/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10389824]

Can a mathematical algorithm create an unmoved mover?

[Anonymous No.10389842]

>>10389824
Physics and math as we understand it probably don't apply when considering eternal inflation or the fractal flow of the multiverse, no. So is this inscrutable to human scrutiny and empirical enquiry? Yes. Can you call this "god". Einstein did. So knock yourself out.

[Anonymous No.10389858]

What about within the universe? Can my mind create an original, uncaused thought?

[Anonymous No.10389863]

>>10389824
"Uncaused cause" is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.10389958]

>>10389863
So is anything that would lie outside the boundaries of our own universe

[Anonymous No.10389983]

>>10389824
god shit isn’t science or math, sage and hide

[Anonymous No.10390081]

>>10389983
The question is about reasoning. Can math produce an independent system?

It seems that the answer is no, any conclusions you arrive at by necessity have a train or reasoning behind them simply by doing reasoning to begin with.

But then again that whole quantum thing that I dont understand refutes that too right?

[Anonymous No.10390092]

>>10390081
The question is too vague to be answered. Are you taking about axioms?

[Anonymous No.10390111]

>>10389824
No; read Kant. Mathematical thought arises from human intuitions of space and time, by which sense-data is filtered to become human experience. Thus, metaphysical principles such as "bodies persist through time" and "every effect has a cause" are objectively true when considered of human experience, but these things cannot be said of things in themselves. The synthetic a priori statements of mathematics are apodictically certain but rest on intuitions of the human understanding, not in things in themselves; as such, they always conform to principles following from intuition such as causality. Thus, mathematics cannot conceive of an uncaused cause.

[Anonymous No.10390163]

>>10389824
>create
>unmoved
>mover

How can something that is unmoved be "created" in the first place? No thing, let alone math can "create" what you've described. It simply "is" and the explanation for such must be purely self-evident (because it alone, unmoved, has nothing other than itself to create).
If it itself is unmoved then how does it "move" other things? It could only give the illusion of motion since its own existence necessitates it to be unmoved.

[Anonymous No.10390171]

>>10390111

This. Causality is a tool for human intuition, not a mathematical tool. It doesn't make sense to chain together causes and effects and use the transitive property on them as in your diagram; watering a seed may cause it to grow into a vegetable, and eating that vegetable may give you the energy to fuck, and fucking may lead to childbirth, but watering the seed isn't the cause of your childbirth. There's no reason to think there's some single, original cause, nor does it make sense, because the universe isn't an effect any more than it is itself a cause. Religious philosophers do use this logic though, all the time, to fabricate the necessity of a divine creator. The truth is time and space only exist because our brains recognize them. We're all just a single wave packet and space is a fiction.

[Anonymous No.10390198]

>>10390171
>There's no reason to think there's some single, original cause, nor does it make sense
Careful--we must be clear that this is only as regards experience, or the universe-for-us. As regards the universe-in-itself, we can say nothing at all.
>Religious philosophers do use this logic though, all the time, to fabricate the necessity of a divine creator.
You are correct that Kant refutes the cosmological argument.

[Anonymous No.10390394]

>>10389858
Yours? No.

[Anonymous No.10390965]

>>10390171
Then why science at all if reason doesnt exist?

[Anonymous No.10390989]

>>10389863
How is it an oxymoron?

[Anonymous No.10391288]

>>10390171
>time and space only exist because our brains recognize them
says someone who read kant
but didn't einstein's work disprove this?

[Anonymous No.10391407]

Start with, "This sentence is false".

Now, expand:

"The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is false."

Now, expand again:

"The last sentence is true.

If the first sentence is true, there is a cause.

If the last sentence is false, there is an effect.

The first sentence is false."

What is the outcome of this? Will it cause a cause? Will it cause an effect?

[Anonymous No.10391423]

>>10391407
Shit got deep pretty quick

[Anonymous No.10391509]

>>10390965
Reason and cause-and-effect are not the same thing; cause and effect are abstract dichotomies, reason is the means by which you conceptualize them. The wording of your question is strange. It's like asking why eat if we don't have stomachs. Without stomachs, would eating exist? Would it be true for science and reason?

>>10390989
Perhaps not an oxymoron but an unnecessary apposition. A cause-and-effect relationship is an intuitive model. Not every effect requires a prior cause for the model to be useful in a given application. Read this elegant explanation >>10390111

>>10391288
>but didn't einstein's work disprove this?
You tell me. Did Einstein prove the existence of spacetime?

