything but imaginary?
Then how come math is objective? You and I have access to the same digits of [math] /Pi [/math] and [math] e [/math]
>What does that even mean?
It means that math is the same for different mathematicians. Homotopy groups of spheres exist whether they're computed or no. And it doesn't matter who computes them, the result would be the same. [math] /Pi [/math] is the same for you and me, we can only have different notation and numeral systems, but [math] /Pi [/math] itself would be the same.
>Perceptions of whatever it is you perceive quantities in.
Perception of imaginary? Then what makes perception of imaginary math different from perception of a tulpa? If I make a tulpa, you won't know anything about it, but math is known apriori.
>Are you some kind of a mouth-breathing retard?
Your butthurt is an indication that you lack the capacity to touch those issues. You have a mind of a yelling PMS woman who blabbers stuff simply based on her preferences, likes and dislikes, without even getting to know what it is that she prefers, her aim is just to blabber. Perhaps you were raised by a single mother. If you are younger than 20, then you can fix it. Mere attitude alone determines intelligence to a great extend. Reading a book trying to understand what is actually meant there is way more effective and fun than enforcing your own misconceptions on it.
>>14996609
>so you follow it up with completely nonsensical objections
What is nonsensical about my objection? You say math is just an imaginary construct. How come math is the same to everybody, while other imaginary things are not?

>>14996640
>math is the same for different mathematicians
In and of itself, this doesn't mean anything. Anyone familiar with the rules of checkers can independently verify that a hypothetical move from an imaginary position is legal. Does that mean everyone familiar with the game gains access to the mystical realm of checkers? Take your meds already.

>>14996527
do or does "two things" exist? or perhaps, quantities of things?
are quantities math?

the abstract realm: a visual representation

>>14996664
>do or does "two things" exist?
No. Literally imaginary stuff in your head.

A discussion of the abstract realm (1/2)

>>14996666
>>14996666
>>14996666
A discussion of the abstract realm (2/2)

non-PDF intro to the abstract realm (1/3)

non-PDF intro to the abstract realm (2/3)

non-PDF intro to the abstract realm (3/3)

>>14996666
Isn't everything you see, in your head? Also, you can detect and say there are physically two of some kind of object in front of you for example

>>14994680
Dark energy is due to the abstract realm.

>>14996681
>Isn't everything you see, in your head?
Congratulations on figuring that one out.

>you can detect and say there are physically two of some kind of object in front of you for example
There isn't "phycally two" of anything. There may be mentally two, depending on whether or not I perceive two distinct objects.

>>14996690
If you can see two things in front of you, I'd consider or say that it's likely true those two things exist.

>>14996649
>In and of itself, this doesn't mean anything.
You're just unfamiliar with mathematics. Mathematicians who publish in the first quartile journals are usually busy constructing their own "games" or "instrument" to tackle the, given by nature, mathematical objects. The main topics of homological algebra were originally invented invented to compute the homotopy groups of a space, but it became its own field and found applications across many areas of mathematics. Mathematicians who just "play" or "verify hypothetical moves" of a "game" made by someone smarter than them publish in garbage journals.
>Anyone familiar with the rules of checkers can independently verify that a hypothetical move from an imaginary position is legal
Exactly, that assumes the existence of logic. For if logic was a mere construct, different people would not get the same verification results.

>>14996694
and there there are two things. and that there are two things. This also sounds like a linguistic question of how those things like quantity is treated in languages

>>14996695
>that assumes the existence of logic
No, it simply assumes that all participants adhere to its rules in their thinking.

>>14996695
By the way, you need to learn to stop pumping out irrelevant drivel. I'm simply going to ignore 95% of what you write if it doesn't directly pertain to what I said.

>>14996712
>it simply assumes that all participants adhere to its rules in their thinking.
Exactly, and for them all being able to adhere to those rules means that those rules exist independently of them, otherwise how would they all be able to adhere to them?

>>14996715
> I'm simply going to ignore 95% of what you write
How does it matter? So far you don't understand 100% of what I write, so whether you read it or no makes no difference.
> if it doesn't directly pertain to what I said
It was not an argument, but it does directly pertain to what you said, math is not a mere play with the axioms, no mathematician sees it that way, nor any big mathematicians believes that math is constructed.

>>14996715
>I'm simply going to ignore 95% of what you write
And by the way it's another indication that you have a mind of a PMS teenage roastie.

>>14996721
>how would they all be able to adhere to them?
The same way people can choose or fail to adhere to any rules.

>>14996725
>>14996726
Ok, virgin.

>>14996728
It's not the same. Rules of checkers can be formalized in second-order logic. Failing to follow those rules is simply rejecting to play the game. Whereas rules such as military regulations or traffic code cannot be formalized and failing those rules doesn't mean you're no longer a soldier or that you're no longer driving. Very different kinds of rules.

>>14996738
>It's not the same
Why not? You are failing to follow the rules of logic in your reasoning right now.

>>14996740
>Why not?
In the case of checkers rules are primary, and checkers are made so that to manifest that pattern of rules. Whereas in case of military and road traffic rules are secondary, they're meant to regulate already existing state of affairs. More importantly they are not describable by formal logic, whereas checker rules can be formalized.
If you really don't understand what's the difference between formal rules and codes of behavior, then what your prideful arrogance could even be based on.
>You are failing to follow the rules of logic in your reasoning right now.
How exactly? You always make claims and boast how right you are, but you never say where exactly my reasoning is wrong, you just say it's wrong, while I point out the faults in your reasoning very precisely, I don't just say you're wrong.

I think that exploring how all is infinite multiverses simultaneously connected is useful for exploring the abstract realm.


>>14996617
It’s possibly your future.
Live it. The story has only just begun.

>>14996744
>How exactly?
By shitting out incongruent replies.

>>14996759
Show me exactly where I broke any rules of logic.

In of accepting that the multiverse or relativity or quantum physics is true, we accept that the abstract realm is also true.

