/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3182706]

Hey /sci/
Do you ever think we, as the human race, will advance to a point where numbers become obsolete?
With technology evolving at such a rapid pace, it's only matter of time before we have to abandon counting for a better system. Also does anything else currently exists?

[Anonymous No.3182711]

no.

numbers are fundamental to existence.

[Anonymous No.3182713]

I think nature isnt meant to be understood in base 10.

[Anonymous No.3182717]

>>3182711
> fundamental to existence
The universe still existed before we invented numbers. . Or how would we have invented them in the first place. . .
Also I'm sure people would have thought the same about space and time before Einstein came along. Open your mind up.

[Anonymous No.3182720]

>>3182713
Most things work a lot better in base 2. But not really what thread was getting at.

[cunt No.3182722]

ERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQ
WERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERQWERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERW
QERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQER

[Anonymous No.3182725]

is it true that one of those swedish kings tried to replace base 10 with base 8? would've been pretty cool...

also, OP, who knows? I can't imagine a model of nature that would not include mathematics, but who knows?

[Anonymous No.3182727]

>>3182713
>>3182720
this isn't about notation systems, it's about numbers.

>>3182717
we didn't invent numbers.

eg before people existed the triceratops had three horns.

if you say humans invented numbers you must also say we invented the triceratops.

[Anonymous No.3182728]

>>3182722
Again, not really related to the question.
But maybe try using more letters? Even try spaces and basic punctuation. With a little bit of practice you too can make coherent sentences. Good luck cunt.

[Anonymous No.3182729]

>>3182706
...Your serious.

Let me laugh even harder.

[Anonymous No.3182734]

>>3182706
...You're serious.

Let me laugh even harder.

[Anonymous No.3182735]

>>3182717
>dumbfuck idealism

girls laughing

[cunt No.3182739]

>>3182728
//
/
//
/

//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

;'
/
;
'
/
;
'
/
;
'
/
;
'
/
;

/
;
//

;

/;

''
'
'
''
'
'
L

[cunt No.3182743]

QQ

WER
RWE
Q
W
R
W
W
R
W
R
WR
W
Q
W
R
Q
W
RQ
W
R
Q

W
RQ

WR
Q

W

Q
WRQ


Q
WR

QQ
Q
QQ
Q
Q
WR
R
Q
Q

R
QWR
QR
Q

Q
QRQR

Q
QQ

Q
QR

R

A
D
G
J

[Anonymous No.3182746]

>>3182735
>>3182734
Why would you disregard something without even being open to discussion? You will never learn like that.
>>3182727
You just wanted to use that picture didn't you? Also, maybe there is a different way to go about counting. . .

[cunt No.3182749]

QWE
R
T
Y
T
R
E
W
Q
W
E
R
T
R
E
E
W
Q
WE
E
R
T
Y
T
R
R
E
W
W
W
ER

R
TR
E
E
W
W
E
R
T
Y
U
I

O

POI
U
Y
T
R
R
E

[Anonymous No.3182751]

>>3182727
Oh and of course we didn't invent the triceratops. God did.

>>3182743
>>3182739
Progress! Well done! Try using words now. Also try stringing together related words in an order that will convey what you are thinking.

[Anonymous No.3182753]

>>3182746
answer the question

how many horns did a triceratops have before man existed?

[Anonymous No.3182759]

>>3182749
>YOU NEVER HELPED WITH MY HOMEWORK!!

>Retard doesn't get homework help, gets angry, soon to get banned from 4chan.

[Anonymous No.3182756]

>>3182727
I beg to differ. Define, what is a number? It's part of our model to describe the reality. Another model might take a different approach, although I have no idea what that would be.

Anyway, point was, we invented number three to describe the amount of triceratops' horns, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.3182760]

>>3182751
if you believe in god, then you are an idealist like berkeley and think that numbers existed where man is not (in time or space) because god can count.

[cunt No.3182764]

>>3182759
I AM IMMUNE TO BANS. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LO LO LO LOL LO OL OLO LOLO LOL OL OLOL OL OL OLO LOL OL OL LO LO LO LO L OL OL O LOL

[Anonymous No.3182767]

>>3182756
>specious nonsense
so before we existed there wasn't a one-one correspondence between the horns triceratops?

and how come you aren't insisting the idea of a triceratops is just a model to describe the transient sensations we receive when doing palaeontology?

you can't be a partial idealist, it is all or nothing.

