/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7287209
this

Math and science are no longer practical in the modern world.

>>7287226
>-1/12 really poor bait.

>>7287226

>>7287209
Level of thought and application. For example it all stems from philosophy, which branches into mathematics which itself branches in science. Each has its place and it's importance though.

Isn't philosophy of mathematic a big part of mathematics?

Science is the study of the world around us, which needs to be quantified and logical to be understood, which we get through mathematics. Philosophy is the significance of these discoveries. Realistically, none of the subjects are absolute.

And you have sexual desires for your mother.

>>7287265
no

>>7287315
>Philosophy is the significance of these discoveries.
no

>>7287760
>no
yes

0146194

>>7287209
Who is this seminal fluid druid?

0146194

Scientists need big expensive machines to work
Mathematicians need pencil, paper and a rubber
Philosophers need pencil and paper

>>7287800

HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE

>>7287800
and I only need a rubber when I'm fucking you're mom :^)

>>7287315
>needs
nice projecting

>>7287815
That's a really good advice, last time I fucked your mom in the ass without a rubber, you were pooped 9 months later...

>>7287815
>>7287881

>>>/b/

>>7287892
Can't we all live together in harmony, in a world where the most subtle insults and highest discussions are found in the same place and people as the insinuations of having regularly maintained paid intercourses with a stranger's mother? Wouldn't that be an ideal world...?

Philosophy leads to logic.

Math and Science are expressions of a correct philosophical thinking. Mathematicians and Scientists disregard philosophy because to them, the problem is already solved and prefer to apply it in the real world than to think abstractly about it.

I feel /sci/ might actually enjoy Bertrand Russel or Ludwig Wittgenstein.

>>7287905
>live together in harmony
>on 4chan

Topkek m9.

>>7287209
I love this outfit ya zeh
the subject of study and the methods used

>>7287916
We use several different logical systems and low level philosophy concepts in math, it just never comes up in baby math.

>>7287917
It's m8, not m9.

>>7287951
Mathematical Logic is a very vast and serious subfield of mathematics.

>>7287958
Mathematician, aren't you?

>>7287958
he addressed you as m9 because you're not quite his m8

>>7287980
He's a different guy, I'm not that stupid

>>7287992
>He's a different guy
for you

scientists are explorers. philosophers are tourists.
-Richard F

there isn't one

all science was originally ' natural philosophy '

Philosophy is scientific thinking applied to society.

For example read pic related's rigorous analysis of modern dating culture.

who is this penis pirate?

>>7287209

Philopsphy - The study of what can and can not be known.
Mathematics - Formal philosophical notation.
Science - Useful theories. Does not concern itself with finding "absolute" truth only "useful" truth.

>>7289692
Try harder, idiot troll.

>>7289699
Whats wrong?

>>7287209
Now that I think about it. I've never really seen black people in anime.

>>7289703
Philosophy is the study of everything through logic.
Both mathematics and science are specific branches of philosphy.

>>7291881

Philosophy is the rigorous use of whatever language you speak to raise and answer questions cleverly. It used to be considered a science until some asshats came up with muh laboratory experiments.
Mathematics is the rigorous use of abstraction tools (the most frequent ones being sets, morphisms, categories and binary relations) to study problems and discover extremely powerful and complex statements only from a bunch of axioms and the use of simple logic. It is still considered a science because those asshats couldn’t draw any conclusion from their experiments without mathematics. Instead, they deny the fact that mathematics are strongly inspired by philosophy and still look a lot like it.
Science is barely trying to know facts. Sometimes it’s through abstraction tools like mathematics, and sometimes it’s about experimentation and observation like in biology. Just doing statistics may be useful to build theories, but it is not science.

falsifiability. you dumb fucking spergs

>>7292073
How about you falsify the Riemann hypothesis?

>>7292107
math isn't science. it's literally philosophy

>>7292113

Math : The constant framework that makes up our world

Science: applying math to make assumptions about our world

Philosophy: applying logic to everything that cannot be explained by math.

>>7292120
>spergs try to convince themselves that their symbols bullshit is science
>literally make up all the rules of how it works

>>7292125
>Philosophy: applying logic

0/10

>>7292125
>Math : The constant framework that makes up our world
top fucking sperg

>>7292131
x fuggin D

>>7292125
>The constant framework that makes up our world
>implying mathematicians even believe this

Math: Using and developing functions to describe patterns.
Science: A process of explaining the natural world, and developing methods to use natural laws.
Philosophy: Using logic to make arguments about the state of things.

>>7292145
>Philosophy: Using logic

Bait harder.

>>7292140
You're right, thats closer to physics.

Math is like, the tools we use to quantify our world. Idk, math is just a fact of life which is why I used constant.

>>7292164
>math is just a fact of life
lel

>science
just a "rigorous" method of disclosing knowledge of the world based upon an epistemology
>math
same thing, just more abstract
>philosophy
same thing, just more self-reflecting

>>7287209
>What's the difference between mathematics, science and philsophy?
Mathematics is the activity of the mathematicians consisting in
-a choice of logic (developped by the logician) by the mathematician, where he chooses what is a proof, what is a theorem, what are the quantifiers...
-a choice of axioms which are devoid of direct ontology since what matters is now the axiomatic relations between the symbols
(this is key in the language : you no longer ask what is a plane, but how it interacts with other concepts in geometry, such as a point or a curve. In natural languages, some stronger degree of ontology remains, but this ontology could well be removed and some mathematics in a natural language would remain).
Naturally, there are mathematicians who are against the axiomatization of the mathematics. See, the finitists.

The task of the mathematicians is thus to derive as many theorems as possible, with the definition of theorem belonging to the choice of the logic. Hopefully, soon, we will have the computers to carry all our proofs, all that will remain for the humanity will be to seek new logics and new axioms. However, even this last task will be done by some machines sooner or later.

