/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9333887]

Can anyone refute Jordan Peterson here? /pol/ and the_donald love him

[Anonymous No.9333897]

>>9333887
What do the graphed points have to do with the tweet?

[Anonymous No.9333905]

>>9333887
What proof exactly is he referring to?
I am getting mad each time I look at that godforsaken tweet.

[Anonymous No.9333912]

>>9333887

[Anonymous No.9333936]

>>9333887
You can't prove nuffin' (outside of mathematics) is basic philosophy 101. You can always come up with an argument against any assertion/evidence/proof casting a shadow of a doubt on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvHcZciihJw

[Anonymous No.9333947]

>>9333887
>/pol/ and the_donald love him
I saw Peterson bash the far right on facebook yesterday. Only reason those brainlets like him is because he does the most intelligent breakdown of SJWs.

As for what he tweeted. I'm guessing he means godels incompleteness theorem which says roughly speaking that a set of axioms will contain things that can be neither proven nor disproven. Negating this statement says things that can be without axioms nothing is true. So without axioms (faith), there is no truth

[Anonymous No.9333956]

>>9333936
Can you prove things in mathematics without assuming any axioms which are themselves unjustified?

[Anonymous No.9333960]

>>9333887
Well if all he means when he says “God” is “the axioms that I happen to be assuming for my particular purposes” then you can’t. But that is some stupid semantics that no one uses.

[Anonymous No.9333962]

>>9333956
>Can you prove things in mathematics without assuming any axioms which are themselves unjustified?
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking but if you have axioms 1,2,3, it's possible to prove things using only axioms 1,2.

[Anonymous No.9333969]

>>9333947
Why, if you know jack shit about the incompleteness theorems, you spout shit about them?