Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 13 KB, 316x475, 64BCC9F9-BC72-4FE8-A9E1-223BB26AD807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14758392 No.14758392 [Reply] [Original]

lol this is absolute autism. Apparently by changing some notations you can make math "supra-rational" and a "sacred science", this is pure delusion, the guy is so far up his own ass that instead of admitting he doesn't get shit about math he accuses people much smarter than him for making math "profane" as if that makes any sense.
The guy even says at some point that the notation Fa/b + Fb/a = 0 (newton's equilibrium law) is false because 0 represents lack of manifestation, and so the law should be rewritten as n x n' = 1 (n and n' being the intensity of the forces) because the equilibrium should symbolise the unity of "Being". This is absolutely retarded and some of the most pseud shit I've ever seen, how the fuck are you supposed to apply Newton's law with that? The Newtonian would loose all it's interests, which is the ability to rigorously calculate the intensity of the interaction between objects (good luck solving ODE's if you replace + with x... it's almost as if he never did actual physics before).
He acts as if math and science has lost it's meaning, but then the only thing he discusses is vocabulary and notation, at no point he adresses the actual substance of science or it's development.
This is what you get where instead of rigor and logic you choose to just blindly follow past thoughts and traditions, all his arguments are arguments from authority (muh leibniz) or just unfounded and undefined claims/objects (muh "Being"/"Principle"). This is why people working in humanities should never speak about STEM, especially if they believe in nonsense (which is the case of all the "mystical" pseuds some of you seem to worship lately).
I am thankful though, I've never laughed this much reading a book before. Thanks Guenon.

TL;DR: Guenon was retro-actively refuted by Cauchy and Weierstrass.

>> No.14758409

Based, I agree that people who studied humanitites should never speak of STEM

>> No.14758494

what do you think about the distinction between the infinite and the indefinite

>> No.14758525

mathfags please explain your statements and terms by annotating your posts with "For Dummies" versions that are 14x longer and more tedious to write than your base contribution

>> No.14758540

>>14758525
this, but unironically

>> No.14758552

>>14758392
I always had the impression that this guy was a tard based on the autists shilling him but I never cared enough to check. Thank you for saving me the work
>The guy even says at some point that the notation Fa/b + Fb/a = 0 (newton's equilibrium law) is false because 0 represents lack of manifestation, and so the law should be rewritten as n x n' = 1 (n and n' being the intensity of the forces) because the equilibrium should symbolise the unity of "Being".
Literally lol’d

>> No.14758609

>>14758392
Kek. Thinking that this is even remotely close to actual math is delusional.

>> No.14758614

>>14758392
>how the fuck are you supposed to apply Newton's law with that? The Newtonian would loose all it's interests, which is the ability to rigorously calculate the intensity of the interaction between objects
you do realize that you're only helping Guenon's (pbuh) critique of Anglo utilitarian mentality in science and mathematics?

>> No.14758621

>>14758392
For a second I thought you were talking about Descartes, then I looked at the image and realized I was retarded.

To be fair, STEM sprung out of humanities so you can do both, it just leads to a higher chance of Autism.

>> No.14758623

>>14758614
please elaborate

>> No.14758627

>Monsieur la Guenon's monkeying around amuses me
-Aleister Crowley

>> No.14758636

>>14758623
i think what that anon is saying is that guenon was making a conceptual point, not one about utility. in other words, guenon wasn't suggesting mathematicians/physicists USE his equation, just that it was more conceptually sound, albeit perhaps less useful

>> No.14758641

>>14758636
>more conceptually sound
literally meaningless.

>> No.14758660

>>14758636
but is guenon's point open to criticism on the conceptual level as well? i'm too brainlet to understand these things

i can understand safely relegating calculus to a formalist heuristic, and making all little fag STEM students recite "I swear I will not mistake this for metaphysics, this is a -metry not a -logy" before calculating the distribution of doodads on the widgets they will go on to design for a living. but is guenon's point generally sound, relative to a purely ideal/metaphysical mathematics? is OP attacking him on that basis as well, or is OP really just saying guenon would ruin the heuristic by calling it a heuristic (which is neither here nor there)?

what does guenon take (ideal) mathematics to be? what are its referents? is he proposing a purified ideal mathematics that could ultimately form (part of) the basis of a spiritual/esoteric science, as distinct from the matter-measuring of STEM calculator slaves?

>> No.14758671

>>14758660
>but is guenon's point open to criticism on the conceptual level as well? i'm too brainlet to understand these things
Definitely. His "conceptual level" is nondual metaphysics, and lots of good criticisms have been leveled at it. I won't get into that because that's as good as baiting guenonfag who will then spam this thread with his autism. Frankly, just not worth it. Just do some googling for criticism of this philosophy.
>what does guenon take (ideal) mathematics to be?
don't know. his whole point in the book iirc (been a while) is to make some conceptual distinctions that mathematicians, in his view, get conceptually wrong (even if they are useful). he wasn't doing anything as ambitious as proposing an "ideal mathematics".

>> No.14758679

>>14758525
I think I understand. Newtons Law that says a body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater force was rewritten by Guenon. Instead of the outcome being 0 to represent the balance of forces, Guenon thinks it should be 1 because he assumes 0 would be a lack of force altogether.

Mathfags please let me know if I got that right.

