/sci/ - Science & Math

because such views will never be anything but idle speculation

It's like saying we will one day attain faster than light travel.

It's not so much illogical as it is pointless.

I'm pretty sure it's proven that there are things that cannot be proven.

It's not illogical, considering you can't even prove your own existence

Not entirely illogical, just really throwing it out there. We've never proven that fairies or unicorns have ever existed, nor have we prove that they've not existed, but it's still generally silly to hold the belief that they may exist and we cannot prove they exist or don't exist.

What about things of which cannot be seen. For example, the Timecube.

it is not illogical but irrational ie rejected by rational consensus

because we will never interact with them, observe them, etc..
so why would it even matter to say they exist? it's irrelevant to our existance. and even when some almighty being we can't observe would act upon us through supernatural powers, we should be able to observe the supernatural powers, not the being per se, and we would be able to deduce those powers to the deity. Sadly, no supernatural powers have been detected, so..
Yay to seeing and believing

The idea that an existing object cannot be proven isn't illogical. However, assuming this and then continuing conversation about the object is futile.

See /sci/? You guys can do it. Religion can exist, as long as you dont try to prove it using scientific methods and leave it faith based.

>>2610192
>>2610207

It might not be pointless at all. What if the universe presents a structure that is simply too deep or complicated to be described by our limited logical systems? It might be completely practical to recognize such a possibility.

>>2610226

Its not pointless to state that fact, but its fucking pointless to make any true statements if you agree with the first claim.

It's not.

It's illogical to believe there may exist SOME SPECIFIC object(s) the existence of which cannot be proven.

>whose

umm, yeaaaaah... GTFO

>>2610236

I think I missed what you meant by "first claim". Are you saying it's pointless to hold any truths concerning reality if we accept that of its truths are unprovable?

>>2610226
Recognize it all you want. But when people then start describing things they say can't be described, they fail at their own logic.

>>2610250


yes, because then they are no truths are you are not justified in believing them.

It's not illogical to acknowledge that there may be things that we are unaware of existing. It IS illogical to believe that these unproven things do exist.

>>2610242

Meh, "of which" sounds like the passive voice. Don't like it. As for your statement, if I can soundly believe that there may exist an object whose existence cannot be proven, aren't I implicitly holding the belief that a particular such object exists?

>>2610265
If this wasn't a blatant troll thread, I would brofist you.

If it may not exist, you may as well not have heard of it in the first place, and not a difference would be made in your life.
How many of you hold the position that behind you, no matter how much you try (including with mirrors) a gnome is behind your head and you can't see it.

>>2610265

But those seem logically incompatible. If you can logically assert that some thing, X, exists whose existence cannot be proven, then you must believe that X does indeed exist without any proof.

>>2610291
You have three general options for belief on a subject X.

1- Positive belief that it's true or right.
2- Positive belief that it's false or wrong.
3- Ignorance, aka "I don't know".

If you evidence on the subject, and it's a empirical question of the observable, then the only correct answer is "I don't know".

>>2610291


No, you are mistaken. We are merely saying that the idea "some things can exist but not be proven" is not illogical. The moment you say X has this property, it is illogical.

It is not illogical to believe that they may exit.

It is, however, illogical to modify our own behavior based on the belief that they give a flying fuck about us.

not necessarily illogical just useless. If we can't prove its existence then it isnt interacting with our lives and isn't affecting them therefore who cares

>>2610297

I hate being nitpicky, bit it's sort of part of the nature of the discussion. 1,2, and 3 only apply to statements whose truth can be evaluated. I guess you could say that you instead have three option of the statement "X exists":

1. Yes (I have a proof of it.)
2. No (I have a proof that shows such an object does not exist.)
3. I don't know. (No known proof exists.)

The case3 then splits into more: the case where proofs of existence or nonexistences do exist, and the case where proofs do not exist. I'm interested in the final case. Objects whose existence cannot be shown.

The interesting thing is that this totally depends on what system of logic you use. If you throw out the axiom of choice, for instance, then you just lost a ton of mathematical structure.

What troubles me is that while logic can be studies accurately in this way mathematically, how in the hell do you apply it to science? What system of logic does the universe follow? How do we figure it out? What system of logic does science follow? Is it whatever convenient mathematical model we want?

