/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7313787
Am I the only one who cringed erytime I see a picture contains random and meaningless mathematical scribbles?

>>7313787
Plotonism is a fun idea, but fictionalism is much more realistic in terms of what we actual know about the universe.

>>7313793
Yes.

Numbers exist, they are abstract objects, outside of space and time.
>calls this platonism, baiting phylosophyfags and their retarded opinion
Whatever.

>>7313968
>hurrrr durrr philosophy is dead

>>7314005
Meant this

>>7313997

Well, does a triangle really exist at all? We can make imitations of triangles, but we've never really made a true triangle because it's impossible to make. Yet we can still logically determine what makes a shape a triangle and what its properties are and that it is a three sided polygon.

Triangles don't exist in the real world, but they're instead a sort of concept. Whether or not 'concepts' exist is anyone's guess, but I would say that it'd be better to say that the concept of a triangle doesn't exist in the physical world but exists in a sort of conceptual world.

>>7314017
>Triangles don't exist in the real world
Just shut up, antagonist cunt. Fuck you.

>>7314035
Is there really a triangle that is a triangle in its most basic form in the real world, anon? Something that is nothing more than a three sided polygon?

>stuff that "exists" outside of our space-time
>worth discussing

>>7313787
platonism = religion

>Numbers exist, they are abstract objects, outside of space and time.
Yes, only that they don't exist outside space(and time).

Mathematic is the system we can use to understand, describe and valuable the whole world.
Matematic is absolute

>>7314152
Wow, that sounds very dogmatic, i don't like it

Isn't matamatic dogmatic?

>>7314035
I feel like this was a slight overreaction. Did a perfect triangle descend from the heavens and kill your parents or something?

>>7314932
Toplel post on /sci/ right now.

>>7313787
Those are just different words to describe the same thing.

>>7314035
Except its true. There exists no perfectly straight line, 3 of which would be required for a real triangle. All we have are approximations of triangles.

Ur a faget

>>7313787

>>7313787
>Numbers exist, they are abstract objects, outside of space and time
Nope, mathematics are a subproduct of the physical laws, which in turn derive from the fundamental interactions, therefore, they can't exist outside our Universe's realm. In fact, in a universe governed by a different set of fundamental interactions (if such a thing can be possible), mathematics are bound to be radically different.

>>7313793
No.

>>7314035
Take any triangle. Choose one of its corners and observe it's angle. Zoom into said corner and observe the angle. No matter how much you zoom into this corner it will always have the same angle and shape. You could even zoom in an arbitrary amount and then use the corner to create another triangle that's similar to the original one.

This is one of the properties a triangle must have in order for many theorems to hold. Now try and tell me that this kind of thing is possible with molecules or atoms.

>>7313787
There is also ultrafinitism view, although it is rather unpopular. Numbers exists only in concrete physical realizations. Only concrete calculations are meaningful. Universal statements about numbers can't be proved (but sometimes they can be refuted by providing counterexample that is verified by a concrete calculation).
There are also some variations of what you have called Platonism with different placement of abstract objects.

>>7313787
they are both correct, as usual

>>7316071
What is pi then?

>>7314005
>implying philosophy hasn't been dead for literally hundreds of years

>>7316072
>they are both correct, as usual
THIS

OP, haven't you heard of intangible nouns?
Car insurance is strictly "abstract" having no physical manifestation.
And yet it exists.

>>7316087
I have written about approach to natural numbers. I am less aware of what such kind of people think about geometry. But most likely real numbers for them are acceptable only in form of approximations. So most likely the statement the ratio of length of some given circle and its diameter is between 3.14 and 3.15 is ok. But most likely they wouldn't agree that there is unique ratio that is the same for all circles and clearly wouldn't accept this ratio as infinite decimal or something like that.

>>7316000
No, you infant. There exist sound nontrivial theories that (intentionally) fail to coincide with physical laws. This question really comes down to the origin of logical deduction.

>>7316328
>There exist sound nontrivial theories that (intentionally) fail to coincide with physical laws
what do you mean by this ?

>>7316910
He means that there are axiomatic systems that exhibit models that cannot exist in the physical world. The physical universe is really just a special case.

>>7316000
>Nope, mathematics are a subproduct of the physical laws, which in turn derive from the fundamental interactions, therefore, they can't exist outside our Universe's realm.
You don't know dick about math.

>In fact, in a universe governed by a different set of fundamental interactions (if such a thing can be possible), mathematics are bound to be radically different.
The mainstream view is the exact opposite.

>>7316942
give concrete axiomatics like this
and the explanation of why they are impossible.

>>7316942
do you mean the toy models in physics ?

>>7314085
religion isn't simply something you believe in, you dip

>>7314152
yet mathematic is shaped by the way we perceive the world.
As >>7314173
implied, even pure logic is nothing but dogma

>>7317010
No, the models in mathematics that are totally bizarre and counterintuitive. If you work in ZF without choice then you end up with over 8 different definitions for an infinite set and each one is independent even though all intuition says they should be equivalent.

>>7317165
>yet mathematic is shaped by the way we perceive the world.
Maybe in the 1700's, it is no longer the case however. If we're lucky were able to find something in the real world that resembles mathematics.

>>7317626
>without choice
My condolences

>>7313787
without first identification of an irreducible measure of any unit, I have no idea how to claim a singular anything. 1 of anything might as well be a concept like love.

>>7313793
>>7313978
>>7316038
I don't know

>>7313787
>>7313793
omg that pic looks so complicated im gonna go draw it on my window so people know how smart i am xddd

>>7316947
You can't really argue fir the opposite of what he's defending either.

Nobody is competent in this matter (the one who work on those problems are basically competent in recognizing how difficult those problems are, that's it).

>>7317627
>yet mathematic is shaped by the way we perceive the world.

This can still be true even if mathematics is no longer designed to replicate reality as we "intuitively" or "physically" experience it. Dealing with data sets in a geometric way is still applying intuition about the perceived world, but in a less direct and naive way.

Not to bark up on meme math here, but the whole -1/12 thing shows how our number system is flawed. So at last the math we have now isn't some type of universally entwined idea. Not to say that there isn't per se a better version of mathematics that is universally rooted, just that our current version most certainly is not.

>>7317745
You obviously don't understand analytic continuation, nor the whole -1/12 result, so don't bother discussing it.

>>7317745
Kids like you should really just follow >>7317764's advice. I feel really bad for you embarrassing yourselves like this.

>>7313787
>abstract
>exists

>>>>literally doesn't even opposites

>>7316091
that's a social phenomena. Car insurance exists literally because of our collective agreement

what op is talking about is objective existence

>>7317831
well, in "objective existance", i don't think numbers exist.
You can't hit stub pinky toe on a seven

>>7317722
There are many generalizations of geometry that are nothing like the geometry that people intuitively think of. You rarely desk with data in mathematics and you rarely have the luxury of falling back on some nice geometric intuition.

>>7313793
It's just a stock picture being used to represent "complex math"
it's not trying to be smart or funny or anything

>>7315886

underrrated

every "hurr philosophy le kill xdd" faggots on this board should read this

>>7313793
That's not even math m8.

Lol what does plato have to do with marhs, you /lit/ folk need to stop pretending philosophy can be used to describe math, philosophy is just about the meaning of life and shit

>>7320205

wqer

>>7323193
pretty much this

>>7317821
things that exist can be intangible.

The same shitty question has been asked for over 2000 years.

Keep pretending like you guys know what "existence" means.

>>7313793
its dynamics and statics

choose three points in space.

>triangle

>>7326885
keep over-complicating things stupid philosonigger

>>7326885
>you don't know what the word "existence" means because reasons