>> No.14758698

>>14758671
so he invokes nondual metaphysics specifically to support his arguments? that's a shame, i was hoping it would be more like the steinerians with their emphasis on projective geometry, and in general a return to intuition (in the kantian sense), as a means of doing "supersensible" mathematics that isn't arid logicism

i will still give it a read since i've been meaning to, but if you're right his arguments all terminate in "... and that's more in accordance with apophatic nondualism," i'll be pretty disappointed

>>14758679
interesting

i recently tried to understand a talk on some new particle that is being proposed, where its proposal really hinges on what one when squaring some aspect of a very fundamental equation in relativity theory. something about how if you presume it's = 0, you get a different outcome (thus a different prediction) than if you presume it fluctuates around 0 without ever being 0?

i'm garbling it, but it's always interesting to see when conceptual moves are having to interact dialectically with the math itself, i.e. it's not a straightforward matter of creating a mathematical model of something and being indifferent to what it "covers."

>> No.14758700

>>14758698
>really hinges on what one [does] when squaring
mistake

also different from, not different than

>> No.14758701

>>14758392
Guenon is a notorious moron.

>> No.14758717

>>14758698
>but if you're right his arguments all terminate in "... and that's more in accordance with apophatic nondualism," i'll be pretty disappointed
his version of nondualism isn't the radical parmenidean sort. it's a bit "eclectic", and more interesting. i don't buy it personally, but it gets pretty interesting in his book "multiple states of being" and in some of his essays in "initiation and spiritual realization". In the OP book he mainly focuses on distinguishing between the infinite, the indefinite, and the finite, which I think are conceptually solid distinctions.
>steinerians with their emphasis on projective geometry
I don't know much about steiner, but ive been meaning to read him. i have his book "how to know higher worlds". does he get into this "prjoective geometry" there? can you elaborate on what that is?

>> No.14758854

>>14758392
Pls don't think Guenon represents any humanities, just trad larpers

>> No.14759010

>>14758660
>spiritual/esoteric science
humanitiestards need to understand that trying to appropriate the term “science” in order to salvage a shred of respectability actually has the opposite effect in the eyes of knowledgeable people

>> No.14759133

>>14758717
i haven't read those ones, thank you i'll check them out. i'm especially interested in what he does with concepts like the ones you mention, not so interested in "everything is advaita at the end of the day!"

>I don't know much about steiner ... can you elaborate
i mostly get my steiner filtered through anthroposophical friends and through whatever chance readings of him i've done. you seem philosophically literate so i would suggest reading him chronologically, the theses on goethe from his youth and even his book on nietzsche if you want. also check out ernst lehrs' Man or Matter as an intro, or barfield's Romanticism Comes of Age & What Coleridge Thought.

his later visionary stuff is where he gets weirder. he associates with blavatsky's theosophy for a while but then breaks away (with most of the german theosophists). the baggage from this interaction is mixed. some of the visionary stuff is genuinely, well, visionary. but some of it feels like fanfics about archangels, past lives, and atlantis.

>>14759010
the steiner term would actually be wissenschaft which has a more general sense, being literally the systematic study of any domain. for example steiner says in the intro to his doctoral thesis that we need a wissenschaft of noumenal-phenomenal relations.

"science" itself was only really coined by whewell fairly arbitrarily, ca. 1830s, and most "scientists" disliked it and continued to call themselves natural philosophers for going on two more generations. natural philosopher or some analogue of the term has been the usual term for what we would now loosely call a scientist for thousands of years, going back to the greeks, but even the concept of "nature" is unstable. in plato pre-socratic philosophers concerned with what we would call "nature" are sometimes called physiologoi, but also sometimes lumped in with sophists (lit. wise-ones). obviously many of these greek "natural philosophers," wisdom-lovers concerned with nature, were themselves esoterics, orphics, mystics, etc., and they all had metaphysical schemes and cosmologies you would probably dislike as a STEMfag.

your "science" is sort of the experimentalism of galileo and bacon (really neither of them, since they both do things you wouldn't like, especially bacon) combined with the corpuscularism and mechanism of the cartesians and related figures like boyle (who got his sceptical quasi-atomism through charleton, who was mostly taking from gassendi, who you also wouldn't like because he made a clean division between experimental science and metaphysics & religion), which reaches its entelechy in newton, combined with a newtonized mathematics made more abstract and formalist by 19th century developments in algebra and logic as described already above. but this is a very particular view of what "science" (an unpopular 1830s coinage, remember) means. boyle and newton were both alchemists who believed in hermeticism and called themselves natural philosophers btw.

>> No.14759141

>>14759133
>not so interested in "everything is advaita at the end of the day!"
then you'll want to avoid guenonfag like the plague. guenon himself is far more interesting. though, at a certain point he does break down into "everything is advaita", but there is a sort of tension in his thought because he takes traditonal symbolism and all it implies very seriously so he has to have something other than this "pure advaita". that "something other" is the interesting portion of his thought, and is worth checking out.
>so i would suggest reading him chronologically
damn bruh, i don't know if i want to read everything steiner has ever written lmao. can i just get the quick crashcourse version of steiner?