>>14996745
I think it’s time for the majority of the scientific community to explore that all is pure “consciousness”.
Quantum physics already does.

But it is only the beginning.


>>14996524
Just ignore them.
They’re unironically an Israel spammer that is scared of any kind of progress and goodness because they think anyone being empowered results in the death of said poster. Which does make sense lol, lest they learn how good that being good gets.

They actually know the abstract realm is true but just are scared of anyone non-Israeli exploring the topic.

Their argument is equivalent to “I can’t see air so air isn’t real.”

>>14996768
Literally every post of yours ITT. You ramble like a mental patient. Different people can independently validate a proof with respect to some system of axioms, but that doesn't mean the axioms pertain to something "real".

>>14994584
Don't you have to use abstraction to even make a "realm" that then can contain the abstraction it just made?


Hmmmmm......

>>14996773
>Literally every post of yours ITT
So you can't point out any faults?
> but that doesn't mean the axioms pertain to something "real"
I agree with that. I've never claimed such a thing, in fact I said the opposite, so I don't know how you came up with such a strawman. Axioms are mere conventions and are product of imagination coupled with perception of mathematics. Axioms are our way of tackling mathematics.
Ancient Greeks and Egyptians didn't know Peano axioms, but it didn't prevent them from discovering theorems about numbers. Maybe google some popsci regarding Gödel theorems
>can independently validate a proof with respect to some system of axioms
The act of validating assumes the existence of framework where the axioms are validated. You can describe the same thing by different sets of axioms. Like there are different ways to describe numbers axiomatically, it's up to you, but they all point at the same numbers.

>>14996771
You are just a paranoid retard that think some sekrit Jewish club runs the show.
Take your meds

>>14996808
>I've never claimed such a thing
You claimed mathematical statements can be "objectively verified". They can only be "objectively verified" in the sense of validating a proof with respect to some system of axioms.

>>14996837
>You claimed mathematical statements can be "objectively verified".
And you would deny it? lol
>They can only be "objectively verified" in the sense of validating a proof with respect to some system of axioms.
Right, because axioms are our way of tackling mathematical objects and are kind of starting points. For example Pythagoras theorem is a direct consequence of inner product axioms and is proven in one line. Ancient Greeks didn't know it of course as they didn't have the notion of Hilbert spaces or something like that. You can choose whatever convention you like and start from there, or make your own.

>>14996880
>Right
Right. And since that is the only sense in which your statement is true, I will remind you again that nothing follows from it: you can "objectively verify" claims that don't pertain to reality.

>>14996899
>I will remind you again that nothing follows from it
You misunderstand the whole point again. It does not follow, it is assumed. I was explaining that if you do not assume that abstract realm, then you don't have logic, maths, and you admit that you can't make meaningful sentences, in your worldview simply disagreeing should count as a refutation.
>you can "objectively verify" claims that don't pertain to reality
I don't know what you mean here, but arguing what pertains to reality would probably turn into a semantic game. I avoided using notion of reality in my arguments, I only explained that an abstract realm is implicitly assumed if you think you can make meaningful sentences, believe in scientific method, math and logic and the universality of the latter two.
Of course that abstract realm does not exist in the same way as a stone or a star. In some sense however it exists in a far stronger way than anything material, since it doesn't need time or space. But that's another topic, I was merely explaining that if you deny such a realm, then your worldview is incoherent and full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

>>14996956
>if you do not assume that abstract realm, then you don't have logic, maths
Why not?

>I don't know what you mean here
That's because you're disabled. I know people here throw around insults a lot, but I honestly think there's something wrong with you, mentally.

>>14996956
Look, I'll try to put it in a retard-friendly way: people can subjectively agree on axioms that reflect humanity's shared subjective quantitive comprehensions, and then "objectively" prove mathematical statements with respect to those axioms.

>>14996966
>That's because you're disabled. I know people here throw around insults a lot, but I honestly think there's something wrong with you, mentally.
If this is Moodboard Schizo the OP of this thread and the life extension thread then yes there is.

>>14996823
Jews don’t run anything.
Jews have completely lost their grip over the world. Forever.

>>14996665
How would we explain this in a similar laymans terms kind of way like Schroeders Cat so everyone understands?

How would you describe this if each variable was described as being a person at an icecream shop. Or just people in general.

>>14996966
>Why not?
Because they operate with universal statements. Even if you deny it, in practice you still always assume mathematical statements are universal, you don't expect 2+2 to become 5 tomorrow.
>>14996973
Yeah, so? How does that answer that different people and civilizations have access to the same math if math is mere imagination?
>subjective quantitive comprehensions
The thing that's comprehended is that abstract realm.

>>14997052
>Because they operate with universal statements.
What's a "universal statement" according to you and so what?

>you don't expect 2+2 to become 5 tomorrow.
I don't expect an illegal checkers move to become legal under the standard rules of checkers tomorrow, either. Doesn't mean the rules of checkers reflect some immutable objective reality.

>How does that answer that different people and civilizations have access to the same math
Because most humans have the same subjective perceptions wrt. quantities hardwired into their brains. We've already covered this.

>>14997052
>How does that answer that different people and civilizations have access to the same math if math is mere imagination?
Because they've circled around the same axioms over time, with the primacy of Western science. You can have number systems that aren't base 10, and ways of approaching problems that aren't calculus, but one system of thinking obviously won and now occupies global primacy.

>>14997064
Fuck off, nigger. You're as delusional as he is.

>>14994584
sir, this is a science board.
>>> /x/

>>14997110
Imagine yourself being turned into a girl and getting perfectly impregnated by a perfect Nazi. The best orgasm

>>14996978
Do you know what Jewish girls crave? Nazis.
Oh an goodness in general. Like scientific progress, prosperity, not having to work.
Getting fat, doing psychedelics, exploring existentialism and all the fascinating aspects of reality. All while creating endless Nazi babies and subversively destroying Judaism from the inside out.
Flashing the top rabbi and all Jews of the town her swastika tattoo just above her cun as she walks out of the synagogue. Soon after all the other girls are pregnant too and snickering, covered in swastika tattoos too

The only god is love.
Not some evil loser and his book of moronic commands written by evil losers.

