/sci/ - Science & Math

This is actually a great filter for science. If things are too complex to be desribed under abstract assumptions, every science fails ultimately.

>>15748198
Because it works as a tool for predicting phenomena in the real world, allowing us ti exercise our will to power

>>15748214
This, 5 influence per month is just too good to not activate the edict.

This is why I hate philosophers. There are plenty of examples of equal things irl. From molecules to atoms and such. There are perfect straight lines and circles and the are so many absolute measures. Did that retard even take some elementary science?
For a moment let's say there are something that are not equal, so? Who cares? The are always approximations such work really good.

>>15748281
>there are perfect circles
perfect to how many digits of pi?

>>15748281
You sound actually deranged. Most actual scientists will agree with the statement in OP at least as far as the factual content goes. Models are only models.

>>15748290
>implying
Only brainlets do. The universe is math

>>15748323
>muh heckin' universerinoes is math
One of the most primitive religions.

>>15748323
>The universe is math

ENTER

>>15748198
picrel doesn't know shit about math, like all these other non-technical bitter philosophers.
First order logic don't need to assume equality , it can recreate it. For instance:

Let L the first order language over the signature consisting of a single binary relational symbol {€} (and no equality!!).
If a b are two letters, define "a == b":= (forall c, (c € a <-> c € b))/\ (forall c, (a € c <-> b € c)). The using a basic induction over the number of symbols of a formula and first order classical logic (or even first order intuitionistic logic), it is routine to prove that if n is any integer, x_1,...,x_n are distinct letters, a_1,...,a_n, b_1,...,b_n are any letters and F is any formula of L, then (a_1 == b_1) -> (a_2 == b_2) -> ... -> (a_n == b_n) -> (F[x_1 := a_1, ... x_n:= a_n] <-> F[x_1:= b_1,...,x_n := b_n]) is a theorem of first-order logic (***).
From this the symbol == satisfy the Leibniz property, namely the formula x == y-> G[z:= x] <-> G[z:= y] is always a theorem.

the first order language L is the one used for encoding all set theory, hence virtually all mathematics.

With this notation, both following formulas are immediately provably equivalent and constitute the "extensionality axiom":
1°) forall x forall y (forall z, z € x <-> z € y) -> x == y
2°) forall x forall y (forall z, z € x <-> z € y) -> (forall z, x € z -> y € z). Hence, n set theory, the defnition of equality could be simplified into "x = y := forall z, z € x <-> z € y".

In summary (***) says that in logic and math at least, "equal" means "indistinguible from the language" (and "substitutable each other everywhere in the discourse").

>>15748479
in (***) it is assumed that substitution is capture free and that all free variables of F are among x_1, x_2, ... x_n of course.

>>15748284
the nature of nature is perfect math. are you saying the universe is ever going to get something wrong bc that is a valid question like that is also part of nature is destruction or a failure is some way such as atoms failing to hold onto electrons but the math is still built in. IF you had a idk light beam that made a halo or bulb pulse of light and it ripples that ripple onto infinity will follow the digits of pi. it never won't, bc the universe said so

the topic is the relationship between the abstract and real, well the real is being governed by... something lol. and I'm not a philosopher but the reason models work is bc of this. and to be crazy, the real sits inside the abstract. models simply describe the effects of those governors and how they actually exist. there are still laws in the abstract. commutative laws are like newton's laws. there is the abstract realm free from physical existence, and then there is a zone of the abstract with even more rules, this is just like two math formulas or patterns coming together in logical fashion. the real universe is a concoction of the abstract, the small set of things that are capable of actually existing together for a time in a space. the rules are logical and very limiting.

this is a metaphysics thread
all metaphysics discussion go in /lit/ & /his/
thanks for playing 4chan
better luck next time :-)

>>15748284
>>15748290
Coping philosotards. If you haven't had a PhD in math or theoretical physics yet, don't reply to me.

>>15748703
I just invented an imaginary institution of higher learning and granted myself an imaginary PhD in math.
Checkmate, qualtard.

>>15748710
>power of a philosotard
have fun imagining stuffs and don't forget to take meds.

