/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16035027
I look like that and I say that.

>>16035027
Huh? Isn't it the opposite? Follow my hands:

- If it exists, then it can be interacted with.
- If it can be interacted with, then it can be measured. Not necessarily measured well, but even asking humans to rate something on a scale is also measurement.
- Measuring something lets you keep a record of how something behaves and changes.
- If you don't care to understand how something changes, in what sense can you be said to be curious about it?
- If you aren't a fan of measuring things that exist, you lack curiousity.

Who hurt you, my guy? Why are you scared of measuring?

>>16035027
I don't get it

>>16035027
>>IF I CAN'T MEASURE IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!
who are you quoting?

>>16035027
Ye bro she hulk exists even though I have no evidence just trust me bro just be curious bro

>>16035075
axiom of choice deniers

>>16035027
>dogmatic scientism

Measure is not merely physical
t. measure theorist

>>16035027
There exists things that can't be proven to exist
Godel's incompleteness theorem

>>16035363
Idiot misunderstood godel's incompleteness because he saw it in a pop sci video.
That fact has nothing do with Godel as it is a truth which precedes Godel's work.
Fucking idiot doesn't even understand the context of Godel's theorems.
Theorems inhabit a particular space which if preserved preserve the result of the theorem.

>>16035027
Why do you seek wonder in the fanciful rather than in the miracles that abound in reality?

>>16035027
If it can't be measured, then it's impossible to obtain any information about it, which is indistinguishable from it not existing.

>>16035356

>>16035027
because they're low iq
>>16035029
>t. low IQ

>>16035080
I rate she hulk a 2/10, so apparently >>16035043 that is a measurement and she definitely exists.

>>16035387
>it is a truth which precedes Godel's work.
Godel mathematically proved it to a higher standard than cantor's diagonal proofs, so he is the one that gets the credit for proving it.

This thread in summary:
>the swamp gas emanating from the brain I call consciousness can't be measured
>therefore it's so ethereal it might as well be a soul, a signal received by a radio or even the brahman
>my superior reasoning makes you look like an asian legume figure

>>16036263
>"I need you to find Doom on this harddrive."
>"What? There is nothing but electrons on this harddrive. There is no 'Doom'. Do not speak to me of 'programs' and other supernatural things. I measure electrons, so all that exists are electrons."

>>16036265
Structure also exists, shapes can be measured, electrons can also be measured to move about in circuits to demonstrate virtual logic through gates and processors.

>>16035387
why are you so angry little niglet?

>>16036265
Consider the possibility that Doom is what it's like to be that hardware. Consciousness as a product of the brain is still dualism. Two things exist: the material and what it's like to be the material. So there's what-it's-like to be a rock but because rocks have no senses it's probably not like anything at all / indiscernable from non-existence.

>>16036277
"Doom" as a game doesn't exist until it reaches its more phenomenal state of being. Studying neurons or brain scans tells you as much about consciousness as studying a harddrive can help you understand Doom.

>>16036280
No, you can definitely manipulate doom save states and alter information loaded into the phenomenal state of the program without the program itself being active.

>>16036280
>Studying neurons or brain scans tells you as much about consciousness as studying a harddrive can help you understand Doom.
True.
>"Doom" as a game doesn't exist until it reaches its more phenomenal state of being
Mostly false. The problem is that we can only observe the appearance of things but not what it's like to be the things we observe. I agree a little bit in the sense that the phenomal state of being ''arises'' with a reverse thought experiment: suppose we remove all your senses, what is left? Thoughts which are remixes of memorized sensory experiences. Now we remove all your thoughts, what is left? An empty shell, you're gone. The opposite happens since fetal development: senses come online, interrelate, memory and so on.

So I'm tempted to say there's an outside and inside of things but that suggests a sort of duality or panpsychism that's not necessary other than as a metaphor. But I do find it likely that particular material configurations have the property of being conscious. I don't see that in a condescending way (all we are iss dust in the wind) but with amazement (pinocchio is alive and a real boy).

>>16036302
>True.
No, its false, you can get a much better idea of the doom world maps and the flaws and strengths of the monsters that populate it by studying the contents of the harddrive than being stuck in a POV experience playing the game. In fact there was actually some hidden content in Doom II that wasn't found until decades later, not by playing the game, but by studying the code and figuring out how to get there without cheating.
https://mashable.com/article/doom-2-secret-24-years-found

>>16035027
Why are you so devoid of curiosity and wonder that you have to invent things to wonder at?