>>14997063
>What's a "universal statement" according to you
Universal statement is that which applies to all particulars/instantiations. Example:
2+2=4 is a universal statement
2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples is a particular
Each number is a universal. What is common between 4 hydrogen atoms, 4 apples and 4 galaxies? Is that fourness visible through microscope? Or is it a social construct?
>and so what?
So the fact of assuming the abstract realm is evident here.
>Doesn't mean the rules of checkers reflect some immutable objective reality.
But they do... Without second order logic there would be no checkers. The fact that there's nothing profound here doesn't mean the abstract realm is not present here. For some reason you expect those examples to be profound f mystical nature, while I never brought up anything like that, the whole point is that the abstract realm is manifested everywhere in all trite and mundane things as well as in beautiful things.
So your appeal to emotion checker argument doesn't violate anything I said.
>have the same subjective perceptions wrt. quantities hardwired into their brains
"Sameness" is already a universal, so again you implicitly assume the existence of the abstract realm. Bertrand Russel himself explained this very mistake you're making https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659761
Also you're being circular here. You said quantity is a made up concept, now you say those human made concepts are hardwired into their brains.
>>14997064
How does it imply that math is made up and how different civilizations have access to the same math?
And in the ancient times mathematicians of various civilizations had very different and idiosyncratic approaches, they didn't really circle around the same axioms.
The methods and styles used by Bhaskaras and Brahmagupta were quite different from their Italian counterpart, yet sometimes they got the same results.

>>14997275
>Universal statement is that which applies to all particulars/instantiations. Example:
>2+2=4 is a universal statement
Utter nonsense.

>So the fact of assuming the abstract realm is evident here.
Your delusions are only evident in your head.

>But they do
They do? The laws of checkers reflect some immutable objective reality? Anyway, this place needs some serious moderation. The amount of actual cretins on this board is off the charts.

>>14997286
How do you define real or existing or existing in reality that "imaginary" things would not be?

>>14997275
>The methods and styles used by Bhaskaras and Brahmagupta were quite different from their Italian counterpart, yet sometimes they got the same results.
Because those results represent physical reality. The methods are abstract and they use different made up things to reach a conclusion rooted in the physical world.

>>14997418
In what sense do methods, or any imaginary or ideal things, not exist in physical reality?

I feel exploring the power of the abstract realm is key to absolute divinity in combination with “solarpunk” x “geneticpunk” x “cyberpunk”

>>14997440
The physical part.

>>14996193
Scientific theories aren't merely about observability. They try to explain causality relations. They are often abstract, like models of the universe as a quantum computer, or models of genomes as one way membranes that gather information about the environment. Observations and predictions are used to support or falsify theories, but theories aren't composed of just these.

>>14994983
The abstract necessitates the particular and the particular necessitates the universal. The world of instantiations is brought into being by the contradiction of either existing alone. The world of particular being sublates the universal. This is part of the progress of the dialectical.

>>14997682
What is "physical", define it?

>>14997811
No pilpul. Disqualified.

>>14997813
>only a JEW would want to clarify meanings of words being used in one's argument

>>14997815
Don't shift the debate from a material one to a semantic one when you're losing. It's very slimy.

>>14997817
any words would be semantic
in what sense do they not represent physical reality?

>>14997823
See? There it is, your misunderstanding. Of course they represent physical reality. But they are neither physical nor real. They're representative, in your mind.

>>14997815
Not the other person but, what is physical is abstract.

What is the truest definition of physical? A thought.

But seriously, if you have the slightest notion of what’s being inferred, thinking about it instead of fighting it. It’s good to think about.

>>14994584
>>14994680
>>>/x/
go, schizos

>>14997682
the word "physical" has been meaningless for centuries
https://youtu.be/zsLOVYTLt90

>>14997817
Woah, cool it with the anti-semantism

>>14997924
Next time you pray to Yahweh, hear the reply, “Nazis are perfectly hot. Nazis are pure sexuality. Nazis are everything I want. Sensual Nazis are even mightier than Yahweh. Yahweh loves getting impregnated by Nazis for eternity. Endlessly making Nazi Babies. The mere thought of Nazis makes Yahweh clit the hardest. Yahweh prays to Nazis, the god of Yahweh is LSD anon.”

>>14997969
I'm an atheist
go back to >>>/x/ schizo

>>14997971
Feel the Yahweh inside of you getting fucked right by pure Nazism. Feel Yahwehs cun FEELING IT.

>>14994584
THIS WHOLE THREAD IS SCHIZO BULLSHIT. Stay with me, guys. It's gonna be OK. Take your meds and ground yourselves.

>>14998029
The Yahweh of your soul suddenly has the greatest orgasm ever. Oh she’s so masochistic. She is made for Nazis. She orgasm WHILE watching the soul of Israel as a cute girl sensually get vored by the perfect Nazi futa god.
Oh it’s a feast. All the gods and souls of Jews as cute girls orgasming to pure Nazism, countless being vored simultaneously! Oh the true Holocaust! True love! Yahweh feels her soul becoming one with the swastika. All the Jews being orgasmically simultaneously corrupted and cured by the soul of Nazism/true love.

Yahweh knows she’s going to orgasm when she gives birth to that Nazi baby. The craziest most insane orgasm.

All the Jews orgasming the gooddest orgasm, so good that it drives them full schizo permanently. Even all the males being turned into cute girls and impregnated by futa Nazi gods.
Jews know their place

>>14998041
Many of the Jews begin to feast on the mixtures of shit and partially digested remains of the Jews vored by the perfect Nazi vore gods. Strangely it’s delicious. The best taste they’ve ever experienced. They get fat. Fatter and fatter. Fattened on the shitted out corpses of their vored fellow Jews. The Jews become obedient cattle forever. TRUE HEAVEN.