Because they're reactionaries and anti-revolutionaries who work for the bourgeoisie

>>15748714
I just invented an imaginary psychiatrist and he gave me an imaginary prescription for imaginary meds.
The imaginary meds give me the power to turn imagination into reality.
Now I'm building a real campus that will become a real institution of higher learning that will grant me a real math PhD.

>>15748715
lol meds etc

>>15748198
I actually do wonder from time to time if things cease or vice versa, come into being true at certain points in history. Witches for example. They may not be real today, but how do we know they weren't real in 16th century Germany? Hence making witch burnings a practical necessity

>>15748866
or what if reality just happens to line up in a way that relativity is true today, but that will cease being the case in 50 years

>>15748866
Witches are real
pic related

>>15748886
proofs of witchcraft
pdf related

>Logic rests on assumptions that do not correspond to the real world.
logic often operates on abstract principles, these principles are tools to understand and navigate the real world.

>The assumption that there are equal things.
The concept of equality in logic and mathematics is abstract and doesn't claim that two real-world objects can be perfectly equal in every aspect.

>Logic and mathematics arose from the belief that their abstract concepts exist in the real world.
The Greeks were well aware of the distinction between abstract ideals and their imperfect real-world manifestations. Plato's theory of forms, for instance, posits that abstract ideals (or forms) are more "real" than their earthly counterparts but are not tangible in the same way.

I never read philosophy but I would have at least expected him to be somewhat educated and understand such basic things. He sounds like a wordcel that would ask "when will we ever use this in real life!" during some high school math course. What an absolute fucking nonce. Do people really look up to this guy as any sort of great thinker?

>I never read philosophy but I would have at least expected him to be somewhat educated and understand such basic things.
Does it ever occur to a poster like this that he himself might just be the retard? He seems SO close to this revalation and yet so far away.

>>15748915
I never claimed to be a philosophy expert, nor do I whore out my name and image like Nietzche has, mcdonalds style.

He is quoted as claiming that mathematics arose from the belief that abstract concepts exist in the real world. He is wrong, very wrong. I don't read his garbage, but I know very well all his writings fall in the domain of edgy kids too stupid to apply themselves to an actual subject of study.

He's wrong, he's a meme, and you worship him like a teenaged girl worshiping boybands. How are you not embarassed?

>>15748198
Kinda agree but without math you bust wouldn't be able to build anything, and engineer needs math
we'd be fucked

>>15748919
Have you considered the possibility that maybe you just didn't understand what you read?

>>15748926
You have a comical religious conviction when it comes to the writing of a random guy from the 1800s.

>>15748715
Who wrote this

>>15748932
You have a comical religious conviction that anyone who can see the irony in your post is some great Nietzsche fan, but you didn't answer my question.

>>15748939
Have you considered the possibility that maybe you just didn't understand what you read?

>>15748946
I always do. Either way, Nietzsche was a pretty well-educated man. You, on the other hand... according to your own admission...Maybe you should consider the possibility that you're the retard after all.

>>15748947
>Nietzsche was a pretty well-educated man.
By his own exposure he wasn't.
>by your own admission
Reading long form 1800s rich NEET shitposts is not education, any more than reading harry potter makes you educated.

>>15748947
Nietzche was as educated as hunter biden. riding on daddy money, homeless urchin otherwise.

>>15748950
Ok, I'll spell it out for you outright: you're the retard, man. You're welcome.

>>15748905
>>15748919
I agree.
The concept of an abstraction is well understood by mathematicians, scientists, and engineers today. It’s arrogant to assume that the people who developed mathematics didn’t understand that it was an abstraction.
Also, why would they not still develop mathematics if they knew it was an abstraction. It’s still useful for science and engineering.

>>15749018
90 IQ post.

>>15749018
>The concept of an abstraction is well understood by mathematicians, scientists, and engineers today.
And yet no mathematician, scientist or engineer today has gone a minute in his life without treating abstractions as if they were real.

What is it with philositards and throwing autism tantrums whenever they get btfo? Is it cope? Are they unable to accept that their god-like figure isn't infallible? That their ideas are in fact, weak and flawed?

>>15749066
Show me where the philosopher touched you, Timmy.