>> No.14759164

>>14759133
>but this is a very particular view of what "science" means
yeah it’s also the correct one. don’t care about what a bunch of old greek fags or even newton called themselves

>> No.14759179

None in this thread is conscious of what ''math'' used to be prior to its defilement;
look at this absolute retard >>14759010, he thinks Plato employed the term ''science'' in the same way he a damned bugman himself employs; like OP indeed these people can't engage with what underlies mathematical symbology, to them if there is no practical utility it is ''pseudry'', ''nonsense'' (when in reality it is the usage of these sciences deprived of principles that reduces them to pure nonsense).

>> No.14759185

>>14759141
your description of guenon hits on exactly what i find uninteresting about extremely thoroughgoing nondualists, it just becomes nihilism. so i will keep digging in guenon, thank you. there's a quote by him on the wikiquote that originally made me read him:
>What is to be said of someone who flings himself into the Ocean and has no aspiration but to drown himself in it? This is precisely the significance of the so-called "fusion" with a "cosmic consciousness" which is really nothing but the confused and indistinct assemblage of all the psychic influences.

i actually advise reading him chronologically precisely so you can get a sense of his general philosophy and metaphysics before hitting the wall of ten trillion billion "books" (lectures) by him, because that way you can then pilfer the lectures effectively for what interests you, without getting bogged down. there are a lot of real gems, like the concept of ahriman and the ahrimanic or the critiquing of that one ecumenical council that declared interpreting the two-souls passage in paul as distinguishing between soul/spirit as heretical. and he sifts a lot of 19th c. and fin de siecle philosophy, especially a lot of now-forgotten or rarely discussed stuff like fichte's son or edouard von hartmann, so it's good to poke around in them. he's genuinely one of the most interesting figures of modern intellectual history but nobody really studies him.

just aim mainly for his philosophical works, the early ones on goethe and nietzsche (whom he knew, sort of - he was called in by elizabeth to be the interpreter/caretaker after nietzsche's decline) and then knowledge of higher worlds is a good start. Man or Matter is genuinely good.

>> No.14759194

>>14759185
also i think there's a guy who does goethean science, maybe at a more digestible level, named henri bortoft

also a lot of steiner's point is that higher knowledge is inherently initiatic and takes work and time to develop, they are literally trying to theorize the acquisition of meta-theoretical initiatic knowledge in a rigorous way, those moments of insight and higher understanding that you don't know you've got until you've got them etc.

>> No.14759200

.." used one that consisted in comparing the sequence of
even numbers to that of whole numbers: to every number there cor-
responds another number equal to its double, such that one can
make the two sequences correspond term by term, with the result
that the number of terms must be the same in both; but there are
obviously twice as many whole numbers as there are even, since the
even numbers alternate by twos in the sequence of whole numbers;
one thus ends up with a manifest contradiction."

What a fucking moron, dude obviously read Cantor's arguments and couldn't understand them. His "obvious" conclusion is totally dependent on the ordering of the naturals as pointed out by Cantor. Nothing but childish intuition dressed as up as mystical insight Wouldn't be surprised if the guy hates negative numbers or fractions but I'm not going to waste any more time on this brainlet shit.

>> No.14759207

>>14759179
no one cares what Plato called “science”. you’re embarrassing yourself.

>> No.14759247

>>14759185
>What is to be said of someone who flings himself into the Ocean and has no aspiration but to drown himself in it? This is precisely the significance of the so-called "fusion" with a "cosmic consciousness" which is really nothing but the confused and indistinct assemblage of all the psychic influences.
Yep, good quote. His version of non-dualism is more of a "levels of reality" version, so there exist an "indefinite multitude" (a term more important in his thought that would at first appear) of dual levels of reality that are somehow all encompassed in the highest non dual level. so you can simultaneously be a distinct being and attain nondual realization. you don't "melt like a salt doll in the sea" as ramakrishna puts it. for guenon, upon attaining nondual realization you become sort of a permanent being, attain a "spiritual body". it's a pretty murky area of his thought that i haven't entirely rapped my mind around. he says himself that he is afraid to spell it all out because people would misconstrue it. if you want to see what im talking about, he has an essay on the idea of the bodhisattva in "Initiation and Spiritual Realization"

>> No.14759260

"which would in no way be parts of the arithmetical
unit on that account; and it is only thus that the consideration of
fractional numbers is really introduced, as a representation of the
ratios of magnitudes that are not exactly divisible by one another."

Ha I was right what a clown.

>> No.14759263

>>14759207
Your mom did last night.

>> No.14759278

>>14759164
Nice parody of a STEMlet.

>> No.14759283

>>14759278
Cope.

>> No.14759622

>>14758392
The original conception of the calculus is inherently metaphysical. That is what Guénon is analyzing, the metaphysical foundations that Leibniz and Newton themselves considered essential.
Being butthurt that Guénon ignores the modern bourbakish paradigm , which has completely detached metaphysics from mathematics, means you're too stupid to even infer the book's topic.

>> No.14759665

>>14759622

the metaphysical foundations of calculus are vestigial and not worth analyzing to begin with unless you are completely divorced from current thought in both philosophy and mathematics

anyone's interest in doing so or interest in people who have done so outs them as a pseud of the highest calibre, an intellectual fraud and obscurantist who is insecure and unable to confront their underlying flaws as a human being

>> No.14759671

>>14759622
yes, the supreme irony here is that both newton and leibniz would appreciate what guenon has to say in that book and would consider op an annoying autist

>> No.14759680

>>14759200
He does in fact hate negative numbers and fractions.