>>2610324
Suggesting that we don't use basic logic, in an argument using basic logic, is a complete non-starter for me.

I am willing to entertain the notion that basic logic might be wrong about as much as I'm willing to entertain The Matrix hypothesis.

Again, do you have another option besides those 3 for belief in some assertion? There is not. There are many different subsets thereof, and varying degrees of certainty, but those are your basic three options for any kind of logical boolean assertion, yes, no, I don't know.

>>2610302

How is this different from saying "there exists x such that P(x)" is true, but then claming "P(x) is false for all x" is false?

>>2610172

That's entirely logical, mathematically for example there may exist a well ordering of the real numbers, there may not. In fact we can't prove either way within ZFC.

>>2610349

Is there... a book? About that? I read a proof that there were actually different orderings of the natural numbers depending on which model you took, and I would love love love to read about this stuff.

>>2610339

Of course I'm not arguing that we dump basic logic, but with things like "fuzzy logic" and a book I've not really read through on category theory and logic and the notion that there is a thing as "local truth", I'm just wondering about... tons of shit. I don't even know. I think I need to start reading a ton of books on epistemology and logic so I don't tear myself in half trying to figure out what in the fuck science is even trying to do on the most basic level.

>>2610347

I guess the term illogical was incorrect.

I should have said, fucking stupid.

>>2610324
>What troubles me is that while logic can be studies accurately in this way mathematically, how in the hell do you apply it to science?

You don't. Math =/= science, and though scientists may use math as a tool, science does not deal in 'proof' but in falsifiability.

>>2610374

Almost certainly, I wouldn't know one to reccomend.

I realise wikipedia is woefully inadequate for this sort of thing but if you read the articles on Godel's incompletness theorems and the axiom of choice (which is equivalent to the well ordering principle), you should get an idea

>>2610412

It's just been hard to find a book on the right level about logic. Everything seems to either be a really basic introduction to symbolic logic, or just blow me out of the water. Somewhere, in between, is a text for me. Perhaps I just need to go look a little harder through my uni library.

>>2610388

I mean, I personally have always held science as the construction of a mathematical model or models of the observable universe. While it's accepted that mathematics isn't "complete" in a sense, it then seems totally logic that, then, science must similarly be "incomplete", but anybody who puts forth such a statement is ridiculed. Why? Why is that? That's what led to the original question. So many people seem to scoff at the notion that there are phenomena and structure that cannot, in the most precise meaning of the phrase, by understood by science, but I cannot find any reason to believe why this cannot be a logical possibility.

>I personally have always held science as the construction of a mathematical model or models of the observable universe.

This was your first mistake.

>it then seems totally logic that, then, science must similarly be "incomplete", but anybody who puts forth such a statement is ridiculed.

Probably because this is astoundingly obvious to anyone who has ever done science to pretty much any level? Here's a question for you: Why do philosophers feel the need to expound on subjects about which they have not the slightest understanding, only to reveal a 'profound' conclusion that is painfully obvious to anyone?

>>2610458

What is it, then? Pointing out people's errors and then refusing to provide any idea at all of why there is an error is silly and counterproductive.

>>2610482

Science is a method. It is a mindset based on skepticism and empiricism. Science may use math, but the relationship is analogous to that between a craftsman and his tools: Mathematical models are a means to an end, not themselves 'science'.

>>2610522

Eh, of course the mathematical models aren't science. I never said they were. I said that the construction of those models were science. The skepticism and empiricism you mention are exactly how the scientists goes about refining and evaluating the models.

It isn't. It is illogical to think a specific thing that can't be proven to exist exists.

>>2610571

The way you phrased it strongly suggested you considered the creation of models to be the primary aim or purpose of science, when it is the collection of raw data that occupies 99% of all scientists professional time.

>>2610195
http://www.lair2000.net/Unicorn_Dreams/Unicorns_Man_Made/unicorns_man_made.html

not so much illogical but unscientific. In science we're looking for the truth. If you try to explain a phenomena with something that cannot be proven, then you are not going to find the truth. This is what experiments are for. Someone observes something, and asks "Why?" A hypothesis is made and tested. If it is found to be false, then it is false, if it cannot be proven false, then it can be accepted as an explanation.

