/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12682168]

>tfw you realise that everything except for a priori truths is just some random dude's opinion

[Anonymous No.12682177]

>>12682168
What is a priori

[El Arcón No.12682182]

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12682184]

>>12682177
Knowledge not from experience.

[El Arcón No.12682185]

also "ab intitio" truths

[Anonymous No.12682190]

>>12682184
For example?

[Anonymous No.12682191]

>>12682185
elaborate pls

[Anonymous No.12682206]

>>12682190
a = a

[El Arcón No.12682222]

>>12682191
An ab initio truth stems from first principles. It means, "From the beginning," so if you can prove something ab initio, opinions haven't entered into the sufficiency of the proof (unless you take the first principles in question as people's opinions of what the first principles are, which certainly no rare thing.) The first principles are the a priori truths if you agree that the fundamental facts of some matter are not opinions.

[Anonymous No.12682249]

truth is just a statement with higher logical entropy (more probably arranged) than it's counterpart, both are real, the first is more useful.

[Anonymous No.12682258]

>>12682190
Logic, Mathematics, Ethical Judgments?
>>12682222
"First Principles" yes but how do you know these foundations are objective?

[El Arcón No.12682309]

>>12682258
If you grant the existence of facts, meaning that in your opinion there exists such a thing as a fact, the foundations are objective when they are facts.

[Anonymous No.12682310]

>>12682309
Yea but how do you know these facts are objective first principles?

[El Arcón No.12682328]

>>12682310
I would answer your question but I can't understand. it starts with some kind of pictogram like pic related. What is this pictogram?

[Anonymous No.12682332]

>>12682328
Okay.
How do you know the facts you are using are objective first principles?

[El Arcón No.12682340]

>>12682310
>>12682328
Also, if you tell me it's a "Y" then I'd have to ask how you know that this is a fact and not just your opinion.

[El Arcón No.12682346]

>>12682332
I would answer your question but I can't understand. It starts with some kind of pictogram like pic related. What is this pictogram? Also, if you tell me it's an "H" then I'd have to ask how you know that this is a fact and not just your opinion.

[El Arcón No.12682349]

>>12682332
I would answer your question but I can't understand. It starts with some kind of pictogram like pic related. What is this pictogram? Also, if you tell me it's an "H" then I'd have to ask: how you know that this is a fact and not just your opinion?

[Anonymous No.12682353]

>>12682340
I'm not disputing facts. I'm disputing the idea that there there are certain facts which can be deemed "first" facts or "first principles". How do you which ones are first? It stands to reason than different people can have different "first principles". Which set of "first princples" is objectively correct?

[Anonymous No.12682369]

>>12682353
You're applying subjectivity to the objective realm. We begin with self-evident, mind-independent data. The reflexive property, for instance, x = x for all x, is a good starting point for objective information.

You have to axiomatically assume some starting points. If different people have different "first principles", then they're not really first principles. A first principle is something that nobody can deny. For example, x = x. When we arrive at these certain immutable data, which nobody can either refute or prove, yet we all either subconsciously or consciously use, we axiomatically assume such data are true.

[El Arcón No.12682373]

>>12682353
So you grant that facts exist but you do not grant that some facts are, in fact, first principles?

[El Arcón No.12682378]

>>12682369
Self-evidence is very strong.

[Anonymous No.12682383]

>>12682369
>>12682373
I accept facts. I accept first principles. I'm saying how do 3 million different people all decide with the same principles and inferences from those principles? You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not denying facts or first principles. I'm denying that it's possible for their to be OBJECTIVE first principles. I.e. first principles that different people all arrive at.

[Anonymous No.12682392]

>>12682383
>decide with the same principles
*what the same

[Anonymous No.12682397]

>>12682383
Can you find anyone who rejects the property of reflexivity, x = x? Is yes, show me. If no, then do you concede this is an example of an objective first principle?

[Anonymous No.12682402]

>>12682397
You keep coming back to the very long hanging fruit of x=x. Why is that a first principle? And what are the other first principles?