>> No.14759685

>>14759665
So be it. We're obscurantist pseuds. You're still the retard who misunderstood Guénon's study, which likely means you'll be a STEMfag mediocrity. Enjoy your insect life.

>> No.14759707

>>14759685

Do you realize how much of a coping fag you sound like?

>> No.14759758

>>14759707
No.

>> No.14760119

>>14759685
Guy is right, you are a brainlet. Real intellectuals study both. You are most likely sub-par mediocre at stem.

>> No.14760153

>>14759200
Holy shit, that's embarrassing. Someone should screencap that and post it in every Guenonfag thread.

>> No.14760385

>>14759665
>the metaphysical foundations of calculus are vestigial and not worth analyzing to begin with
imbecile

>> No.14760399

The world would be a much better place if humanity fags studied a bit of math or physics and vice versa

>> No.14760411

>>14759665
>the metaphysical foundations of calculus are vestigial and not worth analyzing to begin with unless you are completely divorced from current thought in both philosophy and mathematics
Nonsense. Just because Guénon is a moron doesn't mean everyone is.

>> No.14760661

>>14758614
lol and what's the point of science then? we only use math to explain phenomenons so that we can describe them more precisely, so it all boils down to calculation at the end of the day, it's the foundation of Physics. Now the result of theoretical calculations can be compare to experimental measures, this is how you confirm is right (more like a good approximation depending on the context you're working on but whatever). If not for calculation, then why even use math in science? We might as well do like those greek fags and just intuitively describe nature.

>> No.14760706

>>14759200
He does hate them and he just goes on to ramble about 0 being the end and that negatives don't exist or whatever. These people are absolutely unable to discern any underlying structure behind the objects they are discussing. They just give names to undefined things, and can't recognize wether or not something is equivalent to another. They have absolutely no sense of logic or rigor, and just attribute to things they like names they like and to things they don't like names they don't like.

>> No.14760735

>>14759622
What are you being dishonest? This book clearly isn't just an analysis, it clearly is stating that the way math is done after cantor is wrong, and that leibniz's metaphysical infinitesimal calculus is the right way. Now despite my post, I do appreciate his analysis of leibniz's view of calculus, what I find stupid is his critic of the modern approach, which, to anyone who is even remotely close to the field of math, is obviously better, for through it's rigor, describes better what leibniz and newton meant, and allows for a wider view of the objects being worked with, thus allowing for new pathways of understanding. Guenon's old ways and obsession with signs is the opposite of science and math, for it necessarily opposes any progress in the field (progress as clearer and wider understading, I know you tradfags get triggered at the view of the word progress, so I had to make pyself clearer...).

>> No.14760740

>>14760735
I mean why are you being dishonest*

>> No.14760747

>>14760706
Why are you even reading this charlatan rather than legit philosophy of mathematics?

>> No.14760763

>>14760735
Nonstandard Analysis is a fascinating subject, but I would start with Abraham Robinson's book rather than this pathetic clown.

>> No.14760894
File: 101 KB, 608x712, 1581821495541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14760894

>>14758392
My heart cries whenever it sees a poor Anglo trying to grapple with the Angelic writings of Guénon (pbuh)... May Allah (swt) have mercy on your soul...
>>14758614
Based.

>> No.14760909

>>14758392
Wolfgang Smith mathematician and physicist endorses it, who do i trust, a rando on 4chan or him?

>> No.14760922

>>14760909
I, as a Guénonic mathematician, officially endorse it too.
>Wolfgang Smith
Based. Will read at least one paper by him as a sign of respect.

>> No.14760934

Anyone remember the Wildberger threads on /sci/? We need a daring synthesis of Guenon and Wildberger.

>> No.14760948
File: 516 KB, 687x459, 1582149248654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14760948

>>14759665
>the metaphysical foundations of calculus are vestigial and not worth analyzing to begin with

>> No.14760974
File: 856 KB, 1500x843, 1582070745508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14760974

>>14760934
Wildberger is just an Anglo metaphysically-ignorant aspect of Guénon the mathematician. Maybe someone in Australia should hand him a copy of this book though, he would probably enjoy it for btfoing so-called "infinite numbers".
>>14758392
>just putting "metaphysical" in the title is sufficient to retroactively prove his point about the subhumanity of anglos
Based...
(PBUH)

>> No.14760991

why is geunon so based, bros?
he refutes everything i despise.
might it be that he hears me non-temporally and writes books about it refuting the topics?

>> No.14761001

>>14760909
Another pseud.

>> No.14761010

>>14758409
Should STEMfags never speak of humanities then?
Would honestly be a decent trade I think.

>> No.14761019

>>14758392
t. seething hylic deluded by maya

>> No.14761029
File: 3.97 MB, 200x200, 1582068613954.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761029

>>14758392
>how the fuck are you supposed to apply Newton's law with that? The Newtonian would loose all it's interests, which is the ability to rigorously calculate the intensity of the interaction between objects

>> No.14761062
File: 182 KB, 725x700, 1581502222557.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761062

>>14758392
>muh UTILITY
Physishits proving themselves to be intellectually handicapped once again.

>> No.14761068

>>14761062
OP never mentioned 'utility', cumguzzler.

