/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2233745
In principle, isn't 100% of computer science theoretical?

OP has never heard of the wonders of theoretical computer science and still believes partial physics is an interesting subject.

laughingpremeds.jpg

>>2233750

It is a mystery.

>theoretical computer science

>theoretical computer

>science

>>2233750

No really. When did working with computers become a science?

I'm not even trolling.

I think I can safely say that nobody understands theoretical computer science.

>>2233773

It's like working with bridges, or working with HVAC. It is an applied science.

>>2233745
>partial physics

>>2233773
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY

I don't know of any demarcation criteria in the philosophy of science that could render theoretical computer science a proper science.

I guess if someone wanted to say that mathematics describes/approximates reality then theoretical computer science could be said to be meta-branch of physics.

Computer science is math. Some pure, some very much applied.

>>2233793

TOLD

Algorithm Magic

>>2233801
I like to say Computer Science is like set theory in motion, or an engineer's philosophy.

In a certain way, Computer - so called Science, is the antithesis of philosophy. It defines there are things that exist purely as results, and they do things in a set way unless otherwise specified. Philosophy on the other hand tries to say how things don't, and defines object object objects, with little to no focus on a definition being dependent upon an interaction

>>2233801

Wat. Then you would have to say math is also a branch of physics.

>>2233801
Once you reach Satori, you realize there's no distinguishing math from CompSci

>>2233824
>>2233824

No structural realists say that objects don't exist as such. Only mathematical patterns exist.

>>2233826
Humans do math. Humans + math are reducible to physics. Unless you want be a mathematical platonist and say that numbers exist in a separate physical realm.

Everyone in this thread now has the motivation to master LISP and practice Zazen.

Knock on the sky and listen to the sound.

Math is actually a subset of computer science. Writing the following:

mov ax, 5
add ax, 5

... is actually a better language for describing reality than the outdated method:

5 + 5

Computer science is THE study of reality. What you call "Mathematics" is just the best substitute that we had until computer science was invented.

>>2233850

>mfw he thinks Tron was a good movie
>mfw he thinks Daft Punk are good.

>>2233840
Except humans are representable as math/CompSci

Think of it this way, which things in reality can represent math/CompSci? Any digital logic system that can be produced can, even plumbing parts could be used to compute.

OTOH, math/CompSci is what these things represent. On the abstraction ladder, math/CompSci is higher up ergo physics in an expression of these theories.

>>2233860
>implying 5 exists
All we need is a program to produce the unit integer, or more specifically, something which can represent an integer.

You just sit. That's the essence of zazen.

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few.

_()_

>>2233860

>math/CompSci is higher up ergo physics in an expression of these theories.

This is mathematical pythagoreanism pure and simple. Math describes reality, math does not = reality.

I agree that we would run out of particles well before we run out of numbers to count them with. I find this very interesting though.

>>2233879
Ok, how about you start with the concepts of "true" and "false," since that's all a computer knows. Put three "true/false" values (also known as "bits") next to each other, and you can represent any integer you want between 0 and 7, inclusive. It just so happens that true/false/true, or 101, is the common representation for 5.

>>2233867

Tron Legacy was a terrible movie. You've already missed the point.

ITT: White walls, white wine, wine people.

>>2233911

You calling me a nigger?

>>2233867
>>2233928

Tron Legacy was a terrible movie. You've already missed the point.

ITT: White walls, white wine, white people.

>>2233928

Recipe for mustard gas?

>>2233928

no ones fault you mistake images of great artists as an insult towards you

>>2233899
>all a computer knows
wtfamireading.jpg

A computer only knows what we say it knows. Also, 101 only represents 5 when we use a binary place-value-exponent-multiple system. I could easily make a representation where 11111 = five, as well as 111011, since adding the "decimals" would lead to something we can treat as five.

>My fucking face when I have OP's image on a shirt and I had completely forgotten about it, and now I don't know where that fucking shirt is

>>2233957
>>2233957
>>2233957

THEY HAVE HIGGS BOSON T-SHIRTS??

>>2233954
Yeah, well, that's why I said "the common representation" you dummy

>>2233954
And, no, you couldn't "easily" choose a different representation for 5. You'd have to also design a CPU that added, subtracted, multiplied, divided, and whatever else in your inefficient representation. Or, you'd have to write a compiler that handled it in software.

>>2233992
And that's outside the realm of CompSci

>>2233978
Plenty.

>>2233892
While I recognize the distinction, I have a problem with the claim. What evidence do you have that directly disproves that math = reality? On what grounds do you refute the mathematical, computational, or holographic universe hypothesis? Where is your evidence? What are your citations?