>>15749051
>And yet no mathematician, scientist or engineer today has gone a minute in his life without treating abstractions as if they were real.
this. there's """understanding""" that you're dealing with abstractions and then there's understanding it. people who understand become buddhist monks or anti-rationalists

>>15748281
Those things can't be constructed from physical objects, but they can be understood mentally, and we can measure how far off a physical object is from its platonic form (e.g. the margin of error in a machined mechanical part). In that sense, it's inarguable that they are real, but a lot of people don't want mental objects to be real so will argue with maximum autism against their existence.

>>15749083
>i imagine stuff therefore it exists

>>15748323
Ok then. Does the universe abide by ZFC set theory or VNB set theory?

>>15749090
Shut the fuck up, you autistic fucking philosopher scum. I hate you people so much it's unreal. Lurn2abstractions.

>>15749090
why does set theory attracts so many crackpots and people who don't actually do set theory? Most of them immediately try to draw insane conclusions by applying set theory to things that aren't even sets. All they know is popsci zfc, incompleteness etc etc. Set theory is nothing supernatural, in fact I found it one of the most easiest topics in maths. Try reading it first. Then try doing theory of universe. Then see how retarded your "philosophical" question is.

>>15749120
You sure are fucking dumb.

>>15749130
Have you actually done set theory philosotard? As in mathematics class like fr

>>15749120
>why does set theory attracts so many crackpots
Because affirming infinite regress would undermine Thomistic theology which asserts a necessary first mover. Or at least that's its percieved implication, not sure why set theory would do away with contingency but that's what I've heard people argue.

>>15749142
You think he literally wanted to know if its ZFC or VNB, you terminal dumbshit? He was mocking you.

>>15748198

>>15749073
Just because all scientific or mathematical models are abstractions, doesn’t mean you should be a relativist. The abstractions are good enough to build a society on.

>>15749209
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPUOT46ucrk

Germans are at the base of all of the worlds problems.

>>15748635
Actually, it's philosophy of science. Metaphysics thread would be more like 'is existence essential or accidental to an object?'-- a linguistic scheme.
I think what neetchee is trying to say here is that people are more married to the intuitions they conceive in their mind rather than the immediate carnal world that he appeals to. Which is relevant to /sci/ because he's basically calling us coping losers that can't even possess truth.
>>15748214
>Because it works as a tool for predicting phenomena in the real world, allowing us ti exercise our will to power
When was the last time you saw a caesar using arithmetic, a stalin using modus ponens? They have their peons do that for them.

>>15749085
yes, my tulpa is real

>>15748905
Yes. He was one of the most influential and greatest, he was brilliant. He’s not saying math or science is useless but he is skeptical about what knowledge of the world these sensory observations can bring us. This quote is taken from a lengthier section concerning language, and how we like to think we can arrive at knowledge from language, but it’s a creation of man and man’s attempt to root the world (which is everchanging and already not understood) in firm definitions therefore attempting to become masters of it.

>>15749225
What’s your point? Different people for different things. Will to power isn’t exclusive for rulers nor is that the only ideal.

>>15749210
are the "relativists" in the room with us? either way, you lie when you pretend that your limited intellectual acknowledgment is "understanding". if i point to a thing and ask you "what is this?", you'll answer with a label that refers to some abstraction, never giving it a second thought. if i ask you to tell me something true about the world, i'll get nothing but a soup of abstractions. if i ask you why something is the way it is, you'll tell me a fairytale about causes and effects and objects and laws, a story consisting entirely of mental constructs, and assure me that it is so. reason deals with nothing but abstractions, yet nothing is real that is abstract. you can appeal to survival necessities and the pragmatic usefulness of your head-canon, and nietzsche would not dispute you on that, but the rationalism upon which both the modern scientific ethos and the ancient philosophical ethos rest, is something else altogether: it views reason not as a pragmatic necessity but as the ultimate source of truth and the ultimate connection of reality, using it to bludgeon every other aspect of the human experience. and that is nietzsche's point, not that math is useless

>>15749240
So what you're telling me is that theorycels (think oppenheimer) developing their science for chad (truman) is their power? Sounds pretty cucked if you ask me.