For example: Why do bricks fall when I drop them? Hypothesis: the air pushes them down. This can be tested by dropping bricks in a vacuum. The hypothesis is shown to be false because bricks still fall regardless of the presence of air.

>>2610458

>Probably because this is astoundingly obvious to anyone who has ever done science to pretty much any level? Here's a question for you: Why do philosophers feel the need to expound on subjects about which they have not the slightest understanding, only to reveal a 'profound' conclusion that is painfully obvious to anyone?

Have you ever studied Philosophy? I mean, actually studied; not talk to bullshit artists on 4chan or engage in pseudoscience discussions. I'm asking because you obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Economically speaking, a degree in Philosophy is not that viable and I'll contend that it's more or less useless in the long run. The knowledge gained, however, is absolutely priceless. There's a reason why Philosophy majors score amongst the highest on the GREs, MCATs, LSATs, etc. There's also a fucking reason why all of the old school physicists, the ones you admire, were originally told to study Philosophy deeply.

Niels Bohr? Original major was Philosophy.
Einstein? Had endless talks with Bohr about Philosophy. Had philosophical view points himself.
Oppenheimer? Minored in the Classics/Philosophy.
Leibniz? Philosophy and Mathematics.
Newton? Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics/Celestial Mechanics, et cetera.

The list goes on and on. Philosophy was once heavily intertwined with higher learning; it was an accessory subject to whatever you learned. It's only now that some people consider Philosophy the bane of academia, but it was once heavily cherished. I blame all of these fucking pseudo-philosophers and pseudo-scientists who attempt to mix apples and oranges.

>>2610172

Because they cannot be proven; it is the equivalent of me claiming the existence of unicorns, gremlins, ghosts, a three-nippled invisible man that you cannot see or touch.

What use is it to anyone? You are without proof, without any fact. Do not expect an empiricist to take you seriously.

>Why is it illogical to hold that the belief that there may exist objects whose existence cannot be proven?

Because is illogical to hold a belief about something unobservable and for which no evidence exists. That includes believing that it exists as well as believing that it does not.

As it is completely irrelevant, the only logical thing to do is move on as though it does not exist. No belief is required.

See also: Null hypothesis.

>>2610603
>Blah blah blah philosophy is great blah blah appeal to authority blah blah i'm so much smarter than you employable drones blah blah tripfag asspain

>>2610605
See
>>2610600

Unicorns are real and easy to make

>>2610603
>Philosophy was once heavily intertwined with higher learning; it was an accessory subject to whatever you learned

So was Theology. That, too, is now an irrelevance.

>>2610627

Why don't they shoot magical rainbows? :(

>>2610616
So why is it acceptable for people to believe in string theory or neutralinos?

>>2610643
because neutrinos have been proven to exist

string theory is, I believe, still under scrutiny

>>2610643

People (I assume you mean scientists?) don't 'believe' in those things, they are useful models that explain a great deal of empirical observations. If a better model comes along tomorrow, scientists would have no compunction about dropping the notion.

>>2610588

I probably did phrase it too heavily that way. But my interpretation of "creating models" includes such things as "we need to run experiments to find the coefficients for this equation". I'm not suggesting that scientists are looking for a magical unified theory for everything as much as things that adequately explain, mathematically, whatever it is they're studying, from how neurons interact to how particles decompose to how wildfires spread. I always saw implicit in the data acquisition and testing some sort of mathematics into which that data could be entered for a quantitative result. Perhaps "creating models" wasn't quite right. Rather "verifying" or "tweaking" them is more accurate.

>>2610628

Theology was once heavily intertwined with Philosophy. Have you read St. Augustine's "Confessions" or anything about St. Aquinas? They all agreed/cited Aristotle on numerous occasions. Early Theology was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman Philosophy. It's been turned into drab now for the most part, but true "old" Theology/Christian Philosophy was/is sublime.

And no, I'm not a Christfag. In fact, I don't practice any religion. From a scholarly point of view, I just find it interesting.

>>2610622

Never implied any of that. You're allowing your prejudice of tripfags to cloud your mindset. Also, I'm a Mathematics major.

>>2610668
>Have you read St. Augustine's "Confessions" or anything about St. Aquinas?