[Anonymous No.3182769]

>>3182764
that's cool. Please carry on, you're being more funny than all those religionxscience trolls anyway.

[Anonymous No.3182774]

>>3182756
>define what is a number
a number is an equivalence class of one-one correspondences.

>define what is OP
a stoner dunning kruger fucktard who thinks this shit is new and hasn't been thrashed out centuries ago.

[suicidalmathmajor No.3182778]

No we will always have to have a number system. Look up measure theory.

[cunt No.3182776]

>>3182751
IT TAKES TO LONG TO WRITE WORDS. I CONVEY WAT I THINK IN THE SUBJECT BLOCK. ALL I WANT TO DO IS FUCK YOUR BOARD! LOL

QW
E
RT

Y
T
R
E
W
Q
WE

R

T
RE
E
W

Q

QWE
R
R
T
R
ER

E

QQE
E
R
T
TR
E

W

QWE
T
T
ER
W

Q

WET

E

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3182783]

>>3182769
"hurr durr, i will just use reverse psychology. that is bound to make it stop"

[Anonymous No.3182785]

>>3182764
You think porn is going to piss anyone off here? Also, you must not know how easy it is to ignore a user and block all posts from their IP.
Post some gore, that at least has a chance of MAYBE upsetting somebody. Stop being such an obvious underage.

[Anonymous No.3182793]

>>3182756
everything is our model of reality, that's the way our brains work. we can either say this model is reality or not.

picking out bits to call reality and parts to call the model is incorrect. all we can do is say which models are more self-consistent and call them truer.

[cunt No.3182795]

ERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQERWQ

QWE
R
T
Y
T
R
E

W
QW
E
R

R
T
E
E

Q

QQQ

W

WET
Q

Q

WET

Q
WE

R
RE
W
Q
Q
Q

[Anonymous No.3182801]

>>3182767

>there wasn't one-one correspondence between horns
wat
you mean they were similar to each other? Well yeah, they were. But you can describe that in other ways than saying 'it has three horns'. Like, for instance, 'it has this shape' and draw it. or I dunno.

I get the feeling that you think that model we are using is perfect and irreplaceable. But that's a bit close-minded, you know that people used to think a launched projectile goes up in original direction until the earth element orders it to fall straight down? It wasn't even that long ago... Newton must've caused quite a stir.

Oh, and I can be any fraction I want! I can even declare myself complex, if I'll want to, you 3,14.

[cunt No.3182806]

QR
E
R
E
E
WW
W
W
W
W

W
RR
R
R

Q
QR
R
R
Q
Q
Q
Q

W
R
R
Q

Q
R

Q
R

QQ
R

Q

R

E
W
Q
W

E
ER
E
W
Q

W

[Anonymous No.3182808]

>>3182783
man, you're hideous. No wonder nobody wants to be friends with you.

[Anonymous No.3182809]

>>3182801
>But you can describe that in other ways than saying 'it has three horns'.
any other description would be equivalent. this follows from set theory and fundamentals of mathematics.

>But that's a bit close-minded
stupid stoner.

[cunt No.3182810]

ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX

[Anonymous No.3182817]

>>3182809
>hey guys earth is round
>stupid heretic.

[Anonymous No.3182820]

>>3182806
>>3182795
>>3182776
>>3182764
>>3182749
>>3182743
>>3182739
>>3182722

[Anonymous No.3182878]

>>3182817
>i can say anything is true and if you say it isn't i will just point out all the famous people that were correct and were called wrong

for every copernicus and galileo there were over 9000 people who were just retards making shit up. let me guess which group you fall into.

[Anonymous No.3182881]

>>3182817
>hey guys1+1 = 3
>stupid heretic

[ALM No.3182886]

As somewhat expected, the boss of Black Lotus eventually decided to stab me in the back, give up on their promises and cave in to the trolls, being extremely unreasonable about it all. Just as with PRQ (who didn't do a thing about a DDoS attack for three weeks or even respond to me at all, until I was forced to move as the site was to remain offline indefinitely in their incompetent hands), he didn't technically kick AT out, but in practice, by demanding random censorship of legal discussions (while ignoring the abusive customers) in a way which very obviously and without any doubt purely served to get rid of AT. Trust me: it was not a real choice and I wouldn't have any respect for a site admin who gives up on his core values, just as I have absolutely zero respect for subhumans who lie and stab others in their back.