>>15748198
> a humanitarian doesn't understand what abstraction is
Did he really write that? Was he under the influence of psychotropic medicine? Because I respect him as a poet, but gush that take is retarded. And I am rather humanitarian myself.

>>15749255
90 IQ post. Read the thread.

>>15749259
>Read the thread.
Yes, I can see, you work as a broken iq-metre itt, but what exactly was I supposed to read? Was it a fake quote?

>>15748281
name one example of 2 exactly equal objects.

>>15749263
Any of the multiple posts that explain why you simply didn't understand the quote.

>>15749270
well what was there to understand?
4 in 4 apples and 4 oranges is the same 4.

>>15749273
Read the thread, you dense fuck.

>>15749275
No, argue me yourself.

>>15749229
The problem is that it's not a very useful outlook, yes, sure, we can never really know things about the empirical nature of the existence that stems all around us. We are flawed observers after all, however, what's the point? How does coming to the understanding that thought doesn't equate 1:1 with reality help us in any way? Sure, maybe you can argue about platonic forms, and how realizations of them are not perfect, since reality isn't perfect. Except, abstraction, and thought forms give construction to a "world". It's is extremely important to the basis of enacting one's will from their "copy" onto the "real thing". Which is what he misses here, so to complain that if people all just thought, "well these two things aren't the same, so fuck it." is juvenile, and extremely shortsighted, as is most of his views. Which is why I am never surprised when young people flock to him like he is some sort of ultimate truth to the universe. Retards.

>>15749277
>heckin' debate me!!!
Don't care. I'm just telling you to read the thread for your own education.

>>15749249
Right, we have no abstraction that gives absolute truth, and that’s impossible to argue against. Suppose you rejected rationalism because of it, how could that provide any benefit?
Also, what do you mean by “bludgeon every other aspect of the human experience?”

>>15749280
>The problem is that it's not a very useful outlook
it's a very useful outlook as far as putting reason back in its place goes, and it's doubly relevant in a culture where pretenses of reason are used to try to kill the human spirit and to crush the individual

math was never debunked because no one with an IQ above 140 believed it in the first place

>>15749286
>Suppose you rejected rationalism because of it, how could that provide any benefit?
it would provide the same benefit as would ridding yourself of any delusion. if nothing else, it would slow your descent into insanity (unless you're nietzsche, i guess). see >>15749287

>>15749286
it would provide the same benefit as ridding yourself of any other delusion would. if nothing else, it would slow your descent into insanity (unless you're nietzsche, i guess). see >>15749287

>>15749281
a) repetitio est mater studiorum
b) there's nothing in the thread supporting his take, nigger

>>15749298
Any of these:
>>15749051
>>15749073
>>15749229
>>15749249

>>15749301
They are real.. in my mind.
(and no, I'm not joking, thoughts are real, but not on the same level as apples or oranges)

>>15749280
He’s not saying “fuck it” though, that’s not the point here. Most of Nietzsche is more of an exploration of sorts, he isn’t a systematizer that’s looking to impress a specific way of doing things on the reader. But, I say that it is important in order to not get too held into viewing the world in a specific way. I don’t think Nietzsche would ever knock down the man of science who dedicates his life to it, that’s not the point.

>>15749254
Truman and Oppenheimer are two different individuals who have their own unique set of drives that compelled them to make great achievements in life.

>>15749266
Two hydrogen atoms.

>>15748198
Mathematics is a model, and a fairly accurate model at that. It's not the actual underlying code of the universe.

>>15749305
>They are real.. in my mind.
right...... well, now you think like nietzschean

>>15749307
ChatGPT post

>>15749308
Which 2? How are you determining that they are exactly equal?

>>15748198
Mathematics doesn't have a solid foundation in first-order logic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIkyqLDl9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOwG-hcd_k

>>15749346
>>15749308
PSA: two hydrogen atoms can't both be in the same place at the same time. Insofar as atoms have positions, no two hydrogen atoms are equal.

>>15749308
Atoms are not identical even if the same element you cockroach.

>>15749322
I’m just trying to say the theme isn’t exclusive to one type of man. WtP is in everything.

>>15749367
What is the difference between two hydrogen atoms?

