/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9582616

>>9582626
Sums up women and men lol

If you want to know more about reality, go ahead and open up some physics books. If you want some religious proofs than logic is your friend. Both share a deep connection with math but you won't find any sensible philosophical equations explaining free will lying around.

>>9582638
I have the feeling both mathematics and philosophy are based on the mind on one side and on the heart on the other while both lack the other

>>9582616
look up Godel's proof. god is infinity because we live in a open set

>>9582616
I don't think you can.
Mathematics is about drawing logical conclusions from initial assumptions.
If you start with invalid assumptions or use an illegal operation along the way, you can "prove" anything.

Classic example: Slipping in a division by zero (usually in the form of dividing by "A-B" at a point where the student has forgotten than "A=B") allows you to show "2=1"
Now, the Pope and I are two. Therefore, the Pope and I are one.
I am the Pope!

Alternatively, if you mis-use probability, you start to see quite ordinary things as so unlikely they "must" require supernatural intervention. SOMEBODY is going to win the lottery despite fantastic odds. Then they tell the newspapers that Saint So-and-so appeared to them in a dream with the winning numbers. You don't hear about the 10 million other people with tales just as miraculous -- except they didn't win.

>>9582645
Take into account that both math and philosophy are very, very wide ranging topics. Sure, philosophy can be all touchy feely and intuiitive like Nietsche feeling bad about beeing a weak cunt and projecting it upon society. But at the same time you have more rigorous thinkers like Kant who actually tried to contruct a system justifying their thoughts. Mathematics on the other hand have know their less formal champions like Ramanujan being given insights by 'God'.

Instead of trying to use mathematics to prove philosophy, try to take inspiration from math and appy it to philosophy. I won't proof anything for you, but the method of mathimatical proofs and the rigour involved in them might help you with your philosophical enquiries. Happy thinking.

>>9582664
What about 1/9 times nine equals 1 what does that mean to you? By pure maths it should be 1 but this is like a thing that should definitely not exist?

>>9582678
Ironically Kant was a total nut job who said you can’t even lie to protect innocent people

>>9582659
Take the schizoposting to >>>/x/

>>9582691
That’s not a shizo post you’re the shizo

>>9582684
How far have you gotten in math? Infinite series?
Digital computers fall into this trap because they can only approximate numbers with finite precision. You don't understand either.

>>9582684
I’m saying it’s actually .99 to the infinite

>>9582703
I understand completely
Maths is just one side of the coin

>>9582616
mathematics is just glorified riddles with a coat of logic over it, dunno how much of it could be applied to theology.
Gödel tried to (and did) prove the existence of God in his famous onthological argument, however that was PURE LOGIC not math and also some of the axioms basically destroyed modal logic as in "anything can be proved", while also managing to be a pretty bland statement on godhood.
You should learn as much logic as you could and revise onthological arguments and other serious theologic literature.

>>9582720
Nice
What exactly did he prove? Like what is god?

>>9582729
you can search it.
He proved that "something with every good property must necessarily exist" i.e. God, however as I say Axiom 1 is pretty wild and Axiom 3 is also a bit of a stretch.

>>9582735
Did he also think evil has no existence of itself?

>>9582752
honestly, dunno.
The God he proved was not the Christian God, it was a godlike entity very loosely defined, and also Gödel personal beliefs were pretty vague on the subject.

>>9582757
Not the Christian god as in not Triune? Okay I see that, logically the trinity is not fathomable, I remember reading it became dogma centuries after christ

>>9582763
not only that... what I mean is that between his proof and the Bible there is no connection. That God he proved has an "unknown identity" so to speak. It could be the Christian God, one from another religion or one that is unknown to us. It's more of a philosophical god than a religious one.

His proof gave away so little information about the entity he was proving that it can't be identified with any deity while also ruling out the others.

>>9582767
Oh man. Now I lost interest.

>>9582774
it proves that "a god exists", not which one.
Idk even if Godel defined what "good" means so go figure.

>>9582774
You have don’t know anything about math or philosophy, these questions you ask yourself are baseless and in the Javi no reason, just go back to your useless and stupid that or actually learn about these subjects and derive your own opinion