/sci/ - Science & Math

Philosophy is retarded and the opposite of math.

>>15548896
Set theory is a mix of philosophy and theology. It doesn't belong in math.

>>15548896
Math is naught but a mere branch of philosophy.

>>15548924
Factually false. Stop committing intellectual property theft, philosopleb.

>>15548926
The truth angers you. But it is the truth nonetheless. You wish to Balkanize the branches of philosophy, but YOU WILL NEVER BE A REAL SCIENCE. YOU ARE A PHILOSOPHY TWISTED BY PSEUDS AND DIMWITS INTO A CRUDE MOCKERY OF A SCIENCE. Thus is life.

>>15548984
Philosophy is not only dead, it was never alive to begin with, and pseud midwits like you keep worshipping its corpse instead of letting us bury it. Have some decency, buddy.

>>15548888
My opinions on everything are all correct and you haven't seriously thought about them if you disagree.

>>15549531
actual non-meme retard

>>15548888
You're an idiot. The purpose of philosophy isn't discovery of truth. It's pure reflection. It's to reflect one's hidden assumptions or to reflect various streams of thought or cultural movements. People think and behave and live. The purpose of a philosopher isn't to do this job for other people, it's to articulate it. It having been made articulate, the light shines through it for what it is, and it is back on the people to again decide what to make of it.
>>15548896
You're an idiot. Both philosophy and mathematics have a tight history of overlapping key figures such as Leibnitz, Descartes etc. This is because they're both disciplines which as opposed to the natural sciences (the only actual places of actual knowledge of reality as it is, which however require experiment etc.) concern themselves with pure reasoning, argumentation etc. especially in their methodology. (remaining academic disciplines are fraud or occupational training for the most part)
>>15548897
You're an idiot, or I'm autistic and you're merely joking/baiting. Set theory is math, not philosophy. Clearly. Set theory is rarely used in philosophy, except for logicians, whereas it's used in mathematics starting from the most rudimentary proofs.
>>15548924
You're an idiot. People are a speaking species. And they are a reasoning species. Often, but not always, these things overlap, especially for wordcels. There have been people and subcultures known for doing such, especially at the overlap, especially in antiquity. These people were called philosophers, because nothing has been made articulate well back then. But that shows infancy of knowledge at the time if anything. First there were "shamans", then there were "sages", then there were "philosophers", now there are "scientists".

t. philosophy major who's a pure maths flunk-out retard

Philosophy is anti-intellectual. It demands to believe things without proof.

>>15549592
>philosophy major who's a pure maths flunk-out retard
You are naught but a mere ethical philosopher, or whatever other branch of philosophy you are focusing on.
Your personal neglect of the mathematical branch of the tree of philosophy is not evidence of it's own differentiated identity separate from philosophy. Just as If a doctor chose to focus treatment on a patient's left limb, his right limb does not cease to exist, or become an organism of it's own. It's all still connected to the body.
A branch of a tree can even grow very large, and may even appear to be it's own tree, outgrowing the trunk of the actual tree. But don't be deluded, for it is still naught but a mere branch, and has neither growth, nor sustenace without a continued connection to the roots of the tree from whence it originates.

>This is because they're both disciplines which as opposed to the natural sciences
Aah natural sciences, also well known as natural philosophy. Truly, naught but another mere branch of the fruitful tree of philosophy. A beautiful branch indeed.


You claim to be a philosopher, yet you seem to lack comprehension of what philosophy even is. I would reflect and contemplate more, and perhaps articulate the meaning better next time. Display that you truly do fathom the discipline that you represent.

>>15549592
>>15549622
You're both narcissistic pseuds who don't know shit about neither philosophy nor math nor science. Either stop talking out of your uneducated ass or fuck off to reddit where you belong. Your posts are too cringe to read.

>>15548888
present an argument for finitism that doesn't rely on some queasy fee fee about certain objects of thought being "unnatural"

>>15549628
>who don't know shit about neither philosophy nor math nor science
'nuff said.

