/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15917131]

Science is grounded in logical truth. Logical truth is grounded in something actually being a certain way (transcendental truth). Transcendental truth is grounded in...?

[Anonymous No.15917137]

>>15917131
Nope. There's actually a long way to prove 2+2=4 legitimately equals 4. You're just too more of a pseud to care.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0-pL2J0ZB8g

[Anonymous No.15917140]

You can use ZFC + Peano Axioms to prove this by yourself, you don't have to rely on intuition or authority

[Anonymous No.15917143]

Science is nothing more than a tool
Logic isn't true on its own. It's a study of the relationships between premises already assumed to be true or false.
Transcendental truth is outside of the confines of the human mind.

[Anonymous No.15917149]

>>15917143
Can you give an example of a transcendental truth?

[Anonymous No.15917151]

>>15917149
Some metaphysical questions

[Anonymous No.15917153]

>>15917131
>Transcendental truth is grounded in...?
the platonic realm witnessed by our consciousness

[Anonymous No.15917154]

>>15917137

Godel proved - PROVED - you wrong.

[Anonymous No.15917155]

>>15917143

Correct. Transcendental truth is therefore grounded in...come on say it...starts with a G...

[Anonymous No.15917159]

>>15917151
Such as?

[Anonymous No.15917162]

>>15917159
I don't know dude lol go read philosophy or something

[Anonymous No.15917164]

>>15917154
Oh, Godel's theorems completely disprove ZFC set theory and Peano Axioms? It shows them to be completely invalid?
Why don't you explain precisely how Godel's theorems do this, as you seem to be VERY well educated on this topic

[Anonymous No.15917166]

>>15917162
>transcendental truths exist
>but I can't name a single one

[Anonymous No.15917167]

>>15917166

"Something exists."

[Anonymous No.15917168]

>>15917164

Nobody cares about word games.

>b-but what if we just defined the set to include every other set, and then defined a new set to include that too!!! he he we could go on forever

Reality cannot provide its own proof. Deal with it bucko.

[Anonymous No.15917174]

>>15917167
Purposefully vague, unverifiable AND unfalsifiable statement; goalpost on wheels. Pin yourself to a specific model of existence/reality, or there's nothing to talk about

[Anonymous No.15917175]

>>15917168
Damn, Godel is a lot less verbose than I remember

[Anonymous No.15917181]

>>15917174

looooool. You fools deny the most basic statement possible. And you wonder why you can't get anywhere. You don't need to verify or falsify a self-evident truth. It is a transcendental truth. That is the point.

And yet, you still live out this truth and act out a belief in it, despite what you tricked yourself into saying. It is an undeniable truth that you can't avoid.

Science is a clown show.

[Anonymous No.15917182]

>>15917181
That's a very smug way of saying "I live my life based off of assumptions"

[Anonymous No.15917184]

>>15917131

[Anonymous No.15917192]

>>15917182

Yes. I assume that I exist. And so do you. The only thing smug is to pretend that you don't. You are intellectually dishonest and living a life of deception and cognitive dissonance over your own existence, which is an act of faith. You deny God but cannot help rely on God for the grounding of your own being. The eternally twisted tale of the atheist.

There are four options:
1) accept it and know the Truth.
2) deny it and live a life of insanity
3) pretend to deny it out of pride, but actually live out the acceptance,.a shameful life of cognitive dissonance
4) stick your head in the sand until the existential anxiety grows to a crescendo

[Anonymous No.15917194]

>>15917131
Your just trying to excuse not providing sources for the vaccine being shit when you know the data is out there to prove you correct. Stop being lazy faggot.

[Anonymous No.15917195]

>>15917192
Oh, this kind of retard
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15917202]

>>15917195

Not a refutation. Science requires assumption of transcendental truth. To deny that is literal insanity or a charade.

[Anonymous No.15917208]

>>15917131
>Transcendental truth is grounded in...?
Abstractions of experience

[Anonymous No.15917210]

>>15917202
>Everyone but me is arguing in bad faith because I KNOW I'm right and they also believe I'm right, they just won't admit it to themselves
I'm sure trying to refute you when you won't propose a specific model of transcendental truth, and with you arguing under the premise that all arguments against it are bad faith, will be productive

[Anonymous No.15917220]

>>15917210
Anon, dont wrestle with him. He does not understand difference between description and assumption because he never read about rationalism versus idealism in 17th ct.

