Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 109 KB, 588x823, 1512340330967.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10330509 No.10330509 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>He/She isn't a Platonist
Pic related is you if the above applies

>> No.10330536

>philosophy
>>>/his/

>> No.10330540
File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10330540

>>10330536

>> No.10330546

formalism is the only right answer
we literally fucking made math up

>> No.10330549
File: 37 KB, 586x578, 1512347068367.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10330549

>>10330546
>we literally fucking made math up

>> No.10330551

>>10330540
>The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
now move the discussion to >>>/his/ plz

>> No.10330556
File: 80 KB, 645x729, 1509181931627.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10330556

>>10330549
>math is inherent to the world

>> No.10330558

>>10330556
dude i was outside smoking a cigarette yesterday and i swear to god, a wild 1 ran across the sidewalk. i saw one, no joke, they're real. sasquatch isn't tho.

>> No.10330559
File: 48 KB, 645x729, 8d6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10330559

>>10330556
>"I haven't read Kant"

>> No.10330560

>>10330556
Yes, the universe/physics are a subcategory of mathematics.
Mathematics and the Continuum are more fundamental than the physical universe

>> No.10330561

>>10330559
>Kant
god i hate philosophy threads.

>> No.10330562

>>10330561
Because OP pick applies to you, and you are brainlet

>> No.10330574

>>10330558
shit really?! fuck i better become a platonist, only a matter of time now before the Axiomatic Overlords find me.

>>10330559
>i cant argue so i just point to other people

>>10330560
just because math is an abstraction of reality doesnt mean that it is somehow more fundamental.
the continuum doesnt exist in the real world, it cannot be fundamental even though we use it in math.

>> No.10330581

Sell me on Platonism.

>> No.10330585

>>10330581
i can prove it experimentally. i will just need to tie you down so you're immobilized in a very poorly lit cave.

>> No.10330863

>>10330574
>just because math is an abstraction of reality doesnt mean that it is somehow more fundamental.
>the continuum doesnt exist in the real world, it cannot be fundamental even though we use it in math.
Math isn't an abstraction of reality.
Reality is a subset of the Continuum.
>>10330585
Experimental evidence has no worth at all

>> No.10330878
File: 100 KB, 403x334, 1518376668543.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10330878

>>10330509
>He isn't a taoist
Pic related, it's you.

>> No.10331277

>>10330556
It is.

>> No.10331316

>>10331277
sure it is

>> No.10331347

>>10331316
The "world" (as in the physical) is a subset of math
Math is more fundamental than physics. You can disagree, but you're just wrong (and stupid) to do so.

>> No.10331352

how do platonists legitimately think there is a "reality" that is not physical? do you think Hogwarts is real too, just not physically?

>> No.10331355

>>10331352
>how do platonists legitimately think there is a "reality" that is not physical?
We aren't retarded so it isn't difficult

>> No.10331360

>>10331355
so you believe in imaginary stuff? is santa real?

>> No.10331367

>>10331347
you can keep fucking saying it, but you havent demonstrated a single thing.

>>10331355
>mathematical abstraction applies to the real world because it applies in math and im used to math
nice circular shit

>> No.10331398

>>10331360
>>10331367
If you legitimately think math is created by humans, and not an intrinsic structure to the universe, that is not dependent on human thought, then the only explanation is you're retarded.
Literal children understand that math is real, and yet your dumbasses can't. pathetic.
There will never exist any law of physics that isn't mathematical. There will never exist anything that isn't fundamentally mathematical. There exists an infinite set of true propositions that have nothing to do with physical laws. Math is far larger than physics and physics is completely contained within mathematical structures. That right there proves that physics is not fundamental, if you can't understand this there is no hope for you.
There has never been a culture that has come up with different mathematics. There can never be a solution to the hypotenuse of a right triangle that doesn't satisfy a^2 + b^2 = c^2. NONE of this is human-invented or a product of human thought. Formalism isn't a legitimate epistemology (it has and empiricism has been completely BTFO multiple times by multiple philosophers over the past 200 years.

