/sci/ - Science & Math

Christ, how stupid are you? You a sub80 or something? You cannot possibly understand the universe - there is too much to understand. Since everything exists within the universe, EVERY bit of knowledge you acquire adds to your understanding of it - and you can, of course, never know everything.
Of course you need mathematics. You also need physics. You also need absolutely fucking everything. Christ, go back to /lit/ with this hippie bullshit.

>>6174280

What about genetics and biology?

>>6174282
"Everything" means "everything." Wrap your flimsy head around that.

>>6174285
>"Everything" means "everything." Wrap your flimsy head around that.

No. This is too simplistic. You don't need to understand chess or kanye west to understand nature.

OP isn't talking about being Omniscient. You seem confused

>>6174273
Math is fundamental to understanding nature, and so I would say you CAN have a "deeper" understanding of nature strictly by way of mathematics.

However, this can also be said of studying physics, chemistry, evolution, logic, etc. Since everything is part of nature, you can have a deeper understanding by studying almost anything.

>>6174294
>Since everything is part of nature, you can have a deeper understanding by studying almost anything.

Is Philosophy or Math the deepest though?

>>6174296
I personally would say yes, because they are the ways by which we can dive deeper into our existing knowledge, and relate and allocate ideas in meaningful ways

>>6174308

I tend to agree with this line of reasoning Philosophy it is >

>>6174273
To respond to your little inequality, topology doesn't make a whole lot of sense or have any motivation if you haven't studied analysis (which is calculus), and certain types of topology are based on concepts in set theory.
I don't really know why geometry is in there, but it is a related field to topology and calculus in that both are concerned with objects in spaces, or just spaces or spaces in spaces or whatever.
Set theory is generally helpful to know if you you're studying any higher mathematics...
I kind of think all of those fields are equally important to understanding the other, so they would all be equally important to understanding "everything", I guess?

>>6174273
is that a swastika?

>>6174430

I think so, not sure.

>>6174429

what do you think of higher levels of geometry and fractals as they pertain to quantum theory?

>>6174431
topkek 3DPD confirmed

>>6174273
Probability theory.

>swastika in the background

lol

where is this from?

>>6174471
>where is this from?

What? The Universe?

That's what we need to figure out

>>6174474
no le pictures

>>6174479

He's a Japanese researcher with many specializations.

A lot of fields of maths have some kind of application to physics.

The biggest applications are probably from algebreic topology, functional analysis, differential geomtery and group theory.

>can one have a deeper understanding of nature strictly through mathematics or does one need physics as well?

Pure math doesn't necessarily deal with things that exist in the real world, it just deals with logical abstractions. Applying math to physics is how you find out more about the universe because there are certain logical abstractions that you can use to describe or model things in the real world. For instance, general relativity tells you about the actual geometry of space-time. It uses differential geometry, but differential geometry by itself has very little to do with the real world.

>>6174435
Sorry, I'm just an undergraduate math student... I wouldn't know.
Sounds cool, though.

>>6174541
>Pure math doesn't necessarily deal with things that exist in the real world, it just deals with logical abstractions.

But isn't it still dealing with a real Universe of its own, a sort of probability space of thoughts?

>>6174273
>>6174431
>>6174491
ah i love seeing the same content across boards. that /pol/ thread was epic. this guy is based

>>6174554

that's fine, but what do you think of OP's question? and what do you study?

OP for understanding the fields of physics that are variously categorized as cosmology, theoretical astrophysics, high energy particle physics, etc. you need math and physics.


you need math because math is the "mechanical tool" of the trade.


just like you literally need a physical computer sitting in front of you in order to do computer science, you need math to literally THINK ABOUT the universe.


the physics is the result. you often require physics to identify rational ideas and rational choices for intermediate steps.

>>6174575
>literally need a physical computer sitting in front of you in order to do computer science

Math Pleb here

I would say first and foremost is calculus.
The universe is full of change, and without calculus, there are no fundamental rules to talk about that change.

Geometry seems important when I think of things like Keplers Laws and how they were derived before calculus. But they don't feel fundamental.

In calculus of variations, specifically, the functionals come from simple statements of principles.

> Can one have a deeper understanding of nature strictly through mathematics or does one need physics as well?
not of nature. it doesn't take much to start having nature show up in your mathematics though.

>>6174581

you do.

>>6174549
I dunno, if you want to call that a "universe" then I guess so. I meant the "universe" as in "nature".

>>6174588
>[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use."
Hal Abelson (1986) Introduction of video of lectures on the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (source).

>>6174595

>1986

>when personal computers were still the province of engineers and worth thousands of dollars or were as powerful as pocket calculators.


its 2013 bub.


the shit you do on the whiteboard is math.


computer science education requires lots of math. classes on algorithms are actually math classes because they use formal mathematical logic and teach mathematical concepts.


computer science is performed on computers.


in fact computer science == software (including embedded software and firmware)


if its hardware, its ECE.

>>6174595
I love this quote. Every time some dork says he's majoring at CS because he likes computers/he's good at computers I remind myself of this quote and think they are probably going to drop out because it wasn't what they expected.

>>6174598
You can make run algorithms without a computer.

>>6174598
I think you completely missed the point of the quote.
Also, you're getting computer programming/software design confused with computer science. Which is by definition theoretical.

>>6174595
love this

Math is what we use to describe things in the universe, but you don't need math to understand it. Just like you see a red cube and you know it's a red cube, you don't need to describe it as a red cube to understand that it's a red cube. Math basically lets us neatly categorize nature, when nature is not neatly categorized, by nature. So to make "sense" of an atom, we attach it with the number "1", but the atom is still an atom just how the red cube is still a red cube not the words "red" and "cube"

>>6174290
>implying kanye isn't the foundation of our universe

link to video?

>>6174677

this pls, google returns nothing

>>6174296
"consider science"

>hurr can't see it, doesn't exist

>>6174641

You need it if your goal is to understand as much as possible in a finite span of time.

I could discover calculus myself in a vaccuum, or use it and get head.

>>6174660

voice of a mothefucking generation

>>6174896
>voice of a mothefucking generation

pretty sure that japanese guy is, not kanye