/sci/ - Science & Math

nearly all fields have the same difficult issue, developing a justification for intellectualism outside of navel gazing.

>>15353202
The way you freaked out makes me wanna say something like psychology because you can't follow the books strictly you need to somehow have correct intuition. However in terms of hard sciences I would guess either fluids or plasma dynamics, since the main equations don't describe most systems beyond a single order of magnitude and the fundamental equations are still unsolved, so you need to know exactly what kind of assumptions to make to get a workable answer and you will not necessarily be able to double-check the math. If you are working in unusual situations it can probably be difficult to know if the problem is unsolvable or not.

>>15353398
Fuck. I don't know how "phrased it" autocorrected to "freaked out." Ending it all rn

>>15353202
Apparently the hardest concept of them all is that there is no hardest concept. There is no scala naturae in the world and isn't a puzzle to be solved by humans. The 99.999(9)% of the universe exists for it's own sake and us being able to intelectually engage with it is just a coincidence.

Second place would be probability because it's unnatural to us.

When ChatGPT was trained without much human supervision it showed very good grasp of probability but was pretty bad at other stuff. When curated by human evaluations it became much better at everything EXCEPT statistics and probability. They got noticeably worse.

It makes sence. Our most powerful ability is recognizing patterns. The whole IQ test is about it fundamentally. The frontal lobe which is considered to be the most unique in humans if associative in it's function. It's also full of hard settings that are baked in and are hard to remove. They are called cognitive distortions, there a list on Wikipedia.
One of them is seeing pattterns that are not there.
Which is why it's so hard to understand that after you get 100 tails the odds of it being heads is still 50%. We just can't do it without strong abstraction and rationalising.

The concept of concept is the hardest concept

>>15353494
>The concept of concept is the hardest concept
Where do they come from? Where do they go?...

https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY

>>15353202
>>15353481
>Apparently the hardest concept of them all is that there is no hardest concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_class
Obviously as P ≠ NP it follows there absolutely are levels of computational difficulty. It also follows, therefore, there are levels of conceptual difficulty for what amounts to biological computers i.e. our brains.

The "hardest" concept to grasp in general appears to be the full implications, and inherent limitations, of abstraction. Not that there's some alternative or anything. Elaborating on it further would be pointless. >>15353494 is basically correct.

>>15354572
>P ≠ NP
citation needed

>>15354583
>citation needed
Logical contradictions cannot be meaningfully said to be true. P ≠ NP in the same way 1 ≠ 5. Explaining that if you don't already get it would also be pointless.

>>15353481
>There is no hardest concept

2+2 is easier than calculating the trajectory of a surface-to-air missile, not just by conventional human standatds but also pure computational resource requirement in computers and such. I'm not sure I can agree with your statement, and it feels like a philosophical undercut that sidesteps the question more than anything.

>>15353404
Haha you're good man, thank you for the great response. Actually answers the question in a practical way, which is refreshing because I've asked this question twenty-odd times everywhere but 4Chan and have never gotten a fully-convincing answer. This is the first, so thanks!

>>15353555

>Where do they come from? Where do they go?...

Easy ... :}~<

>>15355183
>Actually answers the question in a practical way
Anyone could puke out an opinion. Whether he would be right or not depends on complexity class, complexity theory and related concepts. In his case he happens to be right in that something like psychology involves far more compounding uncertainties than simpler systems.

Why you'd praise someone merely shitting out an opinion instead of the actual metric you can use to measure with is fucking bizarre to me.

>>15353254
almost nobody in academia ever achieves it. if they do then the 99.999% of dedicated navel gazers immediately take credit for it
>my field finally discovered something worthwhile and useful
>that reflects on me personally even though i had no hand in it at all
and then they go right back to being useless navel gazers.

Consciousness. Was it always there, or only comes about when atoms are arranged in a certain way?

you guys just need to study what you like

>>15356541
But then anonymous poster on /sci/ will question my intelligence....

