/sci/ - Science & Math

"The only thing I know, is that I know nothing." - Socrates

There are no two pencils, it's just an illusion.

A geuss..

>>2014234
I read through my post and only found one error (I mean to say a motherboard within the box), which hardly warrants a grammar-nazi post such as yours.

This is obvious. However probably not true so get on with your 2+2=4 life

Very unlikely "everything" we know could be wrong. The Idea of arithmetic is going to be around in any primitive culture.

Science is a different story however.

"The only thing I know, is that I like little boys." - Socrates

>>2014022
Prove it.

>>2014237
You're making a mistake in assuming ancient thought was so advanced to be able to think numbers apart from reality. Writing was invented based on tokens linked to reality, accounting was also invented based on keeping records of reality (land statistics, agricultural products stats, contracts, exchanges), therefore the historical records show that the first instances of numbers were NOT linked to abstract reasoning or mathematic/logic reasoning, they were practical ways of doing accounting and contracts.

l2Sumerian civilisation.

>mfw go with it until you have a better solution

>>2014028
>Basic Math in Monkeys

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050328

I know OP is either a troll, 12 year old or an idiot.

>>2014279
I don't give a damn about what people used to think and I don't see how their opinions matter itt.

>everything we know could be wrong.
You proved that statement to be wrong in your own post. 1+1=2 cannot be wrong because we define numbers. We will never discover 1+1=2 because we know exactly what numbers mean... BECAUSE WE MADE THE DEFINITION!

>>2014052
I'm thinking idiot. There are so many people who have this exact same idea and think it's some deep philosophical shit or something.

>everything we know could be wrong.
You proved that statement to be wrong in your own post. 1+1=2 cannot be wrong because we define numbers. We will never discover 1+1=3 because we know exactly what numbers mean... BECAUSE WE MADE THE DEFINITION!

>>2014061
MFW you proved OP right with your post.

>>2014279
First, writing was invented by Sumerians. They made little tokens of clay which were substitutes for actual real-life items, like strips of land or units of crop. Then, instead of using many tokens enclosed in an envelope to make a contract, they scrapped the tokens and only used a clay tablet on which they scribbled the symbols for tokens. It's more economical this way..

Then, because it took more time to represent IIIIII items, or even more IIIIIIIIIIII, etc, they created a (base 6) numeric system. It's cheaper to write one symbol for 6 than IIIIII. So the abstraction of number was actually done for economic reasons, y'all.

This retarded mentality that it doesn't matter, because now we can imagine numbers separate from reality is just as valid as the belief in an abstract invisible power called God.

>>2014067
Well then the OP sucks at communicating because he outright said
> everything we know could be wrong.

whelp. that's what philosophers will tell you at least. i don't really know enough about shit to know whether we invented math or discovered it. because math itself is kind of just like logic to me, i don't think you had to make up 1 + 1 i think its always just been there.

>>2014111
to expand: when you take one pencil and put it next to another pencil then you have two pencils. one + one is just a way of us observing this phenomena. whether or not we knew math, i dont think one pencil next to one pencil would ever stop being stop two pencils

>>2014296
They do matter, because this is why you have numbers right now and this is also how you learned numbers, by repeating the same operation that Sumerians did when they invented writing. When kids are in school they learn numbers by using similar symbols for sticks, like II sticks for 2, III sticks for 3, etc. You don't learn numbers by teaching yourself in a forest or inventing them each time.

>>2014114

Basically what this guy said. Numbers are an abstraction of the idea of "units" of "stuff".

We didn't have to invent or define the fact that if you have one thing, and then you get another one, you have two. What we did is define the symbol "1" to represent a single unit of whatever it is you're talking about.

Math is true by definition. And it doesn't matter if science is wrong or not, it is supposed to serve as an approximation to reality, and it's working great for us.

>>2014134

You are trying to explain math within the predefined principles that we are trying to prove. You say two objects next to each other are two, but you merely perceive their twoness, they are just pencil and pencil side by side.

Numbers subsist; they do not exist nor are they real.

>>2014134
Not really. When numbers were invented, there were no conceivable perfectly similar two units. Today we are able to say that two atoms of the same elements are statistically indistinguishable, therefore we can assume that there is a real, empiric basis for numbers. That wasn't the case thousands of years ago, when numbers came into being. A unit was a convention, an invention, so defining numbers based on another convention is tautologic, if you are looking to define them based on something else.

So, yeah, numbers are an abstraction, but they are an abstraction for something that did not exist. In this respect, numbers are a product of imagination, just a geuss...

>>2014114
>>2014111
I have very little of anything for philosophers aside from my disdain, but I have thought about this enough to think I have a complete enough position on this matter:

We can't be sure of anything aside from "I think therefor I am". Beyond that we can receive input, which is where things get fuzzy and lend themselves doubt. For example, you can't be sure you are typing on a computer, you can't even be sure your fingers are feeling any sort of pressure which correlate with presses of keys. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are receiving data through what you assume is your nervous system.

However, there is the issue of practicality. In order to achieve goals one must not require absolute certainty of every shred information they have. That is why we have "Practical Truths". I'm not sure what I am typing on is what I would call a computer, but I'm going to call it a computer anyways with all the questionable implications that go along with that (for example, me calling it a computer implies the box next to me is actually a motherboard despite me not knowing its there) because it is practically useful to call it a computer. In short, all observations have inherent doubt, but that doesn't mean the observation is without use.

And aside from observation there is logic, which goes back to what we DEFINE to be true. If I define the number one by its role in the equation 1+1=2, then I can know with absolute certainty that 1+1=2, because I defined it to be true. The same is true of everything within mathematics save axioms. We define a few terms and then extrapolate the implications of those definitons. Truths derived strictly from definitions instead of observations are "Absolute Truths".

Before anyone occuses me of being a philosophy major, I'd like to say that I see this perspective of the world as a strictly scientific. In science ALL observations have inherent uncertainty.

actually the concept of science is not something we created, we named it, any other being no matter where it is in the universe as long as it can store information about observations retest them and make theories about it, is doing science, that is the basics of science. any animal that is similar to our level of cognition, no matter where in the universe, science will be there

it may be different to our level of technology, they may no less or more than us, they may have proven most of our theories wrong (although i know all of them are not wrong at least in principle)

>>2014203
>Before anyone occuses me of being a philosophy major

well no one will accuse you of being an English major, that's for sure.

>>2014145
>Today we are able to say that two atoms of the same elements are statistically indistinguishable, therefore we can assume that there is a real, empiric basis for numbers.

I disagree. The definition of numbers has absolutely nothing do observation because it makes no claim on reality. Therefore the idea that numbers having an empirical basis is absurd. It's like saying the rules of chess have an empirical basis. The definition of numbers and the rules of chess are what they are irrespective of universe we live in and what we know about it.

>>2014114
Nope. You're saying/thinking there are two pencils, because you already know there are two pencils, ie you have learned to add them. If you had no idea of numbers, you wouldn't see two pencils, you would see two different, separate objects which may be similar.

>>2014258

>occuses

think you meant accuses