>> No.14761069
File: 50 KB, 600x800, 1581899077798.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761069

>>14760661
>we only use math to explain phenomenons so that we can describe them more precisely, so it all boils down to calculation at the end of the day
>If not for calculation, then why even use math in science?

>> No.14761078

>>14761068
see
>>14761029
>>14761069

Read Guenon (pbuh). He shall vanquish your delusions.

>> No.14761094
File: 35 KB, 330x240, 1582247544206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761094

>>14761068
This >>14761078. His physishit post essentially boils down to "I frickin' love SCIENCE!". If Guénon makes their kind seethe this much, seems like it's time to get into studying him in-depth.

>> No.14761098

>>14761078
Guenon literally believed there are more natural numbers than even numbers. He was a moron.

>> No.14761119
File: 109 KB, 568x319, reflect_487aeaba-a9e6-4505-a2a3-5643f337116e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761119

>>14761098
>Guenon literally believed there are more natural numbers than even numbers.
Based. That would be the correct viewpoint to take, metaphysically speaking.

>> No.14761136

>>14761119
^Guenonfags actually believe this.

>> No.14761162
File: 2 KB, 92x125, 1581823280261s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761162

Everyone needs to cool it and learn to respect this man. Taking such an uninitiated view upon Divine knowledge should be considered heretical.

>> No.14761165

>>14761119
this. whenever I casually mention this simple fact at uni it is guaranteed to make at least one pseud seethe uncontrollably. i now make it my mission to try and divert any conversation towards the proper discussion of the non-existence of zero and negative numbers.

>> No.14761175

>>14761162
Based... Truly, peace be upon him.

>> No.14761178

>>14761165
Don't forget your astonishing insight that 2+2=5.

>> No.14761183

>>14761178
>2+2=5
That contradicts non-dualism, and is thus immediately seen to be metaphysicall false.

>> No.14761195

Is Terrence Howard a Guenonfag?

>> No.14761204
File: 10 KB, 190x272, 1580573681877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761204

>>14761098
>>14761119
>Guenon literally believed there are more natural numbers than even numbers.
Holy based....

>> No.14761208

>>14760385
>>14759758
>>14760411

They are though, if you took a course in real analysis you can see how they are derivative of basic mathematical concepts and thus just an extension on modern thought on the metaphysics of mathematics in general

But obviously i doubt you know more about calculus than how to differentiate. I bet you couldn't even integrate in spherical coordinates. ahaha retards

>> No.14761210
File: 112 KB, 680x760, 1577621973445.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761210

>*retroactively refutes Cantor*
Nothing personell, kid.

>> No.14761223
File: 85 KB, 544x800, 1577987298653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761223

>>14761208
>They are though
Only if one is a profane subhuman hylic Anglo.
And it is clear that /lit/'s patron saint would prevent such a fate for his board.

>> No.14761229
File: 227 KB, 1280x720, 1579929847748.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761229

>>14759665
>the metaphysical foundations of calculus are vestigial and not worth analyzing to begin
>current thought in both philosophy and mathematics

>> No.14761233

>>14761208
>if you took a course in real analysis you can see how they are derivative of basic mathematical concepts
Not really, though. Bottom line is, you need either Limits or Infinitesimals.

>> No.14761238

Based on my previous experence with mathfags on /sci/ outing themselves as literal retards when asked a basic mathematical question I actually knew the answer too i'm going to assume Guenon did nothing wrong and this is all one of their brainlet copes. They especially don't have any understanding of the philosophical roots of math so i guarantee this is some misunderstanding "gotcha" on their part.

>> No.14761242

>>14761010
Absolutely. I’m sick of these STEMtards posting about philosophy.

>> No.14761248

>>14761238
Guenon is being outed as a moron by both philosophers and mathematicians. He doesn't understand the very rudiments of set theory.

>> No.14761252
File: 152 KB, 316x317, 1436285050435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761252

>he doesn't study Guénonian metaphysical synthetic derived differential geometry
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/synthetic+differential+geometry

>> No.14761256

>>14761242
Using the term "STEM" is the mark of an imbecile. Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics have a lot in common.

>> No.14761259
File: 16 KB, 300x400, 1580365224903.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761259

>>14761248
>set theory.
But he (pbuh) retroactively refuted set theory.

>> No.14761260

>>14761233

heh... i can construct all of that using just the notion of nothingness. you fool

>> No.14761266

>>14761256
>Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics have a lot in common.
Only in their proper and sacred conception. The profane notions of these subjects are as completely disjoint and incoherent as any other profanization of a true discipline.

>> No.14761274

>>if you took a course in real analysis you can see how they are derivative of basic mathematical concepts
>Not really, though. Bottom line is, you need either Limits or Infinitesimals.

Limits and even infinitesimals in non-standard analysis don't require any meaningfully different metaphysics from whatever foundations you accept, set theory or whatever. The rest is definitions and logic, stuff any working mathematician does with zero thought about philosophy.

>> No.14761282

>>14761260
Bullshit.

>> No.14761286

>>14761248
>by both philosophers and mathematicians
Show me these philosophers and mathematicians critiquing Guenon on set theory. You aren't referring to anons here as philosophers and mathematicians are you? Because the whole point of my post was that I wouldn't trust the word of /sci/ brainlets as an authority of things i'm not familiar with based on how ineptly they discussed things related to their field I was familiar with.

