[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.71 MB, 448x487, 1560837641027.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11561035 No.11561035 [Reply] [Original]

How can we know anything if all axioms are based on nothing eventually?
>why is dirt like this well....
>why are dirts atoms like this....
Eventually we don't know, I feel like this is important can we ever truly know everything there is?

>> No.11561043

Three guys are sitting in a bar: a welder, a mathematician, and a physicist. The welder says to the mathematician, "Yeah, but how do we REAAAALLLLY know that 1+1=2?" The mathematician says, "Aha! You've come to truth of it with this excellent question," and then he pontificates for ten minutes. Then the welder says to the physicist, "Yeah, but how do we REALLLY know that 1+1=2?" The physicist says, "Don't be an asshole."

>> No.11561047

welcome to the club

>> No.11561059

>>11561035
>can we ever truly know everything there is?
No. Obviously.
The set of unknown unknowns is always bigger than known unknowns whick will always be bigger than known knowns.
Epistemology 101.

>> No.11561063

>>11561059
>The set of unknown unknowns is always bigger than known
That doesn't prove we can't know anything. I'm not saying we can, but fuckk man,
Logic 101

>> No.11561125

>>11561043
Is it meant to be taken as
>the physicist is an asshole and a fraud because he avoids to deal with the fundamental underlying issues and doesn't want his assumptions challenged
or
>the physicist has the right grasp in that he won't bother with superfluous issues and goes straight to the point only using relevant data and adressing factual points

Help a brainlet figuring it out pls

>> No.11561129 [DELETED] 
File: 543 KB, 800x400, fvt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11561129

>>11561059
>twin prime conjecture

wo-woah dude

>> No.11561138
File: 543 KB, 800x400, fvt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11561138

>>11561059
>The set of unknown unknowns is always bigger than known unknowns whick will always be bigger than known knowns

wo-woah

>> No.11561147

>>11561059
How can you know that?
Looks like stupid ass assumptions.

>> No.11561484

>>11561035
Welcome to Phil 101, look up Hume's problem of induction and the uniformity of nature axiom to learn more.