/sci/ - Science & Math

0^0=1 its a fact
any element in a ring to the power of 0 is thee neutral element

>>6521372

Would the upper limit to velocity be the sum of all initial velocities ?

If you have n particles in an ideal/(vacuum, no friction, etc) 2-d enclosed space that will elastically collide, and in the beginning no particle exceeds velocity V (but are all in motion), can any particle eventually exceed V ?

>>5630632

Word; thanks. I didn't see that B+C would be a short.

If I put a single battery (A) in parallel with a pair of two batteries (B and C) who are in series, will it drain the battery A faster?

I am basically trying to get the last juice out of random batteries in a voltage non-sensitive circuit (light bulb).

Plz respond I am not good with circuit. Any advices for simple solution if it seems I'm totally wrong here?

>>4566638
>Because physical reality doesn't operate according to arithmetic symbolic operators on incredibly vague operative rules as you're trying to idiotically imply.
SO we cannot reduce qualia to physical brain states

>>4566609
>Math is literally the application of arbitrary axiomatic systems,
Then why is it when I put one orange with another orange I don't get three oranges.

>>4566582
> implying that anything humans create in their minds
Humans didn't create the laws of the physical unvers with their minds.

>>4566573
>your brain forms new synaptic connections for things like this. an idea is an electrical pathway. you mad brah?
And for concepts such as 1 and 2 and math and pi
Does pythagorus therorem cease to exist when all humans die?
Does 1+1 stop equalling two when all humans die?

>>4566546
>VIOLA, YOU'D FEEL THE EXPERIENCE.
And?
How does the experience arise from the electrical impulses?

>>4566562
>LITERALLY REMOVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF "JUSTICE".
And?
What does this have to do with whether justice exists or not?
Are you saying if all the humans die then math doesn't exist anymore?
The laws of the universe don't exist anymore?

>>4566525
also I'd just like to point out that if qualia exist 'in the brain' that is if they are physically located as brain processing
then the head you touch is actually a miniature head which exists inside your true physical head.

>>4566525
> you're the one changing the rules for one isolated phenomenon
Were talking about the entirety of your existence.
All you've got is your experience/qualia.

>>4566514
because they do are you retarded?
Do you not think that numbers exist?

>>4566505
>Justice is a configuration of particles in your brain
This is absurd

>>4566489
>The inability to communicate the fullness in linguistic propositions
What does this have to with anything?
Science is based on words, the world is not made of words jesus

>>4566481
>the existence of a purely subjective experience in no way discredits physicalism or lends credibility to dualism.
Is much the same as saying 'all the world is physical, yet there are some physical things which we can't describe or study, or can be capture in physical terms--but they are physical I simply know it'.

>>4566461
>It means that attempting to COMMUNICATE EXPERIENCES IN PROPOSITIONS
What does communication have to do with it?
We can scientifically study everything about colour but we can never capture the subjective sensation of orange.

>>4566441
>the cerebral cortex.
Still, you are not getting it.
Lets say I have all the physical knowledge of colour (light waves, how light waves enter the retina how the brain processes the signal etc etc)
I'm never going to account for the actual subjective sensation of brilliant orange or violet, I can't account for what it is like to experience looking at orange

>>4566426
>Of course you can't capture THE EXPERIENCE OF taste WITH PROPOSITIONAL MODELS YOU FUCKING JACKASS.
Therefore qualia are non-physical

>>4566392
Calm down man. You just don't get it.
You can know all the physical facts about jack daniels tasting but your never going to capture the actual taste, the what-it-is-like to taste jack daniels.

>>4566400
>pointless. meaningless. fucking. question.
So in other words you don't know the answer.
>>4566398
>A piece of steak touches a taste receptor, which causes a neuron to fire, which causes other neurons to fire and so on and so forth, and there is nothing else going on in the brain. There is no homunculus pulling on levers who does the actual tasting. It's a brain.
Again your just decribing the process. Where is the taste in all of this? Where have you captured the actual feeling of juicy delicious steak?

>>4566375
you don't get it.
We can describe whats going on when you taste jack daniels (electrical impulses, other such neuroscience shit)
But your never going to capture the actual taste, the actual smoky burning delicious tennesse sensation

>>4566373
>taste is just a word.
That refers to the feeling.
The world is not made of words.