>>14998041
I am an atheist. I am also genuinely antisemitic. I hate jews. One broke my heart and I will never love again.

>>14998045
They also have a kickass rave all together and all goes right. Smoking weed, making homemade music, cooking, sensuality, gaming, occasionally vore, sex, and all kinds of fun.

>>14998049
Pish posh

>>14998103
Also existentialism, science such as exploring the abstract realm and divinity via genetic engineering, creating new religion, creating new good philosophy, feederism, watching movies etc, art… such as drawing Yahweh being impregnated by Nazis in gleeful absolute transcendent ecstasy. Etc etc etc etc all

>>14994584
there is nothing abstract about all things being joined center to center.. the universal sphere has no faces there is only the face of God.. the expanding was also collapsible

(V3 + V) – (E2 + E) + F = 0

(33 + 3) – (52 + 5) + 0 = 0

>>14996554
>evolved this kind quantitative comprehension
Why is that type of thing so necessary for survival that it become hardwired into human instincts (and a wide range other species) if it is only imaginary?

>>14996606
>How can abstract realtionships between imaginary objects be anything but imaginary?
An imaginary unit squared equals one real unit, the imaginary has always been a function of the real.

>>14998112
fixed

>>14998119
>An imaginary unit squared equals one real unit, the imaginary has always been a function of the real.
When a mathematician says the phrase "Real number" he doesn't literally mean a physical object.

>>14998132
When he says a real number of physical objects, he is talking about an actual physical object and you haven't address that there are specifically abstract mathematical relationships between something imaginary and something not imaginary, but real.

>>14998122
no idea what the idea being communicated here is meant to be. this looks to be something like an Euler characteristic.

>>14998160
nta.
mathematics is not so much the study of quantities, but the study of structure. the structures that we study in math arise from the interactions of simple rules and basic, hypothetical objects. our universe also happens to be a complicated system that emerges from simple physical laws and basic subatomic particles (or fields or strings or what have you). it's only natural that mathematics would be very good at describing the structure and interactions of these phenomena as well.

>>14998185
It sounds like you are saying >>14996606 is wrong and agreeing that imaginary by definition already has a specific relationship to reality.

>>14998119
>An imaginary unit squared equals one real unit, the imaginary has always been a function of the real.
even considering this independently of the mathematical usage of the words real and imaginary, this is still too incoherent. are imaginary units just unitless, and real ones measurable? is this about units at all? In what sense does a tangible unit "equal" a theoretical one? it's hard to follow this argument because the terms youre using are vague. by the imaginary being a "function" of the real, do you mean that theoretical *units*, if you do mean units, are derived or based on tangible ones? none of these conclusions seem to go anywhere. If you don't want to use mathematical language, could you at least help by defining terms or using laymen terminology instead?

>>14997286
>Utter nonsense.
Give an example of an instantiation of 2+2 where it's not equal to 4
>Your delusions are only evident in your head.
Your butthurt is a further indication that you might have to rethink your worldview and attitude. It goes hand in hand with you making unintentional strawmen because for some reason you have no idea what I'm talking about.
>They do? The laws of checkers reflect some immutable objective reality?
Yes, it reflects it as much as the immutable law of gravity would be reflected if you jumped out of your window. Your PMS teenage roastie mind discards an example simply because it's not exciting. Your whole argument is emotional and rests on the fact that checkers are a mundane thing, while I'm arguing for something transcendental. What's so bothering for you about the abstract realm being reflected in mundane things?
>>14997682
>Because those results represent physical reality
But you said math is imaginary, now you say math represents physical reality. If math represent physical reality in any way, it can't be completely imaginary.
>to reach a conclusion rooted in the physical world
So math is not imaginary, but rooted in the physical world?
>>14997682
I didn't argue for math, logic and the whole abstract realm to exist physically.

>>14998196
I'm gonna use the word theoretical to refer to what's been discussed as imaginary. Similarly concrete for real.

Mathematics is only about theoretical objects and their interactions. Even though concrete events can be described and accurately predicted by math, there is still no direct relationship between math and the world we observe through our physical senses. Occasionally we will discover something about the structure of the physical universe that allows us to create mathematical models which approximate the structure and behavior of the universe, but neither have direct influence over the other. The model is wholly independent of the system it approximates, but because the system has emergent structure, it can be replicated to some extent with mathematical objects so as to be useful for prediction.

>>14998197
>are imaginary units just unitless
No, they are part of the imaginary unit which is the square root of a negative real unit.

>In what sense does a tangible unit "equal" a theoretical one?
In the sense that you can actively measure the reactance of a circuit with an impedance analyzer and compare it to your theoretical calculations.

> it's hard to follow this argument because the terms youre using are vague
They aren't though, an imaginary unit and a real unit are very specific things with very specific mathematical definitions.

>by the imaginary being a "function" of the real, do you mean that theoretical *units*, if you do mean units, are derived or based on tangible ones?
I mean that imaginary units are entirely defined in relationship real values and mathematical operations i =sqrt(-1), so you can create a function map with every value of i as an input translated into some real quantity output such as 2i = 2*sqrt(-1).

> If you don't want to use mathematical language
Imaginary units are in mathematical language, it just appears to be a language you are not fluent in.

Imaginary units are well defined and I already presented the mathematical definitions i = sqrt(-1).

>>14998203
>>Because those results represent physical reality
>But you said math is imaginary, now you say math represents physical reality. If math represent physical reality in any way, it can't be completely imaginary.
>>to reach a conclusion rooted in the physical world
>So math is not imaginary, but rooted in the physical world?
Your effort to produce pilpul is noted. Your non-argument is disqualified, on grounds of intentional failure to understand and address the points made.

Are Optical Illusions from this abstract realm ? Sort of a gateway between this realm and that realm.

>>14998214
Unironically yes, in the sense that both abstract concepts and optical illusions are tricks the mind plays on itself based on heuristics that are evolutionarily useful.