>> No.10331432

>>10331398
i accept that math is an important thing, like e.g. language. however i disagree with your definition of "real". real means it exists physically. otherwise it's not real.

math exists physically only insofar as humans do. if you believe that by mathematicians writing equations or thinking about certain things, that's bringing them into contact with a separate "reality" aside from what exists physically, you're nuts.

i suspect you have an "alternate" definition of what is "real". sorry, for me i won't entertain wishy-washy philosophical drivel about imaginary things that you claim are real because you say so. for it to be real i need it to be measurable.

>> No.10331437

>>10331398
>There will never exist any law of physics that isn't mathematical.
We fucking describe quantity in terms of math you brain dead clown, of course the formula we tack on to be the best approximation will be in terms of math, thats the only way we use quantities.

>There will never exist anything that isn't fundamentally mathematical.
you have offered no proof or explanation. fuck off with your gish gallop trash

>There exists an infinite set of true propositions that have nothing to do with physical laws.
WE DEFINE TRUTH

>physics is completely contained within mathematical structures
it literally is not, thats why string theory is such a fucking shit show


>That right there proves that physics is not fundamental
NO IT FUCKING DOESNT
>physics is described by math
>math is fundamental
>that proves physics isnt fundamental
you literally dont understand proof, i swear to god

>There can never be a solution to the hypotenuse of a right triangle that doesn't satisfy a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
we define all of that. the relation a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is just a fucking consequence of the definitions.

>NONE of this is human-invented or a product of human thought.
you have no proof, no explanation, this just more gish galloping, youre also retarded.
you cant have the idea of a right triangle floating around in some abstract space, because youre just projecting the definition you have onto it.

>> No.10331447

>>10331347
>The "world" (as in the physical) is a subset of math.
Math is more fundamental than physics

I agree with you.

>> No.10331456

>>10331437
Explain how every single civilization developed the exact same mathematics at different parts of the world without contact with each other.
>we define all of that. the relation a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is just a fucking consequence of the definitions.
You really are retarded.
>you cant have the idea of a right triangle floating around in some abstract space, because youre just projecting the definition you have onto it.
No, right traingles exist a priori, then we can talk about them. And what we can say is exactly the properties that they always had and always will have. Because right triangles, and all mathematical objects, are Platonically real.

>> No.10331462

if the universe is a subset does that mean that God is the set of all sets

>> No.10331471

>>10331456
you’ve convinced me that human thought processes (neurological processes) have a structure. and computers we built can do certain of those algorithms even much better than humans. so i conclude that physical hardware that processes information supplied from the physical world tends to lead to common sets of algorithms. the algorithms are an emergent physical phenomenon of complex adaptive PHYSICAL systems

>> No.10331490

>>10331456
>Explain how every single civilization developed the exact same mathematics at different parts of the world without contact with each other.
>without contact
you have no fucking basis whatsoever to claim that stupid shit, and it is totally irrelevant

>>doesnt say anything wrong
>You really are retarded.
fucking elaborate you dumb nigger
what in the name of god is your problem with that statement

>No, right traingles exist a priori, then we can talk about them. And what we can say is exactly the properties that they always had and always will have. Because right triangles, and all mathematical objects, are Platonically real.
>if i assume that im right, then im right
platonist faggots literally have no argument besides "im right"
honestly kill yourself, you contribute nothing

>> No.10331497

>>10331432
>math exists physically only insofar as humans do. if you believe that by mathematicians writing equations or thinking about certain things, that's bringing them into contact with a separate "reality" aside from what exists physically, you're nuts.
He's not saying math exists in a separate reality from what exists physically - he's saying that mathematical structures are baked into the fabric of realty just as the physical constants are.

