/sci/ - Science & Math

you forgot
>/sci/ is about science

> there is free will
back to >>>/mlp/

>>7770304
>>Mathematics is not completely contained in Logic/Philosophy
Show me the Logic/Philosophy that englobes the concepts used to prove the Mordell conjecture and how it constitutes a formal proof.

Oh, right, you can't. Keep circlejerking over bullshit, philosopher.

shitty b8, will probably get replies anyway

>>7770304
>>laugh is good for health
It's a good exercise for your abs.
>>Mathematics is not completely contained in Logic
Disproved by Gödel. Logic is a strict subset of math.
>>Philosophy
lol
>>the average person knows more than 2000 words not counting synonymous
The basic vocabulary a non-native speaker has to learn before being able to communicate fluently is somewhere between 5000 and 10000 words, depending on the language.
>>studying is hard
For brainlets it might be hard.
>>Biology is not completely contained in Physics
>>Chemistry is not completely contained in Physics
If you spent less time masturbating over your own pseudo-intellectualism and instead read an economics book, you'd know that division of labour is a thing.
>>people read/know all their books in their shelf
Only plebs put unread books into a shelf.
>>there is no free will
Free will is logically and physically impossible. It is not even properly definable without either completely losing all meaning or resulting in a contradiction.

>>7770304
but studying IS hard!

>>7770304
>>Mathematics is not completely contained in Logic/Philosophy
False.
>>7770418
>>>Mathematics is not completely contained in Logic
>Disproved by Gödel. Logic is a strict subset of math.
Stupidest bullshit I've heard all day.

>>7770425
Gödel proved that not all of math can be reduced to logic. Perhaps you should study math instead of fedoratardedly insulting it, my dear redditor.

>>7770429
So you're telling me theres some kind of math that you can do without logic ?

>>7770304
>mfw philosotards are still buttmad because science and math made their drivel obsolete
>mfw philosotards are so rectally ravaged that they spam fallacies on /sci/ while being unemployed and generally useless

>>7770433
Most of math is done without logic. Outside of formal logic itself no mathematician ever bothers to set up a formal deductive system and do inference from axioms. Please get rid of your cringeworthy high school fedora delusions and read up on some actual math.

>>7770304
>>there is no free will
How so.
You don't choose to exist in this moment.

>>7770418
That is not what Gödel proved, I am sorry. He proved Incompleteness, meaning you can't define all math with a finite set of axioms. If you think logic is finite, then you are just defining it as a finite system. I obviously don't define logic this way.
> 5000 and 10000 words
You counted synonymous, your mistake.
>division of labour is a thing.
I never claimed division of labor doesn't exist, your mistake.
>Only plebs put unread books into a shelf.
So where do they keep them before they read them? Not true.
>Free will is logically and physically impossible.
Then prove it. Tip, if you talk about causation you will have to flawlessly describe the nature of the First Cause.

>>7770304
If free will was real, manlets could just freely decide to grow.

>>7770437
>Most of math is done without logic.

Just look at this retard who didn't get what finite sets of axioms are. Look at the kind of shit he then says.

>>7770441
Incompleteness has nothing to do with a finite set of axioms. Your pop sci retardation is showing and it stinks.

>>7770447
Again, this is not how math is done. And you seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

>>7770441
>if you talk about causation
All laws of nature are either deterministic or random. You have no control over either.

>>7770448
Nice rhetorics. This is the main argument against A.I:
"That brains are not reducible to Turing Machines, and Turing Machines are "abstract machine[1] that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules", being these a finite set of axioms"
And?
"They derive from Kurt Gödel's 1931 proof in his first incompleteness theorem that it is always possible to create statements that a formal system could not prove."

If we want to go further and see the definition of formal system:
"
A finite set of symbols (i.e. the alphabet), that can be used for constructing formulas (i.e. finite strings of symbols).
A grammar, which tells how well-formed formulas (abbreviated wff) are constructed out of the symbols in the alphabet. It is usually required that there be a decision procedure for deciding whether a formula is well formed or not.
A set of axioms or axiom schemata: each axiom must be a wff.
A set of inference rules.
"

So again, you are wrong. Many mistakes so far if you are the same poster.

>>7770455
What does any of this wikipedia copypasta have to do with m post? Are you a shitposting bot?

>>7770461
>What does any of this wikipedia copypasta have to do with m post? Are you a shitposting bot?

Did you forget you said Incompleteness has nothing to do with a set of axioms? I proved you wrong. Any other question?

>>7770468
I said it has nothing to do with the set of axioms being "finite". Finiteness is absolutely irrelevent here.

>there is no free will

so refute it

and I'll laugh at you for good health

>>7770471
An infinite amount of axioms would make math complete. You can't read simple quotes, I get it.

>>7770479
You have no idea what the incompleteness theorem states, do you?

>inb4 you copypaste the wikipedia article without understanding anything of it

>>7770429
>Gödel proved that not all of math can be reduced to logic.
That's not what he proved at all. Give the theorem of collection of theorems in which you believe he proves this.