[Anonymous No.10392039]

>>10391509
Nah, reason is the articulation of causal relationships. Without reason, there is no way to talk about cause and effect. Without cause and effect there can be no reason. They are mutually dependent.

[Anonymous No.10392226]

>>10389824
Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularity

[Anonymous No.10392433]

Please help me I think I'm having a panic attack. If there is no cause and effect how can anything be true? Science, rationality, and all thought hinge on cause and effect. Please please

[Anonymous No.10392581]

>>10392039
Enlighten me as to how reason is dependent on cause-and-effect.

>>10392433
The universe isn't real.

[Anonymous No.10393204]

>>10392581
Describe cause and effect without using reason?
>you cant
Describe reason without some reference to cause and effect in your explanation?
>you cant

It's self evident. The onus is on you to prove your idea that these are separate things.

[Anonymous No.10393472]

>>10393204
>It's self evident. The onus is on you to prove your idea that these are separate things.

[Anonymous No.10393495]

>>10389824
It can create a closed system and therefore is the initial cause (or unmoved mover) of that system. Just like the cause of the universe is something outside of the universe.

Also it is a fallacy to assume that the rules that move the system also govern whatever is outside of the system. In our universe there is the law of cause and effect, but there is no reason to assume that this also the case outside of the universe.

[Anonymous No.10393519]

>>10392581
>Enlighten me as to how reason is dependent on cause-and-effect.
Are you actually this stupid? Conclusions are, by definition, the effect of a cause known as a premise.
Just fucking stab yourself in the dick already.

[Anonymous No.10393591]

>>10393495
But if that is the case then we are all determined. There is a cause for everything, and we have no freedom. You could even do this with thought.

I guess what I was thinking was, could human conciousness be a thing that is not determined?

Because it sure feels that way. Those thoughts just pop in there from seemingly out of nowhere. I have no idea what causes those. I sure feel like I can choose things in my head.

[Anonymous No.10393611]

>>10393591
>could human conciousness be a thing that is not determined?
Only if there was some kind of influence from outside of the universe interfering with the otherwise self contained system.

But that appears to be rather unlikely, there is no evidence supporting this idea and without trying to insult you, it's probably just based on wishful thinking on your part.

Everything we know indicates that your consciousness is just the tip of an ice berg of neurological processes. What appears random and uncaused to you is very much the result of subconscious processes.

[Anonymous No.10393687]

>>10389824
every living thing can create such an uncaused cause

[Anonymous No.10393710]

>>10393687
This should be easy to prove then.
>No such case exists.

[Anonymous No.10393713]

>>10393710
that's easy. watch how a spider runs over the wall. when it does a turn just because there is no other cause than it's will.

[Anonymous No.10393731]

>>10393713
>What is physics?
C'mon at least try.

[Anonymous No.10393736]

>>10393731
you should try to formulate at least a coherent sentence instead of a meme arrow

[Anonymous No.10393744]

>>10393736
You're making shit up. You don't even GET normal responses because you don't deserve them.

[Anonymous No.10393746]

>>10393744
C'mon, no evading. Im waiting

[Anonymous No.10393758]

>>10393746
For what? How things magically happen despite having clear explanations proving your wrong?

[Anonymous No.10393761]

>>10393713
>Decision making isn't done by the brain of the spider.
>Which in turn isn't dependent on physics.

[Anonymous No.10393786]

>>10393758
oh please. go ahead and disprove any form of duality

>>10393761
nice try but I dont subscribe to your reductionist view. if you say the spider is just physics ,in that case it would be nothing more than automaton.

[Anonymous No.10393789]

>>10393786
>It's not real because I don't like it.
This is the result of you believing in fairy tales.
Cause and effect is real.
QED

[Anonymous No.10393791]

>>10393789
yes philosophy might look like fairy tales to a lesser mind

[Anonymous No.10393898]

>>10389858
That's how eternity continues to exist. Godhead creator.

[Anonymous No.10393933]

>>10393761
Why did the spider make that decision?

If you think there is an answer then the spider is determined.

[Anonymous No.10394310]

>>10389824
Nope. Any claim that such a thing can be created is a claim made from a complete misunderstanding of mathematical logic.

[Anonymous No.10395348]

>>10394310
Where there's nothing but chaos and true randomness, mathematical logic does not apply. Simple as.