>>16036552
>No, its false, you can get a much better idea of the doom world maps and the flaws and strengths of the monsters that populate it by studying the contents of the harddrive than being stuck in a POV experience playing the game.
No you can't, because without first knowing what the actual doom game is via playing it, you have no reference for how the harddrive is ordered at all.
Romero would have never been able to find that just studying electrons had he not already played doom

>>16036577
He did it by studying bits and logic gates, hard drives aren't an array of electrons, they are made of flip flops and logic gates and bits.

>without first knowing what the actual doom game is via playing it
You don't need to play it to decode the bitmaps and object oriented programming and recreate the scenes and behavior outside of the game itself.

>>16036552
I simp with your argument but it's flawed because it seems to take the what-it's-like for granted. It's an echo of Mary's room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

If you've only ever seen the code of Doom but never the graphics then you're missing a vital piece of information. Do you think it's possible that at some point in the future we have so much knowledge about physiology that the doctor doesn't ask how the patient feels but just measures the physiological state compared to a norm?

>>16036585
The graphics are embedded in the code.

>>16036584
>He did it by studying bits and logic gates, hard drives aren't an array of electrons, they are made of flip flops and logic gates and bits.
It makes no difference
>You don't need to play it to decode the bitmaps and object oriented programming and recreate the scenes and behavior outside of the game itself.
Lol yes you do, all the structure is already built by the compiler and the standards set for the language, and he already knew how the DOOM game works and was able to associate everything to the game.
This isn't even an opinion. If I gave you a string of bits and told you to tell me what it is, you'd have no way of knowing even in principle. Here let's try now; What does this string represent?

100011110101110101010100011011111010101010101110101011101000001010100000000010110101000010101100100010110000001010010100001111

>>16036590
>he already knew how the DOOM game works
You can learn that by studying the code, he knew what the bitmaps were because he knows how bitmaps are coded.

I could know if you gave me more context, I wouldn't have to open any game to play it if it were just ASCII.

>>16036605
>You can learn that by studying the code,
No, you can't, because you still need the context of the standards of the programming language and the compilers etc.
>I could know if you gave me more context, I wouldn't have to open any game to play it if it were just ASCII.
It's the entire context. Everything is already there.

One way functions exist dude, P is not equal to NP. If you think otherwise you're delusional.

>>16036608
>P is not equal to NP
Proof?

>>16036610
I don't have one :(

>>16035027
>SCIENCE BAAAAAD
>2000 YEAR OLD JEWISH FAIRY TALES GOOOOOD

>>16036608
>you still need the context of the standards of the programming language and the compilers etc.
Which doesn't come from playing the game itself, but from studying the code.

>It's the entire context
No, its not, all the stuff you mentioned like what operating system, programming language, compiler, encoding, data structures, etc is the context.

>>16035027
IFLS fags treat "muh soiyence" like a virtue signaling tool, they don't want to learn anything, they just want to cultivate their narcissism and repulsive know-it-all personalities

>>16039303
This is projection, most obvious from the fact that you're not describing anyone in reality but a stereotypical scapegoat that represents everyone you despise

>>16035027
by demanding that scientific findings be bound to experimental verification the discipline is forced to take this positivist stance.

I don't think scientists exclusively believe in what has been experimentally verified (at least as far as their personal beliefs go) but science is by definition unable to make an assessment on the unmeasurable. This is because measurement is a prerequisite to experimental verification.

Concretely, the unmeasurable is independent from science in the sense that it cannot be either proven or disproven using the tools science is allowed to use. By positivist logic, the only way something like this can be real is if it is real by definition. I contend that defining said phenomena as "not real" is simply since it requires no justification for doing so.

>>16035027
Because soientism inherently appeals to low IQ people

>>16035027
They need guidance in life, mostly they are dipshit who are into science, because it seems to provide light in the darkness. But perons like that doesn't shine personally. Having fans is pain in the ass for everything popular. Popular science is maybe mistake.

>>16039421
you're only upset because you've been accurately characterized

>>16036610
'P is brimmy coal

>>16036588
But the code is meaningless until it is realized by an operating system and given phenomenal being by a monitor interface. Neurons by themselves are just meaningless noise we can only assign function by poking at a brain until something no longer works. From this you might metaphorically end up with statements like "Oh, well I broke the motherboard, I guess this part is where the most important functions of Doom are located".