>> No.10331498

>>10331471
There can be no physical process in any substrate without the PLATONIC LAWS of mathematics and computation existing first for it to have an algorithm to execute, ignoramus.
You literally have no idea how to think critically, logically, or philosophically. You are so wrapped up in materialism, that in your life you probably automatically rejected all the massive amounts of thought on this topic that has already buried that epistemology completely.
Mathematics/computation ⊋ physics ⊋ neurology ⊋ linguistics. The laws of mathematics and computation are expressible in any medium. The physical systems are just an actualization of the platonic algorithms. The algorithms are not dependent on the physical structure they are being run on, or else the algorithms wouldn't be universal and isomorphic regardless of the substrate. Computation has nothing to do with physical computers.
Just like whether or not I carve a square out of a piece of wood, or draw it on a piece of paper, or just talk about it algebraically, it is all the exact same square with the exact same properties, because the objects are not contingent upon any physical actualization. The physical actualization is one type of expression of the eternal PLATONIC object. If this weren't the case, then the squareness of a piece of wood wouldn't be exactly the same as the squareness of an ink drawing. Yet it is, always has been, always will be, and every single civilization ever has had the exact same math for all time, even without contact to each other.
>>10331490
>you have no fucking basis whatsoever to claim that stupid shit, and it is totally irrelevant
Yes I do you absolute fucking retard, this has been known to historians and mathematicians for decades. What the fuck are you talking about, idiot.
>platonist faggots literally have no argument besides "im right"
You have no intellect.

>> No.10331501
File: 152 KB, 377x372, Max_Tegmark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10331501

>>10330509
Say that to my face not online

>> No.10331515

>>10331497
And that's wrong; math is just a good way of modeling physics.

>> No.10331523

>>10331515
Mathematics is more fundamental than physics, it is not a model nor a creation of human thought, and it is not a "tool" or some type of language like you are claiming.

>> No.10331535

>>10331456
What elevates the "reality" of Euclidean geometry over other geometries? If a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is so immutably true as you say, and if all mathematical objects are "real," then what about triangles embedded on the surface of a sphere? Are those real?

>> No.10331549

>>10331515
What do you call propositional logic? Surely purely logical structures aren't a model of physics (unless you want to drastically expand the definition of physics), despite the fact that they can be replicated independently of species and location.

>> No.10331558

>>10331535
Do perfect spheres exist in reality, anon? You're relying on objects which, by your own admission, "don't exist"

>> No.10331590

>>10331535
Yes they are real, they aren't Euclidian triangles. They are just a real and platonic as all other mathematical objects. There exists an uncountable amount of Platonic objects.
As a comparison, take something like a copper atom. Its properties actually are contingent upon its physical manifestation. There are no other atoms that act with the same properties as copper, or any of the compounds you can form with it and other elements. However, if I were to build a machine of copper transistors (somehow), the algorithms it would run would be exactly the same as a machine made of a steam engine, or a bunch of lead mechanical levers or something (assuming we're talking about UTMs). Linear search on any of these machines would still take O(n) time, they would still be isomorphic as Turing machines, etc. The properties of triangles on S2 spheres are exactly the same on all S2 spheres (assuming we aren't working in a neighborhood homeomorphic to R2) and this is true regardless of whether we're talking about triangles on a planet, or just purely algebraically (much like the properties of euclidian triangles are exactly the same for all euclidian triangles).
This is because the platonic existence of those objects are not contingent on the physical substrate, and yet no matter what physical substrate I "build" these shapes or these computers or other objects on, the actual properties of the objects are EXACTLY THE SAME. This can only be because the shapes/algorithms/platonic objects are more fundamental than the physical actualization of them.
Thus the conclusion immediately follows: mathematical platonic objects are more fundamental than physical ones.

>> No.10331604

>>10331558
>Do perfect spheres exist in reality, anon?
irrelevant to his question

>>10331590
>This is because the platonic existence of those objects are not contingent on the physical substrate
so you cannot prove their existence or show that something is in the platonic realm.
You are physical, so you cannot reason about the platonic realm, you said it yourself.
This statement is not in the Platonic Realm.

>> No.10331622

>>10330559
> You moron:
Kant would argue that math is something we made up for understanding the world and such.

>> No.10331625

>>10331622
Kant would be running around 2019 looking for the strongest espresso and laxatives he could find while furiously shitposting about Trump on twitter

>> No.10331639

>>10331625
Okay, first of all, You are an
> idiot.
Second off, Kant believed in TRANCENDENTAL idealism: errata, he worshiped the material form, displaying affection through representative form (a fortiori category theory!).

>> No.10331641

>>10331639
It was a joke. Kant was a coping brainlet goblin, I have nothing to say about this thread. Just making fun of the little worm.

>> No.10331656

>>10331641
Hey man, right about that. Always put Descartes before the hoes.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action