/sci/ - Science & Math

>If it is physical, it can be proven, and should be fully researched and quantified.
If you have no specification for "it" with respect to your axioms, then they are pretty useless. After all, many people (including me) think that you can "prove" nothing in physics.

Or is this some sort of trolling?

>>3957210
I wrote those assuming that 'it' would be any subject of study.
I suppose i could rephrase it.

>If the subject of study is physical, it can be proven, and should be fully researched and quantified.
>If the subject of study is meta-physical, it cannot be proven, and should be ignored.
>If you cannot define the subject of study into one or the other, you haven't researched it enough.

Dear OP,

You don't know what proof is. You don't know what "metaphysical" means. You are dumb.

>>3957230
that doesn't clear the situation. My point is that given a subject, how can you know if it's physical or meta-physical. If someone is interested in point particles he's argue that they are physical. If it turns out that quantum fields can't be localized or that there are only stings, there were not point particles in the first place and you introduce lots of semantics: Everything you talk about is temporary abstrcation until you find the better abstruction. You can't identify physical things and you can't naturally seperate them from meta-physical things. Since this is the case, your axioms are useless. Unlike an mathematical axiom, where for example you can always check the properties of, say, a group or a polynimial.

>>3957243
>metaphysical
>"of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses"
I know what it means.
And what about 'proof'? I'm saying you shouldn't go into such an intellectual field with the expectation of solving something that cannot by definition be resolved by the laws of reality.

>laws of reality
what is that. name a law of realtiy

>>3957289
for all intensive purposes, law of reality = laws of physics

>>3957289
Well, perhaps 'law' is a bit presumptuous.
You know, classic mathematical theories/equations/statements that have been proven to be empirically true.

>>3957230
Let me give it one more go.
>If the subject of study is physical, it can be empirically tested and proven, and should be fully researched and quantified.
>If the subject of study is meta-physical, it cannot be empirically tested and proven, and should be ignored.
>If you cannot define the subject of study into one or the other, you haven't researched it enough.

I know I'm getting warmer.

>>3957294
no.

define 'reality'.

you will quickly see that your equivalence does not work.

No, They are laws. Break them and you recieve a vivisection at a military base.

You've been warned scum.

>>3957310
>define 'reality'.
That's hard to do. It is what it is because we haven't figured out a way to transcend it and examine it from without.
As far as I can tell, it's self-defining in how everything is symmetrical.

>>3957305
I would drop the "and proven". I think if you drop it you exclude nothing you seem to value.

>>3957294
>for all intensive purposes Haha, oh wow

>>3957333
iPhone post fail

>>3957332
Well, I thought the whole point of any research is to prove the results, right?

I know the actual point of research is grants, but I'm thinking Utopian.

>>3957333
lol, have the trolled hard copypasta response.
this is you:

"Can we clear this up.

RIGHT NOW.

"intensive purposes" is NOT what you are trying to say.

What you are trying to say is "for all intents and purposes".

You sound as ridiculous as the person trying to say "queue" and pronouncing it "quay".

Think about it. Intensive purposes? Does that even make sense? Can you reason through that and explain what you're ACTUALLY trying to say, or are you just throwing down some clever words? Intensive purposes? That's nonsensical. INTENTS and purposes. There. That makes more sense, doesn't it? Try using that next time. You are now smarter. You're welcome."

Science doesnt prove theories, it just disproves them.
You are all idiots in this thread.

>>3957294

We are discussing relaxed purposes, take your intensive purposes with you, and get the fuck out.

>>3957350
>Science doesnt prove theories, it just disproves them.
But Math is all about proofs!

Or is general science and Math two separate things?
Maybe my axioms fit better with math...

>If it is physical, it canNOT be proven
fix'd
lrn2scientific method, OP
Mathematics can be proven. It is NOT physical.
Anything decidable expressed in logic can be proven. They aren't physical.
fail less hard

>>3957347
you're an asshole

>>3957350
why you mad?

>>3957354
>/sci/ - Science & Math
You're axioms are specifically directed at physics. Mathematics worls good as it is and mathematicans will not accedentally research non-mathematical subjects.
so no, don't reformulate it for math.

>>3957374
OH.
I did indeed derp.
I've always assumed Reality=Physics=Math

>If it is is physical, it can be proven
>If it is meta-physical, it cannot be proven

You have that backwards, retard.

>>3957424
I don't see how.
If it is physical, then it can be defined by mundane methods of examination.
If it is not entirely or completly non-physical a subject, then the known laws of physical reality need not apply, and it thus cannot be empirically proven.

>>3957426
>empirically proven

Wow. No.

>>3957436
Why not? You are not providing a counter argument to learn from, thus I cannot correct myself.

>>3957448
see
>>3957374

Nothing is ever proven empirically. You just assume that your observations reflect reality, and what you are observing now will continue to be observed later.

Anything that can be proven, e.g. mathematical proofs, is non-physical, necessarily.

>>3957424
Son, I am proud