[Anonymous No.15917223]

>>15917168
Reality has nothing to do with your intuition

[Anonymous No.15917241]

>>15917220
It is becoming evident, it baffles me that we have guys in the modern world that read Aquinas once and were like "Yeah this autistic monk found the ultimate 'checkmate atheist' card"

[Anonymous No.15917285]

science is grounded in money

[Anonymous No.15917320]

>>15917210

Existence is a transcendental truth. It doesn't matter if you don't like it.

[Anonymous No.15917350]

>>15917320
Isn't it obvious by now that your bait is low quality

[Anonymous No.15917352]

>>15917159
Let's reconsider the concept of Transcendental truth and instead focus on what lies within the realm of Transcendentals, highlighting its usefulness as a thinking tool. Take morality, for instance. Let's summarize Kant's principle that suggests ethical actions are those that could be accepted as a socially established rule. The challenge arises with the term 'rule.' Morality and ethical conduct are common to all human beings, yet people live in diverse conditions and are influenced by different cultures, education, and values. Therefore, the Absolute of moral law is always being understood intersubjectively. How, then, can an ethical law become universal? This is where the concept of Transcendentals becomes pertinent. For an action to become a law, it necessitates repetition. In the realm of Transcendentals, repetition can be perceived as indistinguishable from every previous occurrence. Hence, the fundamental form of moral law exists within the sphere of Transcendentals, which is then translated into material reality and interpreted according to the needs of each circumstance.

[Anonymous No.15917380]

>>15917350

Then please show us how reason itself can rest on anything other than God. Prove me wrong and show everyone how dumb I am.

[Anonymous No.15917407]

>>15917380
Your human perception of existence is merely that- a perception. You are not privy to some special truth that was implanted in you independent of your physiology. You agreed with it earlier:
>>15917143
>Transcendental truth is outside of the confines of the human mind.
Transcendental truth is outside the confines of the human mind, yet the human mind can reliably and consistently identify it, but is also in fact the only source of identification for transcendental truths? Seems dubious

[Anonymous No.15917433]

>>15917407
>Transcendental truth is outside of the confines of the human mind.
> Seems dubious
Indeed, because you're attributing something to it that it isn't. It stands apart from reality, much like every level of abstraction. Transcendentals denote the absolute level of abstraction conceivable, establishing the boundary where limitations are defined—be it in language, logic, or mathematics—there's no surpassing it. The notion of Truth with a capital T is relative; it merely represents the highest form of knowledge we can attain at any given moment.

[Anonymous No.15917440]

>>15917131
>>15917184
>degree of truth based on number of votes from "experts"
These.
I swear I can buy off enough "experts" to convince some of you midwit faggots prowling this board eating shit is good for you.

[Anonymous No.15917441]

>>15917352
I follow, but it seems like a leap of logic to conclude that the emergence of common phenomena in society is the result of all humans being "tapped in" to some spiritual plane of common understanding of what things "should" look like in an abstract sense- why is this more feasible, than say, an explanation that pro-social behaviors in humans, such as rule forming, leads to overall more successful societies, and that behavior has been selected for over millenia? In essence, humans who DIDN'T follow the rule forming behavior died out, and their ways of life weren't carried on, whereas the rule forming humans saw more prosperity and relative safety, so those habits persisted across time. Does this necessitate the existence of a plane of transcendentals?

[Anonymous No.15917444]

>>15917433
And yet, you hold that the human mind is capable of accurately identifying these?

[Anonymous No.15917501]

>>15917441
>"tapped in" to some spiritual plane of common understanding of what things "should" look like in an abstract sense
It's not a spiritual plane at all. Our mental representation of reality is a blend of imagination and disconnected sensory data. The concept of an Ideal, like a Utopia, doesn't stem from a metaphysical realm, but rather from what's tangibly present, from our immediate knowledge and understanding. I don't require a metaphysical existence to comprehend that my behavior shouldn't cause suffering to the individuals I interact with. Yet, I lack an absolute law to ensure that I consistently act in such a way in every situation. Given the impracticality of maintaining a comprehensive cognitive list of all possible ethical laws applicable to diverse situations, I resort to abstraction to formulate a general law to serve as a foundational principle.

>In essence, humans who DIDN'T follow the rule forming behavior died out, and their ways of life weren't carried on, whereas the rule forming humans saw more prosperity and relative safety, so those habits persisted across time. Does this necessitate the existence of a plane of transcendentals?
No, its existence isn't necessary. As I mentioned, it's a specific mode of thinking that attempts to explain not only how rules were formulated but also the optimal approach for conceiving any rule. Replace 'rules' with other terms, and you essentially have the abstract representation of that thinking model. This is why I also emphasized that the general laws derived from that domain must be interpreted in accordance with the specific circumstances at hand; essentially, it provides a rule of thumb.