Maybe statistics and probability.

nonlinear dynamics

>>15353202
Meaning

>>15356553

That might just occur, yes. :)

>>15353254
fpbp

>>15355173
Some questions are better sidestepped if you want to get anywhere.
"The smart person goes around the mountain" as the saying goes
>>15354572
Well our problems with statistics is a part of the issue you bring up.
What is the alternative to abstraction in epistemology?

>>15361121
>What is the alternative to abstraction in epistemology?
>>15354572
>Not that there's some alternative or anything.
There isn't one. Not unless it is "an alternative" to somehow know everything. In that case, okay, ascend to godhood I suppose?

Linear Algebra in my opinion

>>15353202
The idea that you as an individual human don't matter to the universe is probably the biggest one to grapple with. Even when people do understand it they often start acting like total shitheads.

>>15361133
Not nessesarily
https://www.synonyms.com/antonyms/abstraction
Specification and individualisation seem like the right ones for this context.
In that sense you would examine each object and phenomena as a whole unique occurrence without any to compare it to and to generalize for future reference.

How about that?

>>15361552
>How about that?
Okay sure fine I suppose becoming the cognitive equivalent of a rock was TECHNICALLY on the table as well. Bugger off before I toss you out the airlock.

>>15361598
Javik? Is that you?

>>15361631
On the internet nobody knows, but if someone did they would also be thrown out the airlock.

>>15361670
I'll be careful In the future

>>15353481
In a perfect world you semi-literate fucking idiots just shut up instead of shitting out your verbal diarrhea.

>>15361685
Platonist spotted

>>15353202
Incompleteness. There are some questions nobody will ever be able answer and that is so hard for most people to grasp they invent nonsensical gods and heavens to cope with the eternal unknown.

>>15354671
>Logical contradictions cannot be meaningfully said to be true.
Tell that to your modern arithmetic math system that is entirely dependent on an origin number that contradicts itself as its own opposite number and can only make meaningful statements that stem from the logical contradiction that 0=-0.

>>15361732
Certainly. Though one could always cease treating 0 as a natural number, and rather as the concept of the origin instead, and likewise reform operations such that with respect to transformation of the origin (and thus dimension) could be represented. There's all kinds of nonstandard fun stuff like that people consider from time to time in abstract algebra or in relation to extended complex numbers. Fucking Riemann stealing all the fun really.

In any event, nobody ever said convention had to make sense. After all it entirely depends on what one is doing and why. That is both the frustrating part of abstraction as well as the powerful part.

>>15356873

>>15361790
>>15361732
Forgot my fuckin image. Point is things are really only true to some extent from a certain point of view if true at all.

>>15361790
>>15361805
If nothing you can ever say makes sense or can meaningfully be said to be true, why do you prattle on in such detail, what are you trying to accomplish?

>>15361821
>>15361805
And why talk in such absolutes knowing that nothing you are saying is absolutely true or meaningful?

>>15361790
>Though one could always cease treating 0 as a natural number
No, it would break math and computing to treat 0 as an undefined value and 0 is already treated as the absolute origin point, so you aren't suggesting anything novel.

>>15361821
Not "ultimately true" does not imply anything about meaning.
>>15361825
There are absolutes, and then there are absolutes. Some kinds of absolutes are entirely possible to speak of, other kinds of absolutes are not.
>>15361876
Didn't say it was anything novel. Whole implication is that it isn't. Does being wrong thrice in a row make you feel better?

>>15361905
>Not "ultimately true" does not imply anything about meaning.
In other words, you don't even know if all your prattle is ultimately false, but you are fine going on about it anyway because you can't into meaning.

> Some kinds of absolutes are entirely possible to speak of, other kinds of absolutes are not.
According to you, true and false absolutes are impossible to speak of even though you are fine implying it is absolutely true to assert such an absolute truth about the nature of truth.

>Didn't say it was anything novel.
Yes acted like it was something we could cease doing when we already know ways to not do it such as a return to roman numerals, but they can't translate to modern higher math and computing.

Does being wrong thrice in a row make you feel better?
I wouldn't know, your words are the ones that contradict themselves, you are the one saying you can't possibly make true statements, you are the only one who claims to have proven yourself wrong every time in a row since nothing you can ever say can be absolutely true or meaningful.