>>15549622
Firstly, the role of philosophy is in large part reflection. Philosophers of mathematics are reflecting upon mathematics. Even though philosophy of mathematics and mathematics itself exist, that's like talking about color theorists and painters. Philosophers may speculate about what scientists do, but they usually lack the art of the craft and are seldom significant participants in it. Or as was put better before me "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds", which may be a bit extreme, but maybe it is in fact the case. This is even more so the case in terms of the relationship of philosophers to physics and mathematicians. That doesn't mean it's useless, however. For instance, one thing is knowing something, the other is knowing what to do with it. Philosophy can be really useful for deciding the latter. If done right anyways.
Secondly, natural sciences aren't a branch of philosophy. I said that at a particular stage the role that scientists now fulfill was that which was preceded by philosophers which was before then preceded by shamans. Nobody gives a shit about shamans nowadays, because they're not irrelevant, as they were superseded by philosophers. Similar is the case and relationship for philosophy and science. Of course philosophy was born out of shamanism and science out of philosophy. But that's like saying our monkey predecessor or rat predecessor was superior to us now as humans. Knowledge has evolved, and with it the philosophy project has been phased out for the most part.
>>15549628
>narcissistic
buzzword void of meaning, usually used as some form of ressentiment. in this context of the inarticulate
>pseuds
touche

bump

>>15549904
>Philosophers can be really useful for deciding the latter
Show me one example where this ever happened.

>>15549634
1. All definitions that can be effectively (algorithmically) verified turn out to be equivalent to definitions about natural numbers and finite objects.
2. Transfinite set theory cannot be encoded on a computer. You can only talk about it in an indirect way, and the claims you make about transfinite set theory are not empirically verifiable/falsifiable.
3. A lot of the simplest questions about transfinite set theory have been shown to be undecidable within current axiomatic frameworks, and no new convincing axiomatic framework has been created to resolve them. There is no general agreed upon way that these questions could be resolved, demonstrating they have a fake, made up quality about them.
4. No definition of a transfinite set has ever been given (as opposed to definitions of finite objects). Nobody knows whether they're talking about the same thing when they talk about infinite sets.
5. No models of transfinite set theory have been exhibited.

>>15552024
The natural numbers exist and your autistic screeching doesn't refute them.

>>15552030
The natural numbers exist, I agree. Read my post again.

>>15552062
Then your post was off-topic. He asked for arguments in favor of finitism. You talked a lot of shit about trannies. Now you admit that finitism is wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time.

>>15552198
I think you might be thinking of ultrafinitism, not finitism? Finitists believe that the natural numbers exists, just not larger infinities like the reals.

>>15552217
>believe
There is no place for faith in math. Math relies on proof.

>>15552226
Every proof relies on axioms.

>>15552232
False.

>>15552030
>The natural numbers exist
Why? Nothing prohibits them from being an abstractions that people made up

>>15552413
Abstractions exist. You're a dummy.

>>15552415
>My delusions & hallucinations really exist
You're schizophrenic

>>15552024
1. Wtf is "verifying" a definiton?
2. Why should being encoded on a computer matter? We only interpret the computer as "computing" by the logical structure we use to construct it. Nothing magical or fundamental about it compared to other machines. Logic comes first, algorithm/calculation after.
3. Nothing wrong with a provably undecidable question. All there is mathematically to know about that specific question is checked off then, within that axiom system. If you want to search for others knock ys out. Otherwise it's like seething about circle-squaring being provably impossible.
>fake, made up quality about them.
I said no queasy fee fees.
4. I indeed don't know what you mean by "transfinite set". Uncountable set? Perfectly well-defined. Sets of transfinite numbers? Also not a problem. Again, definitions are logical and not computational (which would in fact be absurd). e is perfectly well-defined despite not being "fully" calculable. Its characteristics would be enough even if one couldn't calculate a single digit.
5. Cope, that doesn't matter.

>>15552415
>Abstractions exist
How and Why? Do abstractions existing mean that anime is real?

>>15548888
Yeah I don't see how you can fail to be a platonist unless you think we're in a simulation or some higher concrete power is fucking with physics.

>>15548926
philosophy -> logic - > arithmetic logic

>>15549600
Only noumenon has no proof, phenomenon are concrete.

philosophy is the highest form of academic discipline