[Anonymous No.15917504]

>>15917444
read this >>15917352
I'm not entirely convinced of the human mind's ability to accurately pinpoint these, but to some extent, I believe it has a capacity to do so. If that's the best we can achieve, then it's a path worth pursuing. There will never be absolute certainty behind a notion that was conceived through abstractive thinking.

[Anonymous No.15917721]

>>15917501
Oh, my bad, most people who use the terminology "transcendental plane/realm/sphere" are referring specifically to the Platonic Ideal type concept- from what you're saying, it sounds like you've associated that concept with what I personally would call evolutionarily optimized neural mechanisms for social humans, if there's no spiritual/metaphysical element to it. The other guy is arguing that it's literally god or some shit makes structure self-evident in our universe, rather than our minds finding a locally optimal interpretation for experienced events. We don't really disagree then, though I find the use of "transcendental" language somewhat strange without metaphysical considerations, I was just getting some metaphysics tunnel vision from talking with the other guy

[Anonymous No.15917747]

>>15917721
>>15917504

Stop thinking just about morals. Take any "true" statement and find a grounding. Evolution won't bail you out.

"Something exists."

Is that true? Why?

[Anonymous No.15917755]

>>15917407

You can't know the full Truth. But you can experience parts of it.

Essentially (truth) exists. You have some experience of it (any experience of being). Your participation in the experience gives you an essence of the essential truth (partial truth). From this, and all other experiences, you form concepts of truth (conceptual truth).

Your ability to conceptualize truth is necessarily limited by your mode of being. Full truth is only known by the being whose experience is equal to essential truth (God).

[Anonymous No.15917761]

>>15917755

Essentiality*

[Anonymous No.15917768]

>>15917721
I understand, and I recognized that we might be able to see eye to eye, which is why I responded—to show that it's possible to use philosophical terms without their apparent metaphysical implications. However, there is an issue that lies in what I'm describing; it isn't entirely free from metaphysical considerations. When stating that this marks the boundary of what can be known to humanity, you inherently presuppose, to some extent, an awareness of what lies beyond that boundary or at least an acknowledgment of its existence. Ultimately, this opens the door for entirely metaphysical interpretations.

[Anonymous No.15917770]

>>15917747
>"Something exists."
>Is that true? Why?
I'm the guy saying that's unverifiable and unfalsifiable- as far as I'm concerned, there's realistically no way for me to determine I'm NOT some form of simulated consciousness given an internally/locally consistent feeling of being sentient, being fed a simulated sensory environment that feels "real" to me, or prove otherwise. The best I can say is that my mind is optimized to work locally given the inputs I feel exist, and given the locally constructed reality I am aware of, evolutionary neural mechanisms are the simplest mechanism I know of that explain the feeling of transcendental truths, but unlike the other guy, I can't say that this feels like proof of some transcendental truth, in the context of transcendental truth being imparted onto humans by God

[Anonymous No.15917774]

>>15917747
If a statement is deemed 'true,' why should we seek a solid foundation for it? When a real, True statement originates from your minuscule brain activity, I might then consider searching for what you're asking.

>Something exists
Surely, but it definetely cannot be found inside your head.

[Anonymous No.15917781]

>>15917774
Ad hom on em nuts

[Anonymous No.15917790]

>>15917781
At times, it's wiser to de-escalate the situation instead of repeating the same old mistakes.

[Anonymous No.15917794]

>>15917149
Matter properties
An electron is a spinning point source of charge......why?
What are rules and logic of reality made out of?
Who made the rules?
Who made the one who made the rules?
It's just turtles all the way down.

[Anonymous No.15917829]

>>15917794
Another transcedental truth is that pic related was the best starter pokemon.

[Anonymous No.15917862]

>>15917829
True, I suppose I was wrong all along. I leave this thread a changed man

[Anonymous No.15917944]

>>15917770

Right. You can say that. You can logically deny existence. But do you believe that? Ultimately you are living out an act of faith.

[Anonymous No.15917953]

>>15917774

By what grounds are you deeming it true?

[Anonymous No.15917954]

>>15917774

Answer this >>15917794

[Anonymous No.15917985]

>>15917944
You can believe or not believe something while being a pragmatist about it- I can live a totally normal life while knowing that the underlying nature of reality is unprovable, because the underlying nature of reality has fairly little impact on my daily life, and real or not, "locally" speaking, I have shit to do. Is that really so hard to believe? Go read Camus or something if you struggle to grapple with the nature of our absurd universe

[Anonymous No.15918193]

>>15917174
Nothing invalidates someone's opinion more when they accuse you of moving the goalpost while moving the goalpost. Why does he need a specific model? You wanted one fact.