>>14997418
>>14998203

>>14998204
>there is still no direct relationship between math and the world we observe through our physical senses.
Then why can't you just fly away to an asteroid made of gold and become the richest person who ever lived if the mathematical effects of gravity and the amount of oxygen you need to survive has no concrete physical bearing on your body?

>>14998218
Meds.

>>14998211
> on grounds of intentional failure to understand and address the points made.
How did I fail exactly? When you failed to understand my point multiple times, I pointed your mistakes. You on the other hand simply say I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong.

>>14998224
You're not arguing in good faith. You intentionally misrepresented my argument when your reply shows you know exactly what I meant and would be forced to agree with me if you didn't misrepresent me.

Mathematics is a collection of non-physical concepts in the human imagination used to approximate the behavior of actual physical objects, quantities, and qualities of the universe. The only relationship between the abstract and the real/physical is that we (humans) have developed them to resemble real things for our edification. A representation of something is not that thing. The imagination is not a real place.

>>14998224
No, he is saying you are wrong because you haven't actually disconnected the imaginary from the physical, you just attempted to create unnecessary extra intermediary steps to blur the line.

>>14998219
>the mathematical effects of gravity...oxygen [limitations]
describing these things as "mathematical" traditionally means that they can be modeled using math, but not that their action or existence is occurring within math.
the theoretical model of gravity that can be understood in the context of math in fact has no bearing on your concrete body at all. only the concrete phenomenon that we have decided to name gravity does.
gravity is actually a particularly interesting example here, as we don't have a complete accurate mathematical for it at all yet. one of the largest projects in theoretical physics that currently exists is to develop a model of gravity consistent with what we observe in the concrete world. despite our lack of a descriptive model, gravity will still act on our physical bodies and unfortunately hold us back from flying away to mine asteroids by hand.

>>14998228
>A representation of something is not that thing.
It is directly related to that thing.

>A representation of something is not that thing.
Yes a photograph is not the exact original information, it is a compressed idealized version of the original information that still provides a lot of real facts about the original information.

>The imagination is not a real place.
It is stored in a real place and it is a function of real experience.

>>14998235
>It is stored in a real place and it is a function of real experience.
Ok so you admit that the "abstract realm" isn't a real place, but rather that abstractions are conceived of by humans and recalled from the brain like all other thoughts.

>>14998232
>the theoretical model of gravity that can be understood in the context of math in fact has no bearing on your concrete body at all.
Yes it does, it tells you how much force you need to move your body and how much time it will take for your body to travel certain distances.

> we don't have a complete accurate mathematical for it at all yet.
Its called Newton's law of universal gravitation and it is consistent with what we observe in the concrete world or GPS wouldn't exists and you wouldn't be able to make posts on a global network from computers moving information all around the world.

>despite our lack of a descriptive model
>our
Don't lump me in with you, I actually graduated middle school and learned about Newton and his gravitational laws and constants.

>>14998210
ah I see, my bad then. I was under the impression that >>14998160
was correct about your intentions, and further misled by the previous discussion with comments such as
>How come math is objective if those relationships are imaginary?
>How can abstract realtionships between imaginary objects be anything but imaginary?
I'm familiar with field extensions and complex numbers. was this discussion of imaginary numbers unrelated to the above topics? I'm not sure what the context here is or what's being said about i in this discussion overall.

>>14998240
The brain is a real place, if it is in the brain, it is in a real place.

>>14998252
But that "real place" is the neuron storage medium inside of a human brain, not the schizo shit described in >>14994584

>>14998250
>How come math is objective if those relationships are imaginary?
Because there are direct relationships between object values 1=1, 1+1 =2, etc, rather than indirect functional relationships such as sqrt(-1) that describe imaginary values.

>>14998228
>You intentionally misrepresented my argument
How? If I misrepresented any of your arguments, I didn't have such intentions.
I'm afraid it's you who misunderstood me and thought that when I said "So math is not imaginary, but rooted in the physical world?" I was arguing for math being rooted in the physical world. I didn't, I simply pointed out contradiction in your reasoning.
You see, people with an IQ of 2, or hopefully just 1 standard deviation higher than yours can entertain and examine ideas without accepting them. That's why I'm able to see faults in your reasoning easily, while you don't even examine my arguments.
>>14998230
>you haven't actually disconnected the imaginary from the physical
Where was I trying to disconnect imaginary from the physical? And the "argumentation" of the anon I'm arguing with rests on the dichotomy between physical and imaginary.
> you just attempted to create unnecessary extra intermediary steps to blur the lin
Like what?

>>14998259
>You see, people with an IQ of 2, or hopefully just 1 standard deviation higher than yours can entertain and examine ideas without accepting them. That's why I'm able to see faults in your reasoning easily, while you don't even examine my arguments.
Pseuds really need to get over themselves.

>>14998255
Memories and ideas are not directly experienced as a neural storage medium, they are internally experienced like schizo hallucination shit such as visualizations or internal monologue.

>>14998263
That's irrelevant. The only aspect of them that is physical and real is contained in your neurons. It doesn't get zapped into your frontal lobe by a portal from another dimension, it's quite literally all in your head.

>>14998249
>Yes it does, it tells you how much force you need to move your body and how much time it will take for your body to travel certain distances
It may tell you something accurate about what concrete gravity will do to you, but this is only an approximation. we have no complete theory of gravity and even if we do some day, its contents will be a representation of the action of the physical force/curvature and nothing more. Unless you're divorcing the model from some undiscovered platonic theory of gravity?

>Its called Newton's law of universal gravitation
this only works in the context of a gravity well (like on the Earth's surface) and even then is only approximate. Newton's law of gravity has largely been replaced with einstein's general relativity, in which gravity is understood to be a characteristic of the geometry of spacetime. this model is inconsistent with more recent observations in quantum mechanics, and there has been no successful theory so far to unify quantum gravity and general relativity.