>> No.14761290
File: 56 KB, 509x339, 1580390159726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761290

>>14761286
>"critiquing" Guenon
OH NO NO NO NO

>> No.14761296

>>14761286
Geunon literally says there are more natural numbers than even numbers. Check upthread.

>> No.14761299

>>14761282

I can't tell you too much or they'll get me. But when nobody is around, try googling

VON NEUM-

>> No.14761307

Reminder that Guenon was initially a mathematician and wrote his thesis on Leibniz's calculus. He got into philosophy and esoterism after.

>> No.14761321

>>14761296
>Geunon literally says there are more natural numbers than even numbers

And? Where's the refutation? Why are you taking his claim on this (assuming he actually meant it and meant it in the way you are interpreting) away from its justifications?

Once again, show me philosophers or mathematicians refuting Guenon directly. Not arguing for the validity of set theory, responding to Guenons points.

>> No.14761324

>>14761274
The fact that there are at least two separate foundations for analysis is metaphysically interesting in itself.

By the way, the epsilon-delta definition of limit was invented by a philosopher (Bernard Bolzano).

>> No.14761331

>>14761321
Are you joking? This is grade school mathematics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

>> No.14761348

>>14761321
>Once again, show me philosophers or mathematicians refuting Guenon directly. Not arguing for the validity of set theory, responding to Guenons points.
This obviously isn’t possible because guenon is completely irrelevant to the field of mathematics.

>> No.14761352

>>14761331
>Cantor's diagonal argument
I don't accept Cantor's set theory.

>> No.14761353

>>14761331
>links wikipedia article
>19th century philosophy of mathematics is grade school level
This is why I don't take you larping brainlets seriously. I know what set theory is, but i'm not actually antiquated with it or adjacent mathematical theories intimately enough to really be so zealous about it. This is why I'm pretty sure the "lol but you can't have more natural than even numbers!!" is just a circlejerk from people who don't actually understand set theory or what Guenon is claiming, they are just using their common sense.

>> No.14761358

>>14761352
If you accept natural numbers at all, you have to accept the diagonalization proof.

>> No.14761362

>>14761321

Two sets have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection from one to the other. f(a)=2a is such a function from the naturals to the even numbers. This is basic stuff that is taught in any intro to proof class since it is an easy thing to practice on. Guenon wouldn't even be able to pass an undergrad math class.

>> No.14761367

>>14761358
>If you accept natural numbers at all
I don't accept a "set" of natural numbers.

>> No.14761368

>>14761353
You don't need set theory to prove that the number of natural numbers is exactly equal to the number of even numbers.

>> No.14761369

>>14761353
>I’m too stupid to understand it
>therefore everyone else must be too
So this is the power of Traditional Wisdom...

>> No.14761373

>>14761367
Then you must also reject Guenon's statement about the relative size of the two sets.

>> No.14761375

>>14761362
>cardinality
Guenon (pbuh) refutes the notion of the existence of "cardinal numbers".

>> No.14761378

>>14761331
Doesn't Guenon retroactively refute Cantor by denying the existence of "infinite" sets? An "infinite" set cannot exist, because to enumerate an "infinite" set is to limit it, in violation of metaphysical principles, and is a form of profane "mathematics". There is no such thing as the "size" of the natural numbers (a profane concept in and of itself, and another indicator of the Kali Yuga) as something indefinite cannot have a definite size. The entire framework is profane.

>> No.14761383

>>14761369
>therefore everyone else must be too
I specifically stated I just don't trust those from /sci/ when it comes to anything relating to their field of interest based on anecdotal experience. This is why I was open to hearing actual Mathematicians or Philosophers responding directly to Guenons points on this issue.

>> No.14761384
File: 193 KB, 1034x1264, 1573348884215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761384

>>14761378
>Doesn't Guenon retroactively refute Cantor by denying the existence of "infinite" sets? An "infinite" set cannot exist, because to enumerate an "infinite" set is to limit it, in violation of metaphysical principles, and is a form of profane "mathematics". There is no such thing as the "size" of the natural numbers (a profane concept in and of itself, and another indicator of the Kali Yuga) as something indefinite cannot have a definite size. The entire framework is profane.

>> No.14761390
File: 27 KB, 550x367, 1579846317842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761390

>>14761368
>the number of natural numbers
>is exactly equal to
OH NO NO NO NO

>> No.14761395

>>14761383
No philosophers of mathematics or mathematicians of note have read Guenon, they would be unable to grasp the pridmorial metaphysical nondual principles of the ancients in the hylic Buddhist Anglo Kali Yuga at any rate.

>> No.14761397

>>14761378
This is a direct quote from Guenon: "...but there are obviously twice as many whole numbers as there are even, since the even numbers alternate by twos in the sequence of whole numbers; one thus ends up with a manifest contradiction". That is total nonsense.

>> No.14761398
File: 16 KB, 300x400, 1580703645106.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761398

>>14761362
>Two sets have the same cardinality...
The rest is only meaningful if there is a non-metaphysically vapid definition of cardinality which does not involve profanely abusing the Hebrew alphabet.

>> No.14761400

>>14761383
My mistake, I see now that it’s
>I’m a disingenuous retard
>so everyone else is too

>> No.14761403

>>14761331
object theory > set theory

>> No.14761405

>>14761378
Except that by talking about the "natural numbers" you've already accepted the existence of infinite sets namely the set of natural numbers. Even worse if the set of natural numbers is not infinite then it must be finite right? Or does Guenon not think that finite is the negation of infinite.