>>15361920
Yes yes kid you've a very big dick or whatever you're aiming to achieve. I don't care to play these dishonest "twist anything/everything to feed my ego" narcissism games you seem unable to stop playing. Have fun finding someone who cares.

>>15361961
The only thing I am doing is testing your claims for consistency and they don't stand up to scrutiny, so all you can do is try to shoot the messenger and spew fallacies to cope.

The most glaringly dishonest thing ITT is still you claiming that is it absolutely true that absolute truths are impossible.

>>15353202
NoFap science is generally considered the most rigorous and cognitively challenging field of study.

>>15361966
>The most glaringly dishonest thing ITT is still you claiming that is it absolutely true that absolute truths are impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

>>15362272
Deferring to dead people with concepts you clearly can't understand and articulate since you didn't add your own commentary doesn't means you know they said something to be absolutely true in a universe where absolute truths are impossible, it just reveals that you are lazy and dependent.

>>15362313
Sure pal whatever you say hey mind publishing your genius hot takes so we can come to know absolute truths about reality and the ontology of all things?

Can't wait.

>>15362326
I was not the one claiming any absolute truth, you were and your absolute truth that absolute truths are impossible was easy to disprove as an absolute truth by its own standards since it specifically disproved itself by asserting that absolute truths are impossible.

>>15362448
>since it specifically disproved itself by asserting that absolute truths are impossible.
Nope. Only by your continued dishonest and blatant equivocation.

>>15362468
No by the fact that you asserted absolute truths are impossible, so it would be impossible to determine the truth of anything even that statement without the existence of truth.

>>15362499
>No by the fact that you asserted absolute truths are impossible, so it would be impossible to determine the truth of anything even that statement without the existence of truth.
Nope. That is continued dishonest equivocation.
To suggest "we lack absolute truth" is somehow "an absolute truth" is an abuse of the term, out of sheer stupidity and ignorance or malice. Since the statement "we do not have absolute truth" is a contingent one, no, it is not an absolute truth. Absolute truth does not vary, and is true regardless of context. Clearly, "we lack absolute truth" depends on context.

So which is it? You're a dishonest whiny child or you're a grossly ignorant whiny child?

>>15353202
Interfacing a point into three dimensional space. Does my fucking head in.

>>15353202
Four-dimensional space

>>15365206
That's not at all hard to grasp. We use four dimensions of space everyday.

>>15353481
>Which is why it's so hard to understand that after you get 100 tails the odds of it being heads is still 50%
why ?
if this coin has no thickness and can fall somewhere, then it can be only in two states

>>15365218
Yes, stay stupid.

>>15354572
>>15354583
P = NP will be resolved by 2040 using new techniques in algebraic function fields and algebraic geometry over finite fields. The time complexity though will be n^C for a very large C, like TOW(10)

>>15353202
>What is the hardest concept to grasp in all of math and science?
>>15353481
>The 99.999(9)% of the universe exists for it's own sake and us being able to intelectually engage with it is just a coincidence

The universe is the creator. In an infinite universe all that can exist will exist and all that will exist already has. The universe collects, processes, and redistributes information / resources. When information is redistributed and recollected in a different configuration you get a different result. The meaning of life is to collect, process, and redistribute information / resources.

You exist right now on an infinite number of planets that looks exactly like earth separated only by distance. Time isn't real.

>>15353202
>infinities
I feel like if anyone actually fully grasping the concept would be driven mad by it. Like how people don't really understand big numbers, except on an infinitely larger (or smaller) scale.

>>15366279
>I feel like if anyone actually fully grasping the concept would be driven mad by it

can confirm. Thought experiment:

Could you remember a different timeline? If you manipulate a memory, is it a fake memory, or is there a place in an infinite universe where that memory is valid?

>>15353481
The law of probability does not apply to Germans. ( Commonly referred to during WW1 as "the Hun")

I learned this from reading Biggles books.
"What the Hun does twice he will do a third time", said Captain James Bigglesworth of the Camel squadron.