>>16041935
I am happy that somebody else than me finally understands cognitive neuroscience in a way, that center they disable in experiment in which person stopped responding, is not center of conciusness, but the only fact about that is if it's broken human is unable to process certain kind of information.

>>16035027
>Why are fans of dogmatic scientism so devoid of curiosity and wonder?
That's not true and you know it. Much of science is purely descriptive observation. Analytical science requires measurements, obviously.

>>16043003
>Analytical science requires measurements
no it doesn't, you're confusing analytical with experimental

>>16035027
>IF I CAN'T MEASURE IT AND I WANT IT TO EXIST I'LL JUST MAKE UP SOME FAKE MEASUREMENTS TO JUSTIFY MY BELIEFS!!!
thats how modern scyence really works

>>16035356

>>16035363
Godel's incompleteness theorem is about formal systems of logic and computation. No matter how many axioms you have there will always be a truth expressible with the formal syntax of the logic which can not be proven to follow by logical consequences of the axioms. The incompleteness theorem does not say anything about what is real or what exists. It is statement about formal syntactic systems of logic.

This is all very easy to understand in terms of computation and the halting problem. Essentially it says that the future is not computable. No matter how hard you try to predict the future there will always be something unpredictable that could not be codified with some formal system of logic and computation.

This is all very basic stuff.

>>16035027
these images with exaggerated faces need to stop.

what. in. the. fuck. were these ever supposed to convey? no one looks like that, no one reacts that way anymore due to cameras everywhere. it's just overused and a retarded forced meme

>>16035027
Thats true. If someone can't compare/measure, then it doesn't exists in anyone consciousness. The moment something appears in our consciousness, it is automatically compared/measured against all others

>>16041935
You still don't have to actually play doom to do any of that.
They aren't just monitoring neurons by themselves, they are looking at connections, groupings, and structures.

>>16035363
Thats false you 83 iq retard nigger faggot. If ur theory is powerful enough it can prove or disprove whatever you want. English language is expressive as hell and allows you to think and speak about whatever you can think off. You just need a powerful enough theory such that whatever might fall outside of it shall just not be called mathematics. The real problem comes from the second one which is "i will give you a pathological example that always holds" and thats what destroys Hilbert program. It doesn't mean there is some truth out there that can't be proven, that may be the case or may not be but it doesn't follow from that. What follows is that formalism has limits

The vast majority of people have utterly nothing to do with science. What they have are philosophical viewpoints founded on intuitive understanding of very basic facts. They can be programmed by propagandists to present their philosophical viewpoint as "science".

For example. Audiophiles know that hi-res music sounds better. There are going to anons reading that who will strongly reject the premise of hi-res audio sounding better, and they will use "science" as the reason why audiophiles are delusional. If you challenge the "science" you’ll find that the anon’s understand of the science is laughably superficial and limited. But in spite of being drastically underinformed on the relevant scientific fields the anon will be unwilling to learn because he in fact doesn’t CARE. He’s only working out an emotional reaction against an out-group (successful working adults, middle-class boomers, etc) and uses a philosophical outlook to debate his points. Science is the furthest thing from his mind. Utterly uncurious, completely without a sense of wonder of the unknown. Just barely sentient cattle.

>>16045074
>If ur theory is powerful enough it can prove or disprove whatever you want.
The prove whether or not pi when expressed in decimals ever repeats.

>>16045084
You've just described the majority of /sci/ on any given topic

>>16045084
>For example. Audiophiles know that hi-res music sounds better.

I've found that there are basically two classes of audiophiles. They are largely divided into "sound and music lovers" and "equipment addicts". Of course it should be clear that I consider myself the former and see the latter as inferior, but it really is interesting to see the difference in culture when these two groups clash. Like, there really are a group of people who buy into all the weird stuff audio manufacturers will try to sell them, and hang out with other people who do the same and are proud to be able to splash their paycheck on whatever the latest doodad that's claimed to improve their sonic experience. These people have no understanding of audio engineering or acoustics beyond what gear publications tell them they should value, and they are specifically the people who will put on albums by Diana Krall (which is sold to be the Big Thing in these circles) and consider that a positive mark of taste and adult musical sophistication.

>>16045084
>What they have are philosophical viewpoints
Who programs them with those viewpoints and why?

>>16035027
>Why are fans of dogmatic scientism so devoid of curiosity and wonder?

>>16035043
> If it exists, then it can be interacted with.
> Numbers can't be interacted with
> Numbers don't exist
> Science depends on numbers
> Therefore science doesn't exist
Why are atheist such low iq