>> No.14761407
File: 242 KB, 862x980, 1580219517466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761407

>>14761397
>...but there are obviously twice as many whole numbers as there are even, since the even numbers alternate by twos in the sequence of whole numbers; one thus ends up with a manifest contradiction
B A S E D !

>> No.14761411

>>14761397
He retroactively refuted himself. To have simultaneously refuted both oneself and all one's critics retroactively is metaphysically equivalent to the state of ineffable nondual bliss.

>> No.14761413

>>14761395
>No philosophers of mathematics or mathematicians of note have read Guenon
I lead a small reading group of mathematicians dedicated to studying the Word of Guenon (pbuh). I urge anyone in any discipline to spread the good word among your peers.

>> No.14761430

>>14761405
Your use of "infinite" vs. "finite" as opposites is indicative of the extent to which the spirit of Kali Yuga, Anglo-Saxon thought, etc. have permeated your being and severed you from the primordial nondual initiatory tradition of the ancients, as said above the infinite cannot be quantified over as to do so would contradict its infinite-ness.

>> No.14761434

There is nothing about natural numbers that nessicaties they be infinite to contrast other sets of numbers.

>> No.14761439

>>14761434
What's the largest natural number?

>> No.14761445

>>14761400
It's these kinds of misinterpretations of text that makes me wary of anything /sci/ types claim.

>> No.14761446
File: 3 KB, 215x121, gigachad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761446

>>14761413
I've never read a word of Guenon.

>> No.14761450

>>14761445
You're on /lit/ moron.

>> No.14761457
File: 256 KB, 675x1045, reflect_dd287a5e-7e02-4f16-8470-121710bf0645.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761457

>>14761331

>set theory
It is a disgusting profane ideology which only supports a highly dualistic view with its obsession on elements (aka dualistic "parts"). René Guénon (pbuh) rightfully consigned it to the dualistic trash bin of mathematical history.

>> No.14761460

>>14761439
Probably whatever can be made to exist materialistically. Take the smallest possible object and spread it across all real and potential space.

>> No.14761462

>>14761457
Obviously he didn't, since he wrote about natural numbers.

>> No.14761465
File: 261 KB, 1200x750, 1580390364404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761465

>>14761439
The sacred indefinitude of the natural numbers makes this question meaningless.

>>14761398
>>14761407
>>14761411
>>14761413
>>14761430
>>14761457
Very based.

>> No.14761469

>>14759207
Nah, he's right.

>> No.14761471

>>14761460
There may only be one object in the physical universe: spacetime itself.

>> No.14761473

>>14758392
Every time I see someone pissed about bad math it warms my heart like nothing else. You're a hero for even caring, OP.

>> No.14761474

>>14761450
And this is a /lit/ thread flooded with analytics who browse /sci/. You can tell by their prose and disjointed thought process when it comes to interpreting text that isn't in mathematical notation (and from my experience they just pretend to understand the notation)

>> No.14761479
File: 532 KB, 1280x720, 1581981996587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761479

>>14761473
>someone pissed about bad math
I too enjoy reading Guenon (pbuh) and his absolute retroactive destruction of bad profane math.

>> No.14761480

>>14761474
I've never been on /sci/. For whatever reason, philosophy is only allowed here and on /his/.

>> No.14761485

>>14761480
>/his/
The most reddit and newfag board.
I never accused you of going to /sci/ regardless.

>> No.14761488

>>14761485
I've never been on /his/ either.

>> No.14761501

>>14758614

>Science and math should be about feels and not be usable

Fucking christ.

>> No.14761509

>>14761474
Take your meds, moonbeam.

>> No.14761514

>>14761509
>moonbeam
What is this schitzo posting?

>> No.14761517

>>14761062

>"I'm too dumb and lazy to actually learn and explore math and physics so as to be able to use it for understanding so I pretend it is simply below my brainlet conjecture and nonsense."

t. Brainlet

>> No.14761525

>>14761514
You certainly have all the hallmarks.

>> No.14761530

>>14759200
hahahahahaha

>> No.14761532

>>14761501
>internal consistency
>feels
Knowing how things work is more important that having tools that work while the reasons why are unknown or contradictory.

>> No.14761535

>>14761094

Science is a way of understanding the world with powerful toola of logic and analysis. The fact that philosophers are beginning to reject their value shows nothing other than how fucking BTFO'd they are. The capability of these tools allows for understanding and quanitifcation to make informed views and conceptualizations of the world.

Pseud loser faggots choose to purely work in the conceptual world of thought because they're too brainlet to use rigor and logic for anything.

>> No.14761537

>>14761525
is moonbeam some boogyman namefag from your end of the woods?

>> No.14761541

>>14761535
>Science is
Not Math.

>> No.14761546

>>14761535
>The fact that philosophers are beginning to reject their value
They don't, you asshat. Nobody pays attention to this Guenon clown in philosophy.