>>2234327

Physics. All of it.

dunno why, but OP made me lol

>>2234389
I could just as easily take physics to support math = reality. In fact at this time, I do take physics to support the hypothesis.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
http://www.cogito.org/articles/ArticleDetail.aspx?ContentID=17941
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-hologr
aphic-universe/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

>>2234417
A universe which is completely mathematical is inconsistent.

A universe which is consistently mathematical is incomplete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

>>2234461
Assuming Law of Excluded Middle, assuming Law of Non-Contradiction, defining proof by contradiction, admitting proof by contradiction as valid.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5976
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-verifying_theories

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

A paraconsistent universe is both contradiction tolerant and can be logically complete. It is the simpler of the two models, it assumes the fewest entities while proving almost as many theorems as the alternative. By Occam's razor it is to be preferred.

Taking Non-contradiction to be a hypothesis, we can demonstrate it to be false in non-locality experiments where a qubit exists in two contradictory states at the same time.

Taking Excluded Middle to be a hypothesis, we can demonstrate it to be false in superposition experiments by showing that an ensemble of qubits state's can exist somewhere between the extremes with a given set of probabilities for each state and with a degree of uncertainty.

Finally, how does the universe being subject to Godel's proof serve to refute the universe being mathematical?

>>2234507
So you're arguing that the universe is paraconsistently mathematical?

Mathematics will probably remain the best description we have of the universe, but it will never completely describe everything. I don't think everything is a very useful word. Truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.1362v2

>>2234507
>>2234507

This is so fucking stupid. That reality = mathematics is a claim that is neither scientific nor mathematical. It is a metaphysical assertion. Metaphysics is rational, it assumes the law of non-contradiction, and the principle of sufficient reason (sometimes not).

If we eject the law of non-contradiction, then it turns out that the claim that mathematics = reality is both true, and false.

Mathematics might describe Being (we have evidence of this), but Being itself is not mathematics (we have no evidence for this). It is ontological extravagance par excellence to claim that Being = Mathematics.

>>2234507
Also, If this statement is true, then paraconsistent logic is false.

>>2234589

Continued:

In fact such a claim is on par with the theist's claim that Being = God. No proof can be provided for either claim.

>>2234507
As far as the excluded middle, how do you distinguish between true randomness and algorithmic randomness in defining your probabilities?

>>2234589
>>2234599
I'll believe it when you construct the proof. Scientific skepticism and all that.

"Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics" alludes to the fact that any effective theory of everything will also have to be an effective theory of nothing.

http://www.torrenthound.com/hash/4b7c6e26c61718420d6a09b13e326e07eed68dc4/torrent-info/Zero-To-Infin
ity-The-Foundations-Of-Physics-sleclub-h33t-Torrent--btjunkie

At this time, I am not making a claim that it is in fact the case that "mathematics = reality", I am criticizing the claim that "mathematics != reality" as there is no evidence that I am aware of that refutes the former hypothesis.

So "it's a metaphysical assertion" "It is rational" and "it assumes the law of non-contradiction"? Let's see it formally. Prove it. I say the system does not make the assumptions, we make the assumptions for the purpose of argument. We are not compelled to make any particular assumptions without need. In fact, Occam's razor says we should not make more assumptions than are needed.

I pointed out that Godel's proof uses proof by contradiction and excluded middle. We can not guarantee his proof holds in a system which rejects those things. I know of one such system which rejects those and expresses quantum computation from which holographic principle emerges. Which to me suggests greater support for mathematics = reality than mathematics != reality.

>>2234685
If quantum computation violated the incompleteness theorems, it would subsequently disprove the halting problem, which would imply you can make oracle machines.

>>2234714
Which is in fact one of the things that Paola Zizzi talks about in her papers on the logic of qubits.

I'm more interested in it's implications for undecidable propositions..

>>2234714
>which would imply you can make oracle machines.
I WANT TO BELIEVEE!!!!!

>>2234714
I forgot to mention Zizzi's logic is also non-structural.

>>2234714
>>2234787
I tend to think that it is possible in principle to build oracle machines. I think true randomness, non-locality, and steering suggest the mechanism for realizing such machines.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2507

>>2234575
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701171

We show that self-reference can be formalized in Basic logic by means of the new connective @, called "entanglement". In fact, the property of non-idempotence of the connective @ is a metatheorem, which states that a self-entangled sentence loses its own identity. This prevents having self-referential paradoxes in the corresponding metalanguage. In this context, we introduce a generalized definition of self-reference, which is needed to deal with the multiplicative connectives of substructural logics.

>>2234846
I don't think one can call true randomness mathematical though.

>>2234893

True randomness has a statistical signature.
Stats is maths.

bump