/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes. But you are a human, so you will never know it.

<span class="math">Philosophy \notin Science \bigcup Math[/spoiler]

>>4348844
math. Particularly differential equations. They practically unify every thing.

>>4348859
Where would you suggest I go?

It's an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

>>4348862
Doesn't infinity screw with the ability to prove anything?

Oh hey.

Nope, there is not. Anything that as the intelligence and capacity to understand and deduce can only deduce based on its own intelligence and understandings.

>>4348868
Nope. Infinities can be useful some times.

Truth is what you want to do, and that it's good enough to you that you don't question it.

Fundamentalist theists have found truth, even though it does not seem like truth to everyone else.

For you, though, you should try to find consistency.

>>4348886
Doesn't it make it impossible to know the exact outcome of anything?

Didn't Cantor go crazy because infinity screws up the idea of a rational universe?

>>4348866
This

>>4348894
You don't even know what you're fucking talking about.

>>4348866
if there at least one absolute truth, then why can't there be others?

>>4348861
/r9k/ or /soc/

>>4348844

certain cardinal relations constitute an "absolute truth"

unity is one example

>>4348904
Isn't /r9k/ just HOW GET GURLFROND? And /soc/ SHOW ME YOUR PENIS FATTIES

>>4348866
No it isn't.

There is no absolute truth, including this statement. And that is not a logical contradiction, nor is this sentence, or any of those that are about to come. All things are uncertain in so far as logic is uncertain, due to it's axiomatic/circular nature.

>>4348913
To that point, I add : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma#Albert.27s_formulation

>>4348917
Could this be more a problem with reason and not a indication that absolute truth does not exist? Absolute truth could exist, we are just unable to discover it through reason, or at least reason as we humans understand it?

>>4348913
call me when the charge of an electron changes, then we'll talk.

>>4348921
You are correct, I misinterpreted the point of this thread. Absolute truth very likely exists, but we will never be certain of its existence, or anything else.

>>4348925
Ring ring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

>>4348929
Did I say an electron? I meant all electrons.

>>4348925
That was made a philosophical assertion, not one with any practical value.

Also this >>4348929

A=A

Easy. Give me something hard.

>>4348935
How do you know that A is A and not B?

>>4348935
mathematics is absolutely true, but mathematics is imaginary. all numbers are imaginary numbers for all we know. "1" has on real world value. 5 + 5 = 10(in base 10). this is a universal fact

>>4348942
Because A is defined as A and not B.

E Z

>>4348948
no*

>>4348948
Prove that 5+5=10. It is more of an observation than a truth.

>>4348946

Than give me a construct where "A=A" and "B=B"

>>4348955
this

>>4348956
there is no way to prove it. humans defined "5." humans defined "10." humans decided that two fives are equal to one ten.

CANNOT BELIEVE NO ONE HAS SAID THIS IN THIS THREAD

DESCARTES.
ALSO,
I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

>>4348957
A=A

Done

'A' can be anything and it is still absolutely true.

>>4348956
>I cannot into set theory
There is a proof for 1+1=2. If you don't even know that then the mathematical background required to prove it is probably above you.

>>4348969
I know there is a proof, but I also know it incredibly complex to prove 1+1=2.

>>4348976
>but I also know it incredibly complex to prove 1+1=2.

lulz

"Absolute truth" by itself is meaningless, its an arbitrary, vague, pointless concept.
"Truth" only works within the framework of axioms.
This makes "absolute truth" a good endless vanity rant for undereducated people on the matter.

>>4348976
> incredibly complex
An incredibly complex proof would be a proof that fills a book. Proving 1+1=2 is simple, but it requires a form of mathematics that nobody learns aside from academics.

>>4348964
Humans did not define mathematics.

pi, e, and all numbers are fundamental to the universe.

>>4348966

" 'A' can be anything and it is still absolutely true"

'A' is a 'tree'. A "tree" is a "tree" on our world surely. But what is to say that a "tree" is not a tree on another planet. A tree could be a "rock" on another, and surely then, where can we confirm that a "tree" is a "tree", in totality?

You are baiting.

>>4349000
if a tree is also a rock, then tree = rock = tree = rock = tree. this doesn't disprove that tree = tree

>>4348998
Just because the universe appears to follow rules and thus can be approximated by mathematical models doesn't make mathematics any more than a logical framework constructed by humans.

>>4348844
OP, just so you're aware:
You're asking subjective beings for objective truths.

If you can't see the problem with this, then that's fine by me. Cause I'll just convince you of whatever I want you to believe.

>>4349004

In our context, yes, we can always exchange values for another. It's a play on words, or rather, a play on concepts. B could very well exist as SCI on another planet, and yet, here SCI=SCI.

>>4348998
e, pi, most square roots, all go on forever without any visible pattern. these values are not some perfect shit, they're barely compatible with our number system

>>4349020
if /b/ = /sci/, then no matter where you go in the universe, even if /sci/ = /soc/, /b/ = /sci/ is still true. also, that means /b/ = /soc/

>using boards as variables
>2011

>>4349024

Still confusing subjective absolutes with "objective" ones? Or perhaps I am?

>2011
>still using 2011

>>4349035
IF YOU DECLARE TWO THINGS EQUAL THEY ARE EQUAL. ADFPGADG[PADKP[.

>2010
>still getting trolled by 2011 trolls

>>4349041

I haven't declared anything besides what can be commonly confirmed as being declared.

My inner skull-fat is tired. Good day sir.

>2009
>still getting trolled by 2010 trolls