/sci/ - Science & Math

>inb4 the guy who was raped by an anime girl as a child

Mathematics is not a natural science. Nothing else need be said.

>>8077248

>>8077248
Mathematics and science are both pursuits of knowledge, they're both offshoots of general philosophy.

Mathematics is just logic, it's all about a priori knowledge. With a perfect mind, you could reach all the mathematical conclusions that could ever be reached simply by sitting in your chair and thinking.

Science is based on experimentation and a posteriori knowledge - to do science, you need to gather data about the world. Experimental data upholds logic and certain premises, and the mathematics that follows from those premises is therefore valid.

>>8077248
>What is the difference between physics and mathematics?

>>8077274

>implying lagrangians aren't the de facto standard of field theories

Math isn't falsifiable

>>8077248
Maths is the cute 2D waifu.

Physics is the ugly 3D slag.

>>8077378
Pretty accurate. Especially since 2D waifus aren't actually real.

>>8077378
Experiments is the ugly 3D waifu*
Theoretical physics is like 2.5D CG animated waifu

Math is for fucking nerds.
Physics is for ugly dorks.

>>8077248
Math is finding ways to consistently move numbers around. Physics is applied math.
It gives names to numbers, picks rules for moving those numbers around by name, then does unit conversions until you have what you're looking for.

1.) Neither Science nor Math have anything to do with "meaning".
2.) Math is abstract and hypothetical, science is literal but strives to be predictive.
3.) They both strive to be pragmatic and logical.
4.) The study of Knowledge itself is called "Epistemology" and it's a subfield of Philosophy.
5.) Get the fuck out of /sci/ you shitposting, animeposting retard.

>>8077822
Physics isn't simply applied math.
There are theories and proof in Physics based purely on demonstration.

>>8077474
Correct. Math fags are fucking nerds meaning they actually get laid whereas physicists don't.

>>8077248
Physics is only concerned with representing reality as a set of laws to predict future outcomes.

Math is essentially just logic, it exists separately from reality and it's properties, but we assume reality is also logical.

>>8077853
>theories and proof
the concept of proof is alien to science
it is limited to axiom-based systems like math
(and organized religion)

>>8077248>>8077853

Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.

mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.

Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.

It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.


Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].

Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.

>>8077822

There are entire fields of mathematics whose elementary objects have almost nothing to do with numbers whatsoever.

You don't know what math is, son.

>>8077248
Yui is very cute!

Physics is mathematics that make sense.

>>8078571
(not true, by the way)

>>8077248
>>>/a/
get out of here with your pedophile cartoons

>>8078583
mmmmmmmmm...

>>8078900
thats a nice source right there

>>8078915
I don't know about the placements, but a few minutes on google confirmed the rates.

>>8078919
No, that's not how arguing on the internet works. You have to actually provide him the source, and then he can either dispute it because he didn't like it or declare victory because he forced you to look for the citation.

>>8078900
yeah, when banging 13 year old boys legal I'll bet the rape rate is a lot lower.

next up: make murder legal then you can have a murder rate of 0/100,000

>>8078966
lol true

>>8078351
>>8077853
There are many many instances of philosophy intersecting with science and math, especially when it comes to formal systems. Substructural and many other non-classical logics came about as a result of 'philosophical' concerns, which in turn had tremendous impact in math and particularly in computing science.

Then of course there's also plenty of philosophy which useless social and political wank. It sometimes makes me ashamed of my field of study t b h.

>>8078966
Just becasue its legal doesn't mean it wont happen, just make nothing qualify as murder. Problem solved

>>8077378
This pretty much sums it up.

>>8079189
Philosophy is just a primitive form of mathematics. You have entire branches that don't require proof to just assume shit (can you say Moorean shift) and basically just say "prove me wrong." Science is a significant improvement on this because the scientific method requires proof before saying something is true.

>>8079557
proof and truth are just words

>>8079557
so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:

-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and terrorize you, since the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position

the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)

biomp

>>8078327
Precisely this.

plato is right

>>8082145
fuck off

>>8077378
physics is the cel-shaded qt we still love
engineering is the ugly 3DPD