[Anonymous No.15918328]

>>15917985

You can try to live your life without meaning, but eventually it'll catch up to you.

[Anonymous No.15918505]

>>15917985
I don't agree with camus' absurdity, the universe is perfectly fine, our expectation are what is wrong. We are wire to evade the truth and become angry when its suddenly revealed to us. Oh no you can't be a surgeon or a millionaire, you need to grow up and face reality, i don't see the absurdity in that vs telling a person that they can achieve anything they put their minds to, some sort of consumerist bullshit propaganda that arose out of the ashes of the two world wars and has been popularized by films from perfect america and europe where the average person is pretty much out of touch with the suffering of the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.15918535]

>>15917137
how to prove that 2+2=4?
just group a group of 2 apples together and in total you'll have 4 apples
you can do that same process with every group of 2 things, no need for axioms and on paper jew gibberish, real life actions are the only reason why we invented math, is just a way to write it on paper, that's all

[Anonymous No.15918545]

>>15917140
What you need zfc for?

[Anonymous No.15918555]

>>15918535
> you can do that same process with every group of 2 things
proof?

[Anonymous No.15918902]

>>15917953
I'd consider it true if you could present an argument of absolute certainty. However, since this is impossible, and I doubt you can surpass what Descartes achieved centuries ago, I remain skeptical. Scientific knowledge stands as true until a better theory refutes it or grants us a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Yet, I fail to see the necessity of asserting the requirement of Transcendental categories or the metaphysical existence of God.
>>15917954
There is no reason to answer most of it.
>An electron is a spinning point source of charge......why?
I have zero knowledge regarding that question
>What are rules and logic of reality made out of?
Through the interaction of the human mind with material reality, we seek ways to comprehend it and eventually manipulate it to meet our needs, ensuring our survival.
>Rest of questions
Their answers don't add value considering the argument I've presented earlier, unless one struggles with the idea of existing in an empty universe and seeks a metaphysical existence to project upon the ideal human, capable of reaching the ultimate conclusion—a unifying theory that explains everything. However, as such an a human is currently inconceivable since our cognition has its limits, I comprehend the emotional struggle some might experience. Personally, I'm indifferent; I only have 40-50 years in this place, and that's that.

[Anonymous No.15919299]

>>15918902

But you have no grounds to assert any of that. Your existence does not match your ideas.

[Anonymous No.15919475]

>>15919299
Why are you so fucking dense that I have to simplify my text for you. Are you young, or is this just a hobby for you? I feel like I should be compensated for the effort I'm putting into this conversation.

>I'd consider it true if you could present an argument of absolute certainty. However, since this is impossible, and I doubt you can surpass what Descartes achieved centuries ago, I remain skeptical. Scientific knowledge stands as true until a better theory refutes it or grants us a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
It's clear from my previous statement that achieving absolute certainty is, at least for now, impossible. Nevertheless, the device you're using to communicate here is proof that we don't require absolute certainty to make assertions. How? Well, results can be attained even with some level of uncertainty. Science isn't confined to simple black-and-white viewpoints that the average person, like you, might perceive. It involves informed hypotheses that, when successful, indicate that our understanding is advancing— or, to put it in your words, it advances towards some form of 'solid ground.' Our reality might not perfectly align with our ideas, but our minds are capable of comprehending a spectrum of understanding. It doesn't necessarily fit the pricetag of 0% or 100%, unlike what you seemingly believe. Even a 50% understanding, following methodological principles, can yield scientifically approved knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15919974]

>>15918555
do it yourself you lazy nigger

[Anonymous No.15920275]

>>15919475

A 50% understanding of what? The order of the universe?

[Anonymous No.15921795]

>>15917131
I don't really understand what you mean? Transcendental truth is inherently the truth of reality, therefore the chain stops there.
Science is grounded in logical truth. Logical truth is grounded in Transcendental truth. Transcendental truth is the truth, or at least as far as we can observe.

[Anonymous No.15921803]

>>15921795
OP is just the usual /lit/ pseud leakage seeping on to /sci/

[Anonymous No.15921829]

>>15921803
But /lit/ is supposed to be smart.

[Anonymous No.15921838]

>>15921829
/lit/ pseuds are more interested about sounding smart than actually being smart.

[Anonymous No.15921974]

>>15921829
they follow marcuse and freire, they are not smart, they are a cult