So: I simply cannot host the damned board anywhere on this planet, unless I somehow manage to afford my own data center, ISP and enterprise-grade equipment. I'll try to make that happen ASAP, but it's not easy. I've known for quite some time that AT was never going to make money on its own, and requires massive external backing in some way. If one of you were an eccentric billionaire, you would've stepped up by now. Truth to be told, I really did honestly believe that a major anonymous supporter (who naturally would get to remain anonymous if he/she so wished) would step up at some point and save the best forum on the Internet from this very sad fate.

The worst part is perhaps that I'm fairly sure that with steady donations from you, I could've afforded a much better server and DDoS protection, and thus the greedy fuck running Black Cunt (actually, the main employees were always very competent and friendly, so the only bad thing I can say about them is that they work for the devil) might very well have not started harassing me as AT would've been a good customer, bringing in lots of green ones for him to swim around in and masturbate to

[Anonymous No.3182919]

>>3182878

>say that models we presently use may not be complete
>get laughed at

you know, this really is the kind of mindset that people seem to attribute to dark age peasantry. You do realize, that if you refuse to even admit there are alternatives (and I'm not even presenting one), you may be keeping yourselves from having an interesting idea?

fun fact: copernicus's model was rejected not just because it was heretical, but because it had LESS predicting power than the geocentric one that was in use at that time. Because circular motion != eliptic.

[Anonymous No.3182937]

>>3182919
>guys i'm still bleating on about how he i am right because others were and were denounced.

>and i'm still bleating on about how models not being complete gives me carte blanche to complete them in ways that are wrong and never be criticised for doing so.

if you think the scientific method, criticism being part of it, is a mindset that is medieval and bad for science then herpity derpity

but you are underaged banned or a stoner, or both

[Anonymous No.3182940]

>>3182919
to those who aren't idiots, ideas that are interesting are not things i made up one day that sounded awesome maaaannn. they are things that are new (yours isn't) and falsifiable (you haven't given any replacement, so that is moot)

[Anonymous No.3182950]

>we have to abandon counting for a better system

[Anonymous No.3182962]

>>3182937

I don't think ad hominem is a part of scientific method, brother. And I wasn't even contesting the mathematics as a model, I was just saying that it might not be complete. Clearly it was not complete before introduction of complex numbers. Nor was it complete before introduction of Pi. Of course the circle did not look any different before.

[Anonymous No.3182963]

>>3182919
>>3182919
you did much more than say the models we have aren't complete.

you said numbers may have a better replacement.

if you are really interested in this do maths at university and take all the logic, set theory, foundations of mathematics course you can.

then we'll talk.

[Anonymous No.3182971]

>>3182962
seeing as you have already used all kinds of fallacies, and you are accusing me of one, which btw i totally accept retard, i'm all girls laughing right now

and no one claims maths is complete, you claimed numbers would be replaced, not added to.

oh look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#As_logical_fallacy

[Anonymous No.3182973]

Numbers are simply the smallest possible unit of measure. We model our reality using numbers, allowing us to form more complex concepts, and solve the mysteries of our universe. But, perhaps there is an even simpler way of measuring this reality that we live in. If you can break down numbers into a simpler concept, then you will have found this measure.

[Anonymous No.3182976]

>>3182963
I think you're mistaking me for OP or someone else. I never said numbers have better replacement, I just don't want to pretend that our model is perfect, or final. I can't even imagine anything better.

[Anonymous No.3182979]

>>3182962
>Of course the circle did not look any different before.
according to your earlier derpitude it did, you said numbers were the work of man. yet now you claim circles were circles before man understood them.

[Anonymous No.3182986]

>>3182976
>sad fucker

[Anonymous No.3182991]

>>3182973
>more dunning kruger
integers, learn to.

[Anonymous No.3182996]

>>3182979
Perfect circles, as in something of infinite amount of points equidistant from a center, does not exist, it never did and never will. It's just an idea that resembles some shapes we see around us.

[Anonymous No.3183008]

>>3182991
>integers
If you mention any known mathematical concept then you clearly haven't understood OP's question.

[Anonymous No.3183009]

>>3182996
yeah, we all know.

your point?

[Anonymous No.3183018]

>>3183008
>another retard or OP samefag.

firstly the post i responded to mentioned at least two known mathematical concepts, ie number and measure.

secondly the integers are as fundamental as matter or energy or space and time.

if you want to replace make a thread about doing away with those and ban any discussion of their necessity, or even mentioning them, with a "you haven't understood" then go ahead.

be a stupid retard.

but really i'd just learn how to think, rather than just opine like a teenage art twat.