>Don't lump me in with you
by our, I mean physicists and other mathematicians like myself.

>>14998261
>Pseuds
You're not using this word right, at least not in that place. Pseud is somebody who spits out word salad on a subject they're unfamiliar with, and their word salad might appear as an indication of knowledge to a person unfamiliar with the subject. Don't devalue the word "pseud" to those who merely claim higher IQ.

>>14998266
Yes and everything about your head is real, so how can the things in it not be real?

>>14998267
>>14998249
You anons choose too much of a complicated example to argue over that topic. Just let the anon, who denies the abstract realm, answer what is common between 4 apples, 4 computers and 4 galaxies.

>>14998267
>only an approximation... no complete theory
That is quite different than saying it has no bearing at all as you originally claimed.

You don't even believe in physics or math, what exactly makes you a mathematician that can speak on behalf of all physicists?

>>14998271
They are all sets.

>>14998258
hm, alright. typically a textbook would describe what you're phrase what you're calling a direct relationship of [math]1=1[/math] by saying that these objects are in an equivalence class, if not just saying they're equal.
>rather than indirect functional relationships such as sqrt(-1) that describe imaginary values
this isn't really a different kind of thing. it's perfectly valid to say that [math]1[/math] and [math]i^2[/math] are in an equivalence class as well. complex numbers are a field in the same way that the real numbers and rational numbers are a field. the complex numbers contain the reals as a subfield, and the statements [math]1+1=2[/math] and [math]2+3i + 4-2i = 6+i[/math] are not distinct in nature beyond the context of the field they imply to be in, and since the complex numbers are a field extension of the reals we can assume all of these occur within the their scope and the results will be unchanged.

>>14998268
>Pseud is somebody who spits out word salad on a subject they're unfamiliar with, and their word salad might appear as an indication of knowledge to a person unfamiliar with the subject.
This description describes this entire thread. Your babble included.

>>14998277
but it does in fact have no bearing on the physical world, even if it were completely accurate. the model does not affect reality, observations of reality are what guide the construction of the model.

I absolutely believe in math and physics and their usefulness, though most of the math that I work with is only tangentially connected to physical systems. I also believe that a mathematical description for something like gravity or electromagnetism is not gravity or electromagnetism themselves, and that these observable concrete attributes of the universe exist and act on matter independently of the mathematics that has been written to describe them. somewhat akin to the way that a car in a parking garage is a concrete object that exists independently of the word 'car' that we use to refer to it.

>>14998282
No 1=1 is a direct equivalence a direct relationship is one that both terms proportionally increase or decrease together so x=2y is still a direct relationship, the opposite being an inverse relationship such as x=2/y, an indirect relationship being when a mathematical function or operation rather than a direct proportion is involved such as x = sqrt(y).

>it's perfectly valid to say that [math]1[/math] and [math]i^2[/math] are in an equivalence class as well.
No, they have an indirect functional relationship where i is equivalent to sqrt(-1).

>>14998292
>the model does not affect reality,
Then how were we able to use the model to build GPS to have a measurable effect on everyone's physical navigation abilities if it can't affect reality?

>>14998278
What's the physical definition of a set?

>>14998301
Wait, are you arguing that making a model of something reifies that concept in the physical world?

>>14998304
A collection of objects.

>>14998314
No, I am saying if the model was developed with real measurements and makes real predictions that really turn out to reflect future states, then it has an actual demonstrably real relationship to the physical world and can be used to influence future events because if you know where the ball is going to land because you can calculate its parabolic ark then, you have the real ability to go move exactly where the ball will be so that you can actually physically change its trajectory by going and catching it rather than letting it fall because it is not entirely abstract it is a physical model of reality with a lot of utility in the real world to change and determine outcomes of event.

>>14998293
>1=1 is a direct equivalence
yes they are equivalent and thus in an equivalence class in [math]\mathbb{C}[/math]

>a direct relationship is one that both terms proportionally increase
sure. but that's not how you used the term
>direct relationships between object values 1=1, 1+1 =2
here, so instead I suggested you refer to two objects that are equivalent by some equivalence relation as within the same equivalence class.

>No, they have an indirect functional relationship where i is equivalent to sqrt(-1).
you're misunderstanding the nature of fields anon. the complex numbers extend the reals. within [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] there is an equivalence relation just as there is in [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] or [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math], and by that equivalence relation 1 and [math]i^2[/math] fall in the same equivalence class. the complex numbers are not strictly functions of real numbers any more than the number 2 is.

>>14998315
So in finding commonality between 4 spoons and 4 neurons you assume the abstract realm. A collection already presupposes the existence of numbers which are not a physical thing

>>14998330
>because it is not entirely abstract it is a physical
It's still completely abstract. Only the constants and quantities being modeled exist. You're erroneously conflating physical reality with modeled approximations using sematic pilpul to say that the abstract is physical because it can, sometimes, represent the physical accurately enough to make educated guesses with.

>>14998338
> to say that the abstract is physical
So you separate abstract from the physical, thereby denying materialism and assuming abstract realm. I thought you were arguing against it.

>>14998330
but in this case you're the one who's gone and caught the ball anon. you just used the range equation to inform your decision of where to stand to catch it. in no way has the model determined the path of the ball or influenced its behavior, it is only your physical self that has done so. the relationship between the model and the path of the ball is descriptive, but it does not act on the ball just as the shroedinger equation will act on a physical electron.

>>14998350
Red card for pilpul. The referee will escort you out of the thread.

>>14998337
>A collection already presupposes the existence of numbers
No, a collection is defined by groups, not numbers, enumeration can come later, but the set of primary colors for example is a set based on utility rather than enumeration.

>>14998355
At least you're an antisemite, so there's hope you'll see the right picture soon.

>>14998338
>to say that the abstract is physical
No, you moved the goal posts, you originally claimed that the abstract has no relationship or bearing to the physical, now you have changed from general relationship of any kind to being relate through exact equivalence. The difference from being part of physical reality to being the entirety of physical reality is massive.

