/sci/ - Science & Math

He's not incorrect. He phrased his title in a niggardly way, but his point is that the value of an abstraction depends on its effectiveness at modeling what is being abstracted. He's arguing against the idea that numbers are like objective platonic ideas. It's basic formalism.

>>15841615
this is what happens when the axiom is permitted to be watered down

>>15841615
>After seeing the impact of both the online dialogue and the recent article, Carr’s “hope is that you understand the flexible relationship between our mathematical systems, our perceptions of the world, and the symbolic manipulations we use to reason about reality. We are not passive observers.”
Sounds like an excellent candidate for the job.

>>15841642
Incidentally, no one is denying you that freedom.

>>15841642
>this is what happens when the axiom is permitted to be watered down

Your axioms cannot be true in reality, because they use undefined concepts ("∈"). They can only be used in useful ways.

>>15841615
I've never known a real scientist to be so terminally incurious, closed-minded, and downright dishonest as your average /sci/tard. The irony is you all seem to think of yourselves as Isaac Newtons and Galileos but you represent, in all cases, the establishment trying to keep the paradigm from shifting.

>>15841684
>muh paradigm
You're a nigger that failed basic math.

>>15841615
Oh, wowwy! The next time I buy two loaves of bread at the store I will buy two more and have five. So when I take it to the front the cashier will charge me for four under their false belief and have one for free. Jokes on them!

>>15841656

>>15841663
0y0yx

>>15841615
Criticizing Harvard is racist.

>>15841615
>get $100k off your mortgage by paying 200k + 200k

Two + Two = Five
(in my invented language where the word "Five" describes the number of o's you see here: oooo, and the word "Two" just has the same meaning as in English. This is a very deep and insightful. I should publish a paper on this. I've also invented a word for people I like. It's written friend, but the f is pronounced just like the n in the English word nigger, the r is pronounced just like the i in the English word nigger, the i is pronounced just like the g in the English word nigger, the e is pronounced just like the second g in the English word nigger, the n is pronounced just like the e in the English word nigger, the d is pronounced just like the r in the English word nigger.)

>>15841615
There is no proof showing why 2+2 wouldn't equal 5. Math is artificial, and thus prone to internal bias.

>>15841615
We made it bros. Nobel prize here we come.

>>15841739
also antisemitic

>>15841996
tru dat, tru dat

>>15841689
the n word is racist

>>15841996
Only if you nootice that a certain demographic is heavily overrepresented there.

>>15841633
What if the word cat actually meant dog! Haha! I'd have fooled you :)

>>15842415
nice

>>15841615
>>15841732

RETVRNERS, of all people, should agree that Mathematics is fake and gay.

This guy is a fucking idiot. Everyone knows that context can alter the way you need to interpret your results, but you don't apply that to the abstraction (mathematics) in reverse. You consider the context in addition to the abstraction when required for your application. Literally everyone does this, or none of our technology would work. He's stating the obvious in a retarded way for clickbait and to attempt to sound smart and controversial.

>>15841842
When you use math to make something, it works the way you intended. That's the proof, niggerfaggot. Math isn't philosophy. Try building anything while assuming 2+2=5 and see where it gets you.

>>15842481
>What if the word man actually meant woman?

>>15841633
>He's arguing against the idea that numbers are like objective platonic ideas
They are.

>>15842611
Checked , this is one of the "wokes" GOTO arguments very closely related to the "you can't even define x " argument when defending one of their horribly flawed ideas.

I have people tell me gender is science and then moments later claim gender identity has never claimed to be a scientific concept.

They just say whatever suits them at the time like narcissistic people

>>15841633
>but his point is that the value of an abstraction depends on its effectiveness at modeling what is being abstracted
so what's the reality that is being abstracted by numbers?
Is the idea that this many dots .. .. the same as this many .... an arbitrary social construct? It's either that or an objective platonic truth.

>>15842663
Mathematical platonic forms don't exist senpai

>>15841633
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

>>15842663
Proof?

>>15842795
And? The nigger is making a real point, albeit an old and played-out one

>>15842788
It’s the idea that 2 apple added to 2 apples will yield 4 apples. These observations are translated into an abstracted form

>>15842808
>the idea that 2 apple added to 2 apples will yield 4 apples
that already presupposes numbers and that they follow a logic which is not dependent on our decision to model it this or that way

>>15842569

>>15842815
>that already presupposes numbers

it presupposes that we observe many things and few things, and may assign names to these amounts of objects. This is empirically true

>>15842868
>many things and few things, and may assign names to these amounts of objects.
no, "many and few" is not at all the same as *exactly* 2, 3, 4 things. By referring to "these amounts" you again presuppose the concept of number as something objectively existing.

Or is the whole point that the symbol "5" could have been designated as the symbol for the number 4? That's a kindergarden insight, about as astute as that we could use the hindi instead of the latin alphabet for the same sounds.

>>15842801

No, theorem.

>>15842952
we have arbitrary precision decimals

>>15841615
2+2 = YOU"RE A CIS WIHTE MALE RACIST!!!

>>15843178
Like 2 peas in a pod

I am that I am that

>>15842481
Thanks Ogre.

>>15841615
You wouldn't get it, you don't have a stat PhD from an Ivy league school.

>>15843248
Is that what it takes to figure out 2+2 these days?

>>15842663
They aren't

>>15841663
What's wrong with undefined concepts? I can recognize things without defining them perfectly fine.