[Anonymous No.3183021]

>>3183009
the point is, they only exist in our imagination, and even that only after someone has defined them. Before mathematics, there were literally no circles. Only things that look like circles to us now.

[Anonymous No.3183033]

>>3182996
Event horizon of a non-rotationg black hole in intergalactic space.

[Anonymous No.3183046]

>>3183033
I dunno, what if I looked with resolution to 10^-50 meters?

[Anonymous No.3183051]

>>3183021
yeah, we know this argument, it is called idealism.

others say that such things do not need sentience to exist.

why is sentience, which is just a product of the material universe, so special as to bring forth such things into existence?

i believe relationships between things (such as equidistance from a point, ie a circle/sphere etc, even if only points in space) existed before sentience noticed them.

if you are an idealist you eventually say nothing exists. george berkeley showed this, and had to bring in god's sentience to show the world wasn't absurd.

[Anonymous No.3183054]

>>3183033
you don't need a material thing

you just say the points in space all equally distant from a point. those points exist so circles exist.

inb4 planck length

[Anonymous No.3183066]

A number is a mathematical object used to count and measure. In mathematics and its philosophy, a mathematical object is an abstract object arising in mathematics. An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction). Therefore, because numbers are an idea, an abstraction, it is possible that OP is correct.

[Anonymous No.3183088]

>>3183066
>fallacious reasoning
>and very little to do with what OP suggested
>probably OP samefagging

numbers express relationships between material things, so if the material things exist, the relationships do.

three means all groups possessing threeness have a relationship between them called a one-one correspondence.

whether man is around to notice that relationship or not does not alter that relationship.

your problem is that the human world view is about noticing the material as more special than relationships between the material.

any fundamental physicists knows that the material IS the relationship, and this is distinction born of prejudice.

[Anonymous No.3183107]

>>3183088
>whether man is around to notice that relationship or not does not alter that relationship.

You have no evidence to support that claim.

[Anonymous No.3183121]

>>3182706

First op asks if numbers become obsolete. Than he asks if we will abandon counting for a better system, implying counting is a system and not an action. It is useful to note here that replacing something doesn't make that something obsolete, it just usually simplifies it. Thus we conclude that OP is an underage newfa­g who doesn't even now what he wants to say, and doesn't understand numbers, or in fact the English language.

[Anonymous No.3183146]

>>3183107
of course i don't. this thread never had any basis in empiricism. it is philosphy.

[Anonymous No.3183173]

>>3182717
this thread is now invalid

[Anonymous No.3183176]

>>3183088

nobody ever questioned existence of a relationship, just a way of describing it.

[Anonymous No.3183194]

>>3183176
it was implicit in the claim "mathematics doesn't exist outside of the mind".

if you want to change that to "the description of mathematics doesn't exist outside of the mind" i agree with you. as i would agree with "the description of the material doesn't exist outside of the mind, but the material itself does."

[Anonymous No.3183200]

>>3183176
the existence of the relationship IS the existence of number

[Anonymous No.3183201]

>>3183194
except that mathematics is not a material...

[Anonymous No.3183216]

>>3183201
oh you fucking retard.

we dealt with that ages ago. mathematics is in the relationship between material things as well as space and time.

and the material is just relationships anyway. see fundamental physics. mass, charge, etc, all defined by relationships with other things.

retards everywhere on sci who have memories like fish

[Anonymous No.3183223]

>>3183216
mass doesn't exist except because we see its interactions.

[Anonymous No.3183224]

>>3183216
no, john, you are the retards

Mathematics is not material, or a real world, it is a model we use to describe it. It is an awesome model, but it is not a real, tangible thing. You cannot percieve it with any sense, only with your brain.

[Anonymous No.3183235]

arguably when we get better brains through genetic enhancement or whatnot we might switch to base 60. It's one of the easiest base to calculate with since you can divide it with 30,15,12,10,6,5,4,3 & 2, where base 10 it's only 5 & 2.

Of course from the perspective of anyone only used to base 10, base 60 seems hard to get around to, and what would all the extra numbers in base 60 be called and written?

[Anonymous No.3183237]

>>3183224
you are just saying things over again without presenting an argument. you are opinion, not science or even philosophy.

i have given you many arguments about how non-material things exist outside our minds and how the "material" is actually all relationships anyway and you just ignore it and say "no hurr durr".

if you want an argument at least argue, not repeat a statement without any justification.

you are very very very stupid. and probably very young.