>>7292447


Physics is the activity of the physicists consisting in providing some models of the phenomenological world, models called objectivity, once assumed the metaphysical stance of the realism.
In physics, the predictions can be done qualitatively, instead of quantitatively. All our apparatuses are now quantitative, but every rule and prediction of every physical model can be formulated in a natural language. In physics, nobody knows if the the equations derived by the humanity concerning their experiences do hold in others parts of the universe. This is a mild solipsism, a humanist solipsism, analogue to the old question on how to know whether China exists, if I never have been to China. Any other kind of solipsism would be frowned upon socially in our times, anyway.
In science, there is a choice of many things: of postulates/axioms/principles/methods for induction/methods for collection and treatment of experimental data
The output of the scientific method is a variety of models, more or less overlapping, which describe and predict, more or less broadly, more or less accurately, more or less quantitatively, more or less qualitatively, some phenomenon assumed to be repeatable within a framework determined by each model.
What are the absolutes ? They are the predictions, the outputs of the models. Each choice of model, by a person, is a matter of affinity, of belief, of ''I like, I do not like'', of preferences.
For instance, I can measure a thing with a ruler, ruler1, I get the number X. I choose another ruler, ruler2, I get the number Y. The number Y will always be gotten, in the process of applying the ruler2 to the thing to be measured, if the ruler2 is used.
But there is no necessity to use the ruler2, nor even the ruler1. There is not even a necessity to measure anything. Why do you want to measure something ?

>>7292447
>>7292451

Beforehand, though, each model describe, more or less partially, the phenomeon. If you venture on the WHYs and the HOWs, you engage yourself in metaphysics (literally, what is beyond the physics, the phenomenon and its acquirement by the senses).
Here, the objectivity is the numbers. The objectivity relates to the repetition of the procedure as well as to the prediction. We believe that the quantitative data aforementioned are more objective than qualitative data, precisely because we believe that numbers are more objective than qualities, because they are derived from some algorithm. The point of the person choosing this algorithm, over some others, is to convince/persuade the other people that her choice is right/better/relevant.
Then each person chooses her models that she likes the most and endlessly debates politically with the other persons in asking which method is better than the other, which must be applied in such fields, in such social doctrine.
You see that the physicists is always at the frontier of the explainable in terms of mechanist models. The physicists is interested in the domain where its favourite models DO NOT work, while the domain where the physical models do work is left to the engineer throughout the (industrial) technology, in order to solve some material problems.

>>7292451
>>7292447
>>7292454


We see with all this that the tragedy of the scientific method is its inability, so far, to advocate/prove (scientifically) its necessity and its sufficiency towards the goals that the humanity sets it up, that is to say, towards acquiring knowledge about the phenomenological world.
Indeed, under a monist stance, especially physicalist/naturalist, where everything is --- the physical realism starts here--- and is nature, the humanity and its thoughts included, the sciences must explain then what the humanity categorizes today as metaphysics. THe first questions is

-why do the human models which predict (accurately or not) do predict ?
(how come the maths are so useful in physics ?, Einstein asks)
If we answer this, we can thus say why the physical models are necessary and sufficient to predict the quantitative and qualitative results.
Nonetheless, these predictions might not be all the knowledge to have.

These questions lead to the philosophy. The philosophy is nowadays the activity of the philosophers, those who love the sophia. With the greeks, It means that the philosophers are not sage themselves, but only that they love the sophia. At the time, in their perspectives, the philosophy is the activity to live the good life.

>>7292454
>>7292447
>>7292459
>>7292451

The philosophers put back the ontology in the language (natural), contrary to the mathematicians who try to impoverish the mathematical symbols (beyond the logical symbals, such the quantifiers). The phisophers do not hesitate to talk about what is not real. let us take the concept of the idea. An idea is not real, but it is pure being. An idea is pure ontology. It is a thing that is not another thing. The purity defines the idea. The traditional question is the one of the justice. What is justice ?
But why do we think Plato talks about the concept of idea. Plato talks about this concept, put it higher than anything else, for it was important in its time. Plato was looking for the selection of the pretenders (to the magistracy, let us say) since there is the competition, as established by the Greeks. THe concept of the idea solves the problem what gives somebody the right to something or not the right to some thing.

In Deleuzian terms, The task of those people is to create some concepts, through the creation of problematics. They must identify, at their time and location in space, what are the problems in their societies. This step is incredibly more difficult than what it appears. What matters less is the solution to their identified problems. For instance, the typical problem of the modern democracies is the question of the knoweldge, as exposed below:

-why does the humanity hold the human predictions (from scientific models or not) as authentic knowledge about the world (as if there are two worlds, the world of the phenomenons and the world of the thoughts/predictions) ?

(for instance, if you can predict the output of some game, everybody on earth will tell you that you know about the world)

-is there knowledge that is not about prediction ?

>>7292462
>>7292462
>>7292447
>>7292451
>>7292454
>>7292459

If you replace maths with one philospher's doctrine, it works all the same. For each philosopher, we choose to follow the deductions that he makes according to the logic he chooses. Since philosophy is done in natural language, there is more vagueness and circularity than in maths, because the words of the natural language has more ontology since it is the job of the philosophers to do this.
At some point in the deductions of the philosophers, we will disagree, or we will be surprised or will not follow the deduction.
This where we stop believing in his doctrine, or stick to it and continue, or learn another one or explore your own philosophy.

>>7292464
>>7292462
>>7292459
>>7292454
>>7292451
>>7292447

This is getting pathetic. Your bait is so stale that you need to spam it excessively in order to get replies. How about you stop trolling and get a job instead?