No, I don't waste my time reading irrelevant rubbish from the middle ages.

>>2610676
>>2610676

>Rubbish.

Okay, you're clearly upset. You should read it just for the sake of it. Reading a few excerpts can't poison your mind .. unless you're weak willed, that is.

>>2610666

You're putting too much emphasis on math. It's a common mistake, one mathematicians are keen to advance, that science is in some way "applied math". The truth is quite different, and science and math really have very little in common. Outside of physics, most scientists use little math other than basic statistical analysis.

>>2610676

You are coming off very obtuse.

>>2610687

No u

>>2610684

Tedious mental masturbation is pretty low on my list of reading matter. But thanks for the offer.

I think it's perfectly certain that there exist many objects whose existence cannot be proven. The human mind is finite, but the universe is infinite. So it follows that there must be objects whose existence we can never prove. (To strengthen this claim, if you believe, as I do, that mathematical objects really exist, then the infinity of the universe is infinitely greater than any infinities we can ever know. So almost all the objects that exist are impossible to be proven by us to exist.)

>>2610695
it is unknown as to whether the universe is finite or infinte

>>2610693

>Tedious mental masturbation

It really isn't. It's increasing your range of study. However, it's your choice at the end of the day.

>>2610695
>if you believe, as I do, that mathematical objects really exist,

full_retard.jpg

>>2610616

But it's *not* irrelevant. Let me give an example: A particle physicists observes some new phenomena. He and his peers agree that this is evidence that there is a new particle, and this is the functional belief of the scientific community. Time goes on and new evidence uncovers that it's not that, a new theory is given. This, in turn, is disproven. The process continues indefinitely, with our understanding continuing to advance on this strange phenomenon, but no good cause is ever found, only approximations. Meanwhile, whole industries are built on exploiting the phenomena and what we do know about it. It certainly isn't "irrelevant", but whatever it is cannot be explained, and it's certainly logical for scientists to hold beliefs about what it is in order to come to terms with it on an abstract level.

>>2610657
>Confusing neutrinos with neutralinos
>Underageb& detected

>>2610442
For a good introduction, try Warren Goldfarb, Deductive Logic. Wonderfully written, with great examples and exercises.
Slightly more advanced, Boolos and Jeffrey, Computability and Logic.
These are excellent, standard texts by acknowledged masters of the field.

>>2610627

We clearly have evidence of these mutants (and some cases of grafts, but those don't count), so I don't see the problem aside from perhaps the fact that you are being intentionally obtuse and know full well that mutant goats are not what people refer to when they speak of unicorns.

>>2610702
In spatial extent, that is true. But there is more to the universe than spatial extent. And certainly proof requires representation. Isn't it also certain that the universe lacks computational resources to represent itself in its entirety and to prove the existence of all of its parts and the relations among them? The combinatorial complexity is too great.

>>2610709
Nice to know that an Anonymous on /sci/ thinks that Kurt Goedel, the greatest logician who ever lived and an avowed Platonist about mathematical objects, was mentally retarded.

>>2610764
well now you're using a different definition of universe than I was

I was simply talking about the physical, astronomically observed universe, and that is is unknown as to how far beyond the observable universe stuff goes

>>2610716

I don't think you ready my post correctly (either that or you do not understand what you just wrote). None of that has any bearing on what I wrote because I'm talking about unobservable fantasies while you just went on a spiel about things entirely based upon observation and evidence.

>>2610780

The universe is everything that exists, whether we know about it yet or not.

It would behoove you to use the scientific definition of things in a scientific discussion.

Rigor, and all that.

>>2610780
Maybe I accept more things as "objects" than you do. For example, if it were possible for every "elementary particle" (whatever that is) to prove that it exists, would you say that the existence of every object had therefore been proven, or would you still want to see all the combinations proven? If I know every atom in some region, does it follow that I know every molecule? I don't know the answer to this.

>>2610221
w3e never said religion doesn't exist. we said its here and stupid, and God doesn't exist.

>>2610764

Where would I find a "2"? Do grammatical forms 'really exist' too? Is there such a thing as an "an" floating around in outer space somewhere?

Also lol appeal to authority. You really are one of our stupider tripfags.

>>2610839
I'm not a tripfag, I'm a namefag. You are assuming that existence requires spatial location, which makes you a begging-the-questionfag.