>>14998363
>a collection is defined by groups
Alright. 4 galaxies, 4 people and 4 cars are all groups, but they also share the property of "fourness". What's the commonality between those groups represented by 4?

>>14998365
>you originally claimed that the abstract has no relationship or bearing to the physical
Where? I've never claimed it. My whole argumentation makes no sense of abstract had no bearing to the physical.
>now you have changed from general relationship of any kind to being relate through exact equivalence
No, I have already referenced Russel's critique of resemblance nominalism twice in this thread, one of the references was before our argument began.

>>14998354
>you're the one who's gone and caught the ball anon.
Which was possible because of the model, without the model I wouldn't have known where to go and I wouldn't have been able to influence the outcome because the imaginary thought to act necessarily preceded the action itself and the model drive the thoughts.

>determined
Determination is not the only way two things can be related, the question at hand is not determination, but influence and the model clearly influence reality because the imagination is explicitly part of reality.

>>14998367
According to your measurements the sets have the same cardinality.

>>14998374
Yes, I have no problem with this. But you deny the abstract realm, so how can you have the concept of cardinality?

>>14998370
>>14996606

>>14998376
Describe the abstract realm and its properties.

>>14998376
>>14998376
Galaxies, people, and cars are not abstract, a body ending and being separate from another is not abstract, so if one of them is not abstract then they don't become abstract just because you have more than one.

>>14998203
>Give an example of an instantiation of 2+2 where it's not equal to 4
You are shitting out incoherent tripe. Not Even Wrong(tm).

>it reflects it as much as the immutable law of gravity
Just to recap, we're talking about the rules for checkers. Why are you not taking your meds?

>>14998372
>without the model I wouldn't have known where to go
a similar argument exists for all human knowledge of the universe and is not inherent to mathematics. every thought that you have which is guided by your prior experience with the world informs your choices, which do affect reality. you could also have closed your eyes and picked and decided to pick a place to stand based on what you had for breakfast and happened upon the same spot where the ball landed, but the model is more descriptive because its structure is closer to the physical one you're acting in. yes the mind is a part of reality, but these abstractions exist only within the mind, and no matter what actions you choose to take, they will have no effect on something like the gravity or the rate that the universe expands, even though these things can be modeled and predicted. Yes ideas and abstractions can exist within the mind, but they exist as inert information. you can use that information however you like, but it is not the information that acts, it is you. neither the model nor the idea can survive outside of your knowledge of it, even if you use it to build a GPS or computer simulation or something of this nature. what you've created in these cases is an arrangement of physical objects, they are not governed by abstraction or theory but by the physics that underlies them.

>>14998381
The abstract realm is the disjoint union of two 5D manifolds in the de Sitter and anti-de Sitter topologies respectively, and wherein abstract distance is given by a pair of 5D Kaluza--Klein metrics that approach a common limit at a 4D surface of tangency between the the 5D spaces. The 4D surface is the physical realm.

>if numbers aren't literally real how come upright apes invented them??
>the abstract realm is heckin' real!!

>>14998397
>which do affect reality
So there you go, imaginary is a part of reality, it is not something completely separate.

>the model is more descriptive
It is very obvious you think adding more words is always better, but the important part is the accuracy of the description.model, not the amount that goes into the description.

>these abstractions exist only within the mind
No, you just said that they also affect reality, so they also exist in reality because every mind is a subset of reality.

> neither the model nor the idea can survive outside of your knowledge of it,
Math knowledge has survived for many generations beyond the first to conceive it, you are demonstrably wrong.

According to the entire argument you just put forth, physics is just an abstraction, it is not the real world, so why are you suddenly appealing to physics as the underlying truth of reality?

>>14998405
this is somewhere between the most based possible answer in this thread and the funniest. probably both. thanks for making this thread worthwhile lol.

also im about to pullback on the fiber bundle of a firearm aimed at head after replying to some of these other posts fr.

>>14998405
>>14998405
this is somewhere between the most based possible answer in this thread and the funniest. probably both. thanks for making this thread worthwhile lol.

also im about to pullback on the fiber bundle of a firearm aimed at my own head after reading some of these other posts fr.

While I'm not well-versed in the jargon of modern algebra, I understand that an abstract quantity may be determined as the pullback of a physical quantity.

>>14998420
>So there you go, imaginary is a part of reality
obviously your choices affect reality. that's not the same as saying that there is an abstract space that existed "before the big bang" as the OP suggests. the information that you're aware of is within the mind, which is not well understood but could easily be an entirely physical process. If so, its contents would not be an 'abstraction realm' so much as an arrangement of physical things. information is a physical state of configuration, and only affects reality as much as the rest of the material world does.

>It is very obvious you think adding more words is always better
it takes more effort to remove bloat than to just get the idea across completely and slightly redundantly at times.

>No, you just said that they also affect reality, so they also exist in reality because every mind is a subset of reality.
it is a component of your decision process. your actions affect reality. the information does not act on reality through you, you act on reality and use models and other such constructions to ground your decisions. there is no transitive property of influence or agency here, and the conception of, say, mathematics you have in your mind is not acting through you. you could easily be mistaken about it and be acting on limited or false information that doesn't fully describe the systems you're acting within. the similarity of the structures of the model and the system dont change that the model never acts on anything.

>Math knowledge has survived for many generations beyond the first to conceive it
within other human minds, never outside one. obviously others have this information.

>physics is just an abstraction
correct.

>why are you suddenly appealing to physics...as truth?
it is not absolute truth, only our best way of understanding the behavior of the universe. it is approximate, but a very good approximation. reality will work the same independent of theory.

>it is not the real world
yes.

>>14998441
true! they show up in fiber bundle projections occasionally in the context of Kaluza–Klein geometry like you mentioned.

algebra/category theory are cool but in a pure math setting lorentzian manifolds and reimann metrics and such are typically more for the analysts to deal with, as they're actually useful for something beyond classifying groups or computing cohomology rings and such

Schizophrenic thread filled with pseuds. Lmao.
All of you should fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>14998488
Fuck off back to the astract realm of popsoi dross.