[Anonymous No.3183243]

>>3183235
>i'm 13 yrs old an think this thread is about number bases being replaced, rather than numbers themselves

[Anonymous No.3183250]

>>3183224
maths isn't a model. models of the universe use maths, that is probably why you are confused.

[Anonymous No.3183260]

>>3183237

>hurrdurr you're retard and wrong and I'm right

You gave nothing but your opinions either. Projecting much?

well, if you wish to believe that mathematics exist in some sort of domain of ideals, you are free to.

[Anonymous No.3183298]

>>3183260
i have given reasoned argument. in several posts. none of which you have bothered to counter.

and i said nothing supporting domains of ideals. the very opposite. i criticised idealism in at least three posts.

these two facts lead me to believe you haven't read anything i've written. or are too stupid to actually take anything in.

[Anonymous No.3183301]

>>3183250
I respectfully disagree. Mathematics is a system that has been designed by human scholars throughout the time, but it's still an abstract system in our minds, and as such can't be more than just representation of the system the reality consist of.

>Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns,[2][3] and formulate new conjectures.

so much for wikipedia's definition.

[Anonymous No.3183305]

>>3183260
>i'm sulking

face it, you are in over your head here

[Anonymous No.3183320]

>>3183301
>and as such

that "and as such" doesn't follow. mathematics is a part of reality. numbers came into being with the universe as soon as the universe had a plurality of parts. as soon as it had spacial extension. because plurality and spacial extension ARE mathematics. not things only in our head.

[Anonymous No.3183324]

>>3183305

>you're in way over your head

That's correct. I'd never claim to know everything about everything.
Then again, so are you.

But I guess you're right. I'm too stupid to understand anything of what you say. I wish I was as smart as you, and so sure of myself in my omniscience and infallibility of my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3183326]

>>3183301
>Mathematics is a system that has been described by human scholars throughout the time
>but, like all of reality, it's also an abstract system in our minds
>and as such can't be more than just representation of the system the reality consist of, but this doesn't preclude it also existing outside our minds

ftfy

[Anonymous No.3183329]

>>3183324
u jelly butthurt and mad

[Anonymous No.3183340]

>>3183329

naah, just jelly.

[Anonymous No.3183342]

>>3183326
you're right, sounds much better now

[Anonymous No.3183362]

[Anonymous No.3183365]

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

[Anonymous No.3183367]

a lot of things will have to change before ops question becomes relevant to human beings here on earth

[Anonymous No.3183371]

godel escher bach

[Anonymous No.3183527]

as you can clearly see in this opperational diagram;
the device in the image is one of two identical devices responsible for generating gravitational fields used to apply force towards the interior of carriage the devices are housed in as well as externaly
as displayed; the second 'thickest' relationship this device has after the resolution of generated and received energies is to the components of the carriage which are itemized in tiered courses showing each items volumetric relationship to its own mass with the item total being prominently displayed
the other of the two equal devices would be the external shaped gravitational field application device
neither of the two control mechanisms shown in the diagram are depicted in the photos

[Anonymous No.3183584]

>>3183527
>>3183371
>>3183367
>>3183365
>>3183362
What are these?
Why do they have Alienware symbols?

[Anonymous No.3183645]

>>3183584
what is alienware and wny does it have technicians script from an an advanced civilization originating from the orion constelation?

[this is the "leaked" source alienware used to model their logo after]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F6oDHuvr1c&feature=related

[Anonymous No.3184017]

>>3182706
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhvmEIZG0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP19xs9K77Y

[Anonymous No.3184028]

>>3184017
this is now a π thread

[Anonymous No.3184121]

>>3184017

[Anonymous No.3184283]

>>3182706

all kinds of animals calculate all sorts of things all the time without the use of numbers. Not sure how you could relate the process of predicting and catching a ball like that to someone else without numbers , not yet anyway.

[Anonymous No.3184833]

>>3184121
http://www.swirlednews.com/article.asp?artID=185

DR ELTJO HASELHOFF is one of the few people on planet Earth to have had a paper published on crop circles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (‘Physiologa Plantarum’). His paper asserts that the long-recognised connection of crop circles to balls of light may be even stronger than many think. Here, in layman’s terms, Dr Haselhoff outlines the important findings of his paper…

[Anonymous No.3185712]

>>3184833

[Anonymous No.3186872]

Bump for interest.