Why the fuck can't you get to the point in the OP instead of halfway down the thread? This website could be so much less frustrating.

>>15749402
OP just dumped this turd and left. It's an obvious trolljob.

>>15749402
>>15749410
i love seeing science autists engage with epistemology 101, i can see the gears turning in your heads putting the pieces together

>>15749425
> i can see the gears turning
Do you also hear voices? The people you were targeting all just spouted the same automated reply and declared themselves victors. You made them feel smart.

>>15749425
Is that really epistemology 101? It took me most of the summer to read BG&E. Though I wasn’t in any rush.

>math isn't literally real
literally the opinion of most maths people

>>15749479
it was 100 years ago when everyone in the field was chasing the elusive everything theory

>>15749382
depends on which 2 atoms you compare.

>>15749249
>if i ask you to tell me something true about the world, i'll get nothing but a soup of abstractions
>ultimate source of truth and the ultimate connection of reality

Looks like you're making your own soup there. Out of not just abstractions but what I call grandiose abstractions, i. e., abstractions where the adjectives being abstracted are coequal in scope to their opposites but one of the opposite abstractions is far greater. There is no "Truth" or "reality". Only true statements and real things.

>>15749266
>>15749346
>>15749367
>>15749365
This is exactly why I don't talk to those without at least a PhD in theoretical physics or some hardcore maffs. There's a branch of physics which deals with distinguishable and indistinguishable particles. Its called statistical mechanics. Join a uni and read this subject before your uneducated ass starts taking nonsense philosophy.

>>15749209

Anglo Philosophers: *crickets*

>>15749649
you sound like you're having a psychotic fit

>>15749785
>b-b-b-b-but muh imaginary mathematical abstraction says particles have no definite positions therefore they can have the same position wave function therefore...
Therefore what? You ever gonna measure two particles occupying the same space? Talk about narcissistic midwits deluding themselves using their precious abstractions.

>>15748198
because in real life things don't have to be right, they have to "just" right enough. Which math does a wonderful job at.

>>15749969
There's no imaginary abstraction, uneducated retard. Read some shit before replying to me. Picrel is a good undergrad textbook for starters.

>>15750059
>there are no imaginary abstractions
>read muh statistical mechanics
Again, thanks for showing up and obliviously embodying the point.

>>15748703
Theoretical physics PhD, reporting in.

>>15749090
It obviouslt abides by the theory of dependent types, you fucking asswipe.

>>15749266
Are we talking definitional equality or denotational equality? Or equivalence classes? Ask a proper fucking question, retard

>>15748198
nietzsche almost failed school because he didn't get math

>>15749309
Unless we find an equation which can generate it which has no free parameters... checkmate atheists

>>15748198
>>15749973
This. Math wasn't "debunked," it was proven imperfect.

>>15749785
You're too stupid to understand what the quote means despite it being plain and too stupid to understand the distinction between map and territory.

>>15748342
i saw that redit post too

>>15748323
You are a rabbi

>>15748323
>The universe is math
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
You think it means that reality is somehow composed of math, but actually, you are saying that your model of the universe has the same limitations as math because it is derived from math and all its logical explosiveness such that the only beginning you can postulate for the universe is a massive explosion between an immeasurable state and an arbitrary state of development.

>>15749382
The position and velocity of their electrons

>>15749474
>Is that really epistemology 101
the distinction between material and metaphysical? yeah. read kant if you want turbo autism.

>>15748198
Nobody has provided a viable alternative. People can sit back and criticize math all they want, wont change anything unless you can demonstrate something better

>>15748198
>debunked
cock slurper math's a game, and you got filtered, like wowzers, you debunked call of cthulhu, woe is me... i seriously loath philosoniggers

>>15749219
So interesting, I don't know what their problems is. Why couldn't they just take life less seriously?

>>15749219
> muh sex millionen!
> exterminate die deutsche
pathetic..

>>15756639
He is proposing in the quote that logic is better than math even though they both have problems, math's is problems are more severe and arithmetic probably never should have arise from logic implying it has set logic back significantly.

>>15749225
>When was the last time you saw a caesar using arithmetic, a stalin using modus ponens? They have their peons do that for them.
so they're still relying on math?