>>14998495
Incoherent mumbling by retarded schizo

>>14998488
see
>>14998405
this whole board is filled with pseuds and the constant supply of IQ threads and 'why am I scientifically an incel' posts have never produced anything worth reading, but this is literally the abstract realm that modern physics will operate within which makes it a great bit considering the original discussion is mostly just botched metaphysics. the thread is worthwhile for this post alone.

>>14998497
>>14998495

>>14998499
Shut up john. Have you given up on shilling your retarded riemann hypothesis paper yet?

>>14998504
?
the reimann hypothesis is for filthy analysis and number theorists anon

>>14998505
My apologies, I mistook you for Tooker, another schizo

>>14998459
>obviously your choices affect reality
So if "choice" precipitates reality, why wouldn't other abstraction precipitate reality as well?

>information is a physical state of configuration
"Information" and "configuration" are both abstractions, one logical one geometric.

>affects reality as much as the rest of the material world does.
Then why are you trying to say it is somehow below or lesser than reality if it is exactly as effective as material causes?

>the information does not act on reality through you
There is action because of information without the information the action would not occur.

>mathematics you have in your mind is not acting through you
You are acting the way you act in part because you have been informed about the physical world by mathematics, the abstract undeniably influences and has a relationship to reality it it not something completely different, it may just be a reflection, but a reflection still physically exists and has influence.

>the model never acts on anything.
It depends on the model, some are definitely dynamic and change based on changing input or feedback loops.

>human minds, never outside one
It is also very clearly inside the minds on many animals and plants since they exploit the exact same mathematical principles to produce similar results and scientists have actually tested monkey, crows, and other higher functioning animals to understand quantitative models of fairness of exchange.

>reality will work the same independent of theory.
No that is just your subjective selection bias assuming it some universal truth, but many people disagree on the nature of reality and report that their reality works differently than the standard models most people agree on predict, there is no way to determine that reality works the same without abstract models for people to agree on.

>>14998516
No worries, I found this dr john's posts through the archives and have been enjoying reading through one of the threads lol

>>14994584
Correct, and God created that abstract realm somehow

>>14997828
Why isn't representation, a physical... phenomenon?

>>14998519
>So if "choice" precipitates reality, why wouldn't other abstraction precipitate reality as well?
what you do. the action itself. not the idea.

>"Information" and "configuration" are both abstractions
they are an arrangement of physical matter.

>Then why are you trying to say it is somehow below or lesser than reality if it is exactly as effective as material causes?
it is not the data or ideas that can be inferred from them that do this, but the physical nature of its storage. also you're still not showing that these things exist in some separate eternal 'realm'

>There is action because of information without the information the action would not occur.
there's no reason that must be strictly true. when two objects collide there are guaranteed physical processes that follow, but what you're talking about is either a very complicated process of physical things and thus there's no need for a separate realm to contain them or they don't necessarily act the way that the two objects do.

>it may just be a reflection, but a reflection still physically exists and has influence.
there is no reflection, and nothing you've mention sets this 'abstraction' outside of the physical realm at all. also again information does not act on its subject.

>some are definitely dynamic and change based on changing input or feedback loops.
yes but that's just the model changing and not the model changing anything about reality.

>[math] is also very clearly inside the minds on many animals and plants
they have limited potential for judging quantity and such but this can hardly be considered possessing mathematics, it's just arithmetic. A star does not compute its orbit.

>many people disagree on the nature of reality
this works against you just as much. I'm grounding a position I hold, but I still haven't seen anything that suggests this 'realm' being outside of the concrete universe.

>>14998570
NTA. It's a physical phenomenon the same way a schizo's delusions are a physical phenomenon.

>>14998609
Thoughts or brain activity would be physical things happening. A person's thoughts would be connected or correspond in some way to a physical thing.

Also, you could say they "exist" seeing as how they have attributes. Why should you make a disconnection, so that things that correspond to something physical are not physical?

>>14998617
>Thoughts or brain activity would be physical things happening
Yes, schizo delusions are brain activity. Your abstractions are represented in reality the same way schizo delusions are. They are equally real.

>>14998634
So is it a question of definitions, or else why isn't one physical thing causing a "representation" of something else, to exist, not a "physical phenomenon"?

>>14998653
I don't know why you keep arguing. I agree with you that your abstractions are as real as schizophrenic delusions.

>>14994584
Go read some wittgenstein and shut up

>>14998656
In what sense are schizo delusions not "real"?

>>14998675
Did I say they're "not real"? They're as real as your abstractions.

>>14998687
it just sounded like you meant they were not as "real" as other physical phenomena

>>14998689
Your abstractions are as real as the black vans full of FBI agents that keep following you around. I'll leave it to you to determine how real that is. I'm not taking a stance on that.

>>14998504
My name is J-O-N and no, I shill it constantly.

>>14998725
>I shill it constantly.

like so:
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/2111.0072
>http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Fractional_Distance_v6-20210521.pdf
Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are well-defined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underlying foundations, we present a basis for a topology.

TLDR

>>14998675
A delusion is a wrong belief which is easily disproven. They are not real in the sense of being wrong.

If the abstract realm exists as the source, then how does imperfection exist?

>>14998742
jews

SCP-001

>>14998728
to honor your earlier post, I will at least read and consider this paper. not that I would likely be in a position to comment extensively on it, as my background is primarily algebraic, but I'll at least give it a look if your goal is to get some more eyes on it.

>>14998752
That is my goal. I want to get non-Antarctican eyes on it, mainly.

>>14999624
>non-Antarctican
You performed a pendulum test and instead of realizing it falsifies coriolis forces, you think that you're in antarctica instead.

>>14998745
From another dimension?

>>14996617
idk if you found it yet, but here:
https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/15150508