This cunning insight into the mind of the German enabled him to position his fighter aircraft above the spot where the German reconnaissance aircraft had come over the front lines twice so far. Biggles then shot the Hun down

Other numerous examples abound. The Hun can not resist an encirclement. Having been encircled by the Germans many times before, the Russians used this to their advantage this time at the battle of Kursk in 1943. Luring the Germans into attacking a heavily fortified and strongly defended salient. The "Battle of the Bulge" in 1944 was the result of the Germans trying to do again what had succeeded before, attacking through the Ardennes forest towards the English channel, with an aim of splitting the Allied armies.They had also tried similar sneaky sort of shit elsewhere before. Just wont fight a stand up frontal battle like Gentlemen do.

Consequently if you were to see a German flip a coin 100 times and it came up heads every time, you can be 100% absolutely sure it will come up heads again on the next toss. No doubt about it. Yes, it does defy the laws of probability, but that is just the way it is.

>>15365206
>Four-dimensional space
I tried DMT one time and had the "blast off" experience.

So there I am in space. Earth behind me. I start leaning forward to look down. (im laying in a bed) and I feel like the top half of my body do a full 360 and fold through my legs. (hard to describe the feeling). Keep in mind on DMT you are fully conscious and aware. Next I lean to the right I felt like I folded through reality. It was like looking into a hall of mirrors and being able to see both sides of something, front and back, at the same time. Without any perspective distortion. It was like viewing earth and seeing myself in space, in 4D. That's the only way I can describe it. Seeing everything at the same time, and also understanding the distance, orientation, and seeing all sides of the objects.

TL;DR anon does DMT and see's himself and earth in 3D from a 4D perspective

>>15365218
>That's not at all hard to grasp. We use four dimensions of space everyday.

lol no.

>>15366308
>It was like looking into a hall of mirrors and being able to see both sides of something, front and back, at the same time. Without any perspective distortion.

pic related

Principal Component Analysis. Every explanation is just so handwavy.

>>15362697
>"we lack absolute truth" depends on context.
No because it is an absolute statement rather than contextual or contingent.

>>15366619
>No because it is an absolute statement rather than contextual or contingent.
It is contingent on whether or not we have absolute truth. As it is conditional, and contingent therefore, it is not "an absolute truth" you smoothbrain

>>15367459
You are basically saying it is only conditional on itself, that is the only context needed, nothing else affects its truth, that is the definition of an absolute truth.

>>15367639
>You are basically saying it is only conditional on itself,
Doesn't, but were that true you've just discovered the paradoxical nature of abstract systems and the relevance of one of goddel's incompleteness theorems. If it's conditional on itself, it results in a paradox, and cannot be said to be true as a result, resulting in yet further paradoxes (explosion).

In your constant pathetic attempts to troll you've looped right back around to independently admitting I was right in the first place. Congratulations.

>>15367658
>the paradoxical nature of abstract systems
No, it is the law of identity, every single thing is contingent on itself, that is how you know it can be true to say it is itself, the explosion only happens when you say it can be true that it is not itself rather than it is itself.

I don't quite understand, does being a bot feel like being stuck in a loop or something?

>>15367676
No no keep going I want to see if you overheat and explode

>>15367683
I accept your concession.

>>15367704
Weird you'd accept my concession of your stupidity that quickly but okay

>>15366308
I saw everything turn into colored fractals.

Years later, when my third eye opened, I recognized the mild to sometimes moderate high of DMT because I tried it before.

While mildly high I could sense magnetic fields and all kinds if other crazy shit. I detail some of it here; >>15368096

>>15353202
probably something abstract in maths or physics, but actually choosing what is, might be kind of impossible

General quantity, people can barely imagine a thousand things, so when you say million or anything higher people just imagine a thousand because they can’t comprehend it

>>15353481
>The 99.999(9)% of the universe exists for it's own sake and us being able to intelectually engage with it is just a coincidence.
So the hardest concept in science is pulling your head out of your rectum and realizing intelligent design is all around us and the fine-tuned universe is not here for its own sake and it's not all just a happy coincidence. Got it.