If the existence of something cannot be proven, then it has no bearing on reality. Effectively, it does not exist. Why regard it then?

>>2610869

So it 'exists' in the same place your soul 'exists'? Gotcha.

>>2610876

One thing I'm really grappling with is whether or not this is true. Can something whose existence cannot be verified impact observables? For instance, suppose someone is buying stolen TVs. I wake up one day and notice my TV is gone. All I can prove from that is that someone has stolen my TV, not that there is actually someone encouraging TV theft and buying them up. In fact, nobody whose TV was stolen can prove that there's a guy buying stolen TVs. We can guess that this might be the case, but have no proof. Despite the fact that we cannot prove that someone is buying stolen TVs, the fact that there IS such a person greatly impacts us, since that person is indirectly causing us to lose TVs.

>>2610927
in this case we have soem "evidence" that something is a miss. but to assume its a black man with 2 girlfriends who enjoy wattersports, and they deserve 10% of my income, well thats a leap. that several tv's are stolen, is an occerance, to assume they are being sold is ignorance

>>2610927
>All I can prove from that is that someone has stolen my TV

This is a bad analogy. You confuse a statement that is falsifiable with one that is not. It is in fact physically possible to prove that someone is buying stolen TVs. Your failure to do so does not change this. Even law enforcement's failure does not (though they likely do find sellers and buyers occasionally, which only further drives the point home).

>>2610915
What? My soul is two inches behind my eyes, same as yours. Just kidding, I don't believe in the soul. But numbers don't have to be anywhere to exist.

>>2610927
>Can something whose existence cannot be verified impact observables?

No. By impacting an observable, it verifies its own existence.

because those beliefs cant be extrapolated from the axioms of the formal system. thats why is ilogical

Now, if we consider that our formal systems are limited in the way they describe reality, its completely possible that this "objects" exist outside of framework. A fair question is to ask how important for us this objects would be? Since they never collide or interact with what we can observe, this put this objects in a questionable/hypothetical consideration.

>>2611006

Every analogy is bad, the point is just to illuminate the possibility of what's being described. At any rate, I could just ask that you suppose this TV buyer is a criminal mastermind that can't be caught, so that "someone is buying the stolen TVs" isn't falsifiable.

I guess the point is that there's no logical reason to reject or accept a statement which cannot be falsified, that my decisions concerning such statements lie entirely outside the realm of logic.

>>2611115
>because those beliefs cant be extrapolated from the axioms of the formal system. thats why is ilogical
That's not what illogical means. Illogical means logically inconsistent (in some particular formalized logic system).

>>2611035

What's your response to the rest of the analogy, then? We have no proof that a TV buyer exists, despite the fact that it has caused changes in observables. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable to just dismiss all the thefts as unrelated.

>>2611115

Ugh. You'll be hard pressed to say much of anything with meaning, if you're only willing to allow yourself to extrapolate from a collection of axioms. Even then, what axioms do you choose? You obviously want some that are noncontradictory, but other than that I see no method of determining if they're "illogically" chosen.

>>2611150
>>2611136


Well Bertrand Russel though everything could be extrapolated from a set of axioms and then Godel came along and disprove this. Still everything ilogical is ilogical because its imposible to get to that point without going through some "logical steps" which the formal system allow.

If its possible to prove that formalisms are inherently limited to describe reality then and only then the posibility of events that occur outside our scope might be possible.


It could be analogous for any animal to understand whats an economic system or a cell.

>>2611274
Whatever. I'll skip the pedantic definition of illogical.

Because they cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way if they cannot be proven.

>>2611286
Well its not pedantic at all, if you have a minimum education in math you would realize. People use "illogical" very lightly these days.

>>2610172
It's not. There may exist objects which cannot be proven. Prove that I don't have a tame, ethereal and otherwise undetectable velociraptor in my backyard.

>>2611311
Sorry, meant to say I'll skip on the pedantic argument over the definition.

absence of evidence... you know the rest

>>2611340
"Velociraptor" by definition means a kind of dinosaur. All dinosaurs were animals. All animals are material and not ethereal. Thus there is no such thing as an ethereal velociraptor. Thus there is no ethereal velociraptor in your backyard.