[El Arcón No.12682408]

>>12682383
Let first principles be self-evident facts then.

Since now you will write, "How do you know they are OBJECTIVELY self-evident and just self-evident in your opinion?," let me first ask, "Since you grant the existence of facts, how do you know they are OBJECTIVELY facts and not just factual in your opinion?," and then ignore the rest of you inquiry if you don't provide an answer like you ignored all of my previous questions.

[Anonymous No.12682414]

>>12682369
>mind-independent data
processed by what, a magic gnome threadmill computer?

[Anonymous No.12682420]

>>12682402
>Why is that a first principle?
Well, let's assume it isn't. Then what earlier principle would you use to derive reflexivity, x = x?
>And what are the other first principles?
Existence. Change. Causality.

[Anonymous No.12682426]

>>12682408
>>12682408
>Let first principles be self-evident facts then.
So "All bachelors are unmarried" is a first principle?
The rest of your post is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I'm not disputing facts. I've said this over and over. I'm talking about which facts are the starting points, or "first principles".

[Anonymous No.12682440]

>>12682420
>Existence. Change. Causality.
Yea nobody denies this. How is this can really be the starting point of any serious inquiry is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.12682441]

>>12682414
Mind-independent doesn't mean generated without a brain. It means that the data exists, and is accurate, regardless of which brain analyzes it. Astrophysicist A may say that Mercury exists, it has a volume of size [math]V
_1=V_0\pm\Delta V[/math] and that it's the planet closest to the Sun. Astrophysicist B may say that Mercury exists, it has a volume of size [math]V_2 = V_0^' \pm Delta V^'[/math], and that it's the planet closest to the Sun. While, in principle, [math]V_1\neq V_2[/math], they two volumes are in agreement with each other when you factor in uncertainty of each of their measurements. So we say that Mercury exists, has some volume within this band of possible volumes, and is the planet closest to the Sun.

This data exists independent of the mind that analyzed the data, so it's an objective fact.

[Anonymous No.12682527]

>>12682441
>This data exists independent of the mind that analyzed the data, so it's an objective fact.
Have you tried typing it into an actual REPL? It might become an actual objective fact then!

[Anonymous No.12682535]

>>12682441
Which instrument allows you to test data for accuracy?

[Anonymous No.12682552]

>>12682535
Repetition.

[Anonymous No.12682566]

>not realising a priori thruths are the ultimate some dudes opinion

[Anonymous No.12682654]

someone post the donald duck micky mouse pic. you know the one

[El Arcón No.12682840]

>>12682426
I'm not misunderstanding you. Your insistence of pestering me with your minutia while not answering my questions about your pictograms shows that you are being stupid on purpose. You only want to pose questions that are already established as not having good answers and you refuse to answer my questions because then I could use whatever insufficient answer you provided as the answer for your similar question to defeat you with a rhetorical strategy. However, you refuse to answer the very questions you ask me because your intention is pester rather than to discuss. You are being stupid on purpose asking questions that people have been asking for hundreds of years:
>If experience is subjective, how can anything in experience be deemed objective?
I don't care what the answer to that question is and it doesn't interest me. In my subjective opinion, it suffices that most of my readers will know what I mean if I say that I am demonstrating something ab initio. This is like how it suffices for you that most of your readers will know what "H" and "Y" are.

That fact you write about bachelors seems like you could call it first principle of institution of marriage without getting too much pushback. However, if you did call it that then someone like you could come along and say, "Nuh-uh," and you would have no way to disprove them.

[El Arcón No.12682849]

>>12682426
>I've said this over and over. I'm talking about which facts are the starting points, or "first principles".
You see what I'm saying. I told you, "The self-evident facts are the first principles," as a direct answer to your question but you just insist in your pestering saying that I didn't understand you question which I directly answered. You are fly that has landed on poop and then has landed on my food.

[Anonymous No.12682861]

>>12682332
Because the very concept of objective first principles you built that question on would be invalidated due to its subjective nature?