/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7904049
I actually think this for some reason.
If something is based on logic and arguments, but you can't convince someone, then your arguments aren't compelling enough. That's assuming they're willing to spend the time to listen to all of them...

>>7904060
There's no compulsion in truth.

>>7904060
Some people dont want to see truth.

>>7904076
if truth is supposed to be self evident and logical, then why is the efficiency of transmission of truth among humans <50%?

>>7904079
Women.

>>7904049
This is just one of those if a tree falls does anyone hear it questions

>>7904049
Who ever said mathematics is anything more than humans agreeing on things that seem reasonable but you cannot prove, and seeing what the consequences of these agreements.

It is nice and cool when mathematics can be used to say something about the real world, but it is not necessarily saying anything about the real world.

The universe exists independently of consciousness.

>>7904332
Math exists independent of the universe

>>7904083
/bread

>>7904049
>mathematics is universal truth

Implying

>>7904364
>>7904183
Both of these. Mathematics isn't universal truth.

>>7904372
numbers are though aren't they?

or does the solo term 'number' not exist in mathematics?

>>7904377
In classical mathematics, there are a number of isomorphic models for all of the things that we think of as "numbers" (integers, reals, rationals, etc.). So the specific objects that one works with when using numbers aren't really universal truths, but social constructs.

I guess ultimately it comes down to a matter of opinion or faith. I personally believe in order to have the concept of what a "number" is, you have to want to measure something, so the idea of numbers is dependent on human perception, making the entire thing a social construct. On the other hand, some people might think that our concept of numbers descends from some kind of platonic plane of ideals.

>>7904332
No it doesn't, without conscious observer wave function couldn't collapse, which is, as we all know, crucial to the existence of the universe

>>7904425

are numbers that trivial?
>classical mathematics
is there something beyond that?

>>7904049

Mathematics is not an absolute truth; if you aren't a terrestrial being, our math wouldn't mean a fucking thing to you.

It's how the human race models the universe on paper and is our best representation of truth.

>>7904961

yeah, just look at the application of our math in physics i.e. the application of natural log or something

>>7904915
I'm not sure what you mean. What kind of information do you want from this question?

>>7905029

I want you confirmation that numbers are not a social construct or at least that social constructs are based on numbers.

>>7904049
OPPAI
P
P
A
I

>>7904083
Sorry mummy didn't love you anon

>>7905041
As I said in my first post, it's down to a matter of opinion. If you think that numbers are features of human society that arose once humans needed to count and measure things, then they're a social construct.

If you think that numbers exist as an intrinsic part of the universe, or in a place outside of the universe that influences the universe then they're not.

But mathematics works via a process of agreeing on truths by social convention. Numbers as mathematics use them are a social construct.

>>7905188
>Numbers as mathematics use them are a social construct.

don't you mean mathematicians?

>>7905160
How to bankrupt any home in the US.
>Give the woman a credit card.

>>7905377
>>7905160
https://youtu.be/qYNeT2nzEgA?t=15

>>7905362
In my view, mathematics is a society of mathematicians, so yes and no.

>Math
>truth
Not to be a philosophaggot but almost every mathematical proof uses inductive reasoning.

>>7905516
But that's not true at all.

>>7904049
>>7904060
No, people aren't necessarily rational

No.

>>7905516
You don't know about mathematical induction faggot

Math is just a collection of nifty string manipulation games. The only extent to which it is "universal" is the extent to which if different entities play the same game, they get the same result.

I say "entity" instead of "person" because a fair bit of math can be done by computer at this point, and there's no particular reason to think that the games we've stumbled upon are only patterns that appear in human brain-like structures (in fact, given their continued utility in actually describing things I'd find that kind of surprising).

Attempts to portray math as some sort of platonic ideal separate from the physical universe is silly and wrongheaded and ultimately impossible to describe in a coherent manner.

>shitpunchman

>>7904060
All that means is that you're conveying it improperly.

I find it more likely that someone's perspective and language skills are less perfect than an objective mathematical truth.

>>7905377
seen it happen with my own eyes,it's true but only if the man fucks up.

>>7904961
If math wasn't represented in symbols, rather, they were represented with units counted out (4 = four dots), I feel like that makes all our math universal to some extent

>>7904049
>>7904060
You both assume that humans are logical creatures. Friendly reminder that there are people who honestly believe that the entire world is in on a conspiracy to hide the fact that the world is flat.

>>7904961
Are you an idiot? Sure an alien wouldn't know what the fuck the symbol '2' means, but all of our numbers translate to real quantities that don't magically change just because you aren't human. Just like how all of our operations remain real and useful if you so happen to be from the Andromeda Galaxy.

>>7907824
>>7907853
In which case, we can physically structure and present equations, right? It'd be difficult, I imagine, but possible

1=0

If you don't get it, you're a fucking retard.

>>7904372
you are a retard, a mathematical statement is not "the pythagorean theorem is true", it is "if the axioms are true then the pythagorean theorem is true", and this my friend is a universal truth.

>>7904901
Who observed the first wave function collapse?

>>7904332

But math does not exist independently of consciousness.

>>7909889
>if the axioms are true
This is the problem.

>>7904060
>If something is based on logic and arguments, but you can't convince someone, then your arguments aren't compelling enough. That's assuming they're willing to spend the time to listen to all of them...
But often when somebody fails to understand it's because they haven't spent the time on the work or its prerequisites.

>>7904901
This had better just be bait.

The intellectually incompetent aren't entitled to any form of understanding. If they can't comprehend it then so be it.

>>7904049

>> mathematics is universal truth

Mathmetics is simply:

1 . Definitions - things I define about my mathematical system
2. Axioms - things I assert as true but are not provable
3. Theorems - results from 1.2. proven by logic.

I can invent any math system I want using these principles. If people don't understand my math that just makes it practically useless.

Math is irrelevant unless there is context, what are we using it for. E.g. physics uses it to model the behavior we observe in the universe. At the end of the day the universe cares nothing about our mathematics and does what it always has.

Bottom line, I would not put math on a god-like pedestal.

>>7911978
There is no problem. There are no ´true´ axioms, there are just different axioms which produce different results