>>7770304
You forgot

>eating fruits and vegetables and avoiding fatty foods or junk food will ensure a healthier life and other fake nutritional bullshit.
>smoking and secondhand smoke is bad and will guarantee an unhealthy life
>drugs are bad
>anthropogenic climate change exists
>philosophers are useless despite posing questions of reason to create a more nuanced understanding of reality

>>7770486
It's a trivial corollary of the incompleteness theorem. If you don't know the theorem, then read about it.

>>7770304
>evolution is real
>0.999... equals 1
>consciousness is not dualistic
>quantum mechanics doesn't prove we live in a computer simulation
>nothing can move faster than light

>>7770477
This will take us some time. As I said, proving free will revolves around the nature of the cause of physical events, as in, the First Cause of the Universe and the current cause of quantum events.

Why? While people use causation to say they have no free will, this only brings us to ask about the cause itself. If the cause is a mindless random system, then yes, not necessarily they have free will. If the cause is all-smart, which is plausible considering the obsevable Universe bears intelligent life, which is randomly unlikely, then you inherit its free will due to the Cause's ability of telesis. Then someone might say, "well there is a multiverse and this is one realm and this is why there is intelligente life from our Physical laws", then he necessarily admits there is hell, heaven, realms where frodo helps harry potter while fucking hermione, all the pagan gods and etc. So at this point of the argument you are either a deist or a modern pagan, aka multiversefag. So what if free will arises from multiverse aswell? Simple proof: a multiverse is an explanation for the Laws of Physics themselves, a cause for natural laws implies unbound creation of realms' laws and initial conditions. And this condition implies that some of the creations may have free will by chance alone. So it sums up, we all have free will or only some of us have free will, but free will necessarily occurs by chance. Personally, I am a deist, I think all living creatures inherit free will, but this is a long story. Free will has been proven to exist nevertheless.

>>7770498
you are the cancer

This >>7770485 >>7770491 fag just keep shitposting, maybe trying to damage control or something.

>>7770526
As opposed to OP who is a great quality poster?

>>7770531
Not my fault that you have no math education.

>>7770534
Kek
Why are you posting here? If you are so sure of the shit you just said, like "Most of math is done without logic", then just fuck off.

>>7770304
Teach me your ways, kek master.

>>7770524

assumptions assumptions simple logical flaws

go back to your junior high math homework before you go shitposting on /sci/ with grandiose claims

this wasn't entertaining at all

>>7770555
Why do you think people will be too lazy to read my post and see that you are not refuting anything that I say?

>>7770547
You're right. I should go back to working on my math PhD thesis. Have fun jerking off over your cringe tier reddit misconceptions.

>>7770304
All of them are myths except this one.
> there is no free will
If you can refute that, then you are the greatest genius of this generation in my opinion. Good luck with that.

>>7770524
And to think I was under the impression that you were going to present a good argument for free will that would spark an interesting discussion.

>>7770560

Because of my sick trips and because it's tiring to read your stupid bullshit.

Ok but I'll do you a solid favor you clownass fucknugget because you seem genuinely convinced of your non-existent mental prowess and that's not only sad but also dangerous and might bite you in the ass so the sooner you know the better for you.

You state that there are two options to choose from: either being a theist or a multiversefag. That's fucking ridiculous, but let's examine the retarded reasons that lead you to believe this deranged conclusion.

Because the cause seems all-smart. Why does the cause seems all-smart? Because the alternative is somehow "randomely unlikely" like you can make statements like that, because in your profound delusion you actually think that the cosmic scale of the probability of events in the universe is no match for your powers of infinite mathematical intuition. Jesus fuck, we are literally dealing with creationism-tier reasoning here.

I could go on but I suddenly lost interest.

>>7770491
>It's a trivial corollary of the incompleteness theorem.
It's been such a long time! We've talked before, I believe. I'm surprised you haven't thought up of any new material yet.

>>7770623
What do you mean "new material"? It's a well-established theorem, proved almost a century ago.

>>7770626
New material for your comedy routine, of course!

>>7770634
If I wanted comedy, I'd ask you about your math education.

>>7770437
>Most of math is done without logic. Outside of formal logic itself no mathematician ever bothers to set up a formal deductive system and do inference from axioms.

I suggest you read up on natural deduction. This is what the working mathematician essentially uses on a day-to-day basis. Also, proof assistants like Agda, Coq, Mizar, etc. are gaining more popularity. It doesn't get more formal that this.

>>7770654
I am a working mathematician and I don't use any of that shit. You know, there are so many fields of math more interesting than formal logic.

>>7770441
>Not carrying all your unread books around with you everywhere
fucking pleb, get /lit/

>>7770441
>hat is not what Gödel proved, I am sorry. He proved Incompleteness, meaning you can't define all math with a finite set of axioms. If you think logic is finite, then you are just defining it as a finite system. I obviously don't define logic this way.

Jesus, you guys really need to study foundations. First of all, there are two incompleteness theorem that Gödel proved and they have nothing to do with what you wrote. Also, NBG is an example of a set theory with finitely many axioms which you can use to do almost all of your mathematics.

>>7770441
>buying more books than you can read
Only a brainlet would do that.

>>7770638
Nice!

>>7770658
>am a working mathematician and I don't use any of that shit.

Yes you do. You just don't realize it.