>> No.14761549

Dualism: The Illuminati Religion

In this 'Conspiracy Theory of Everything' type exposé on the Illuminati, Gnosticism and Luciferian beliefs I reveal for the first time the hidden and zealously guarded religous beliefs of the Elites. I begin by outlining their basic beliefs about Dualism and the Great Work and what all these doctrines entail. I then attempt to prove my outlandish assertions by reviewing four of the most Gnostic entrenched pieces of content available (The Matrix, Tron Legacy, Lego Movie & ES4: Shivering Isles). I also offer a large list of other similar content. After this I examine occult symbolism and cultural trends showing that the same doctrines appear where ever the Illuminati have any influence. Some examples of topics covered are: Freemasonic Symbolism, Baphomet, 9/11, The Emerald Tablet, LGBT, Evolution, Chimeras, Transhumanism, Race Wars, Prince ect. ect. In the final section of the video I go about refuting the many beliefs revealed in the first two sections, as well as offering a superior alternative to those beliefs which is found in the Gospel of Christ contained in the Word of God, the Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkiBz9rYEs

>> No.14761554

>>14761537
Are you ESL? It's a noun.

>> No.14761561

>>14761554
>namefags aren't nouns
>namefags aren't people

>> No.14761567

>>14761561
Who said anything about namefags, schizo?

>> No.14761577

>>14761362
S-shut up yes he would

>> No.14761580

>>14761567
You responded to my post asking if "moonbeam" is the name of some namefag here claiming moonbeam is a noun (which a namefag would be)

I'm clearly unfamiliar with your vernacular. It's not used on this board, and probably not used on this website.

>> No.14761585

I knew the Guenonians were pseuds, but watching them fail to comprehend day 1 set theory is very sad

>> No.14761587

>>14761580
"Moonbeam" means a fruitcake or a kook. It's standard English vernacular, not specific to any website.

>> No.14761594

>>14761460
What if I told you that the smallest objects are infinitely small?

>> No.14761604

>>14761532
>Knowing how things work
This is what science does. What guenon wants it to do is give him warm fuzzy feelings about how insightful he is.

>> No.14761607

>>14761585
The "Guenonians" is literally one (1) brazilian spammer.

Although I do think critiques of set theory are interesting. I have no math background so I can't say if it's justified, but a lot of people other than Guenon hated on set theory. And Guenon was initially a mathematician.

tl;dr ignore the Guenon posting

>> No.14761614

>>14761594
I wouldn't believe you. The highest maximum temperature is viewed the same way. Things can only get as hot as they can be made with the physical properties of reality, which are manifested out of the conceptual.

>> No.14761617

>>14761594
You’d be wrong

>> No.14761622

>>14761604
>This is what science does.
Science never makes definitive claims on anything. It's always limited to what is or seems to be working and in a constant state of "until more compelling evidence proves otherwise"

The scientific method is a tool and bacon is a joke whom De Maistre thoroughly embarrassed. Once again though, math=/=science.

>> No.14761637

>>14761622
>Science never makes definitive claims on anything
Didn’t say it did, pseud
>de Muhaistre
Lmao

>> No.14761639

>>14761607
>Brazilian
Go figure.

>> No.14761641

>>14761607
Set theory is just an axiom system. I don't see the point in hating on an axiom system. As an aside, I actually reject the material existence of sets (as a nominalist). But what Guenon is saying is just plain incoherent. There are actually many philosophers of mathematics who rigorously explore alternatives to set theory by way of mereology, etc.

>> No.14761649

>>14761637
>Didn’t say it did
>knowing how things work
>doesn't make a truth claim on anything
Science doesn't care about how things work or what is true, it cares about the practical utility of tools. it's the equivalent to thinking the components of the computer are contained in the monitor. So long as the computer is working the actual truth isn't considered important.

>> No.14761655

>>14761649
>Science doesn't care about how things work or what is true
This is an extremely common philosotard cope but it's obviously wrong.

>> No.14761665

>>14761655
Scientists themselves say that, not philosophers. The say they don't care about how quantum mechanics works, only that it generates the correct predictions. That's what the "Copenhagen Interpretation" really is -- not an interpretation so much as a dismissal of the whole issue.

>> No.14761670

>>14761655
>This is an extremely common philosotard cope but it's obviously wrong.
it isn't. The pop-science scientism that markets itself as otherwise is completely unscientific. The lack of making definitive claims on the nature of things is a core aspect of the scientific method.

>> No.14761671

>>14761405
Did you even read the book? That’s why Guenon employs the notion of the “indefinite”. These sets are indefinite, not infinite.

>> No.14761677

>>14761665
You're wrong, but this topic is far beyond the ken of someone who hasn't figured out set theory yet.
>>14761670
>Is it true that a hydrogen atom has one proton?
>That question is meaningless as it does not relate to the utility of a tool
Does this sound like a conversation two scientists would have? I know your last science class was in high school but this should still be something you could answer

>> No.14761684

>>14761439
Natural numbers are as large as you’d like them to be, i.e. they are an indefinite repetition of the unit

>> No.14761689

>>14761677
>You're wrong, but this topic is far beyond the ken of someone who hasn't figured out set theory yet.
I'm not wrong, and I'm not the Guenon fag. If physicists cared about metaphysics, there would be no need for philosophy departments.

>> No.14761690

>>14761684
>Natural numbers are as large as you’d like them to be
oh, so they're infinite

>> No.14761692

>>14761689
There is no need for philosophy departments.

>> No.14761694

>>14761690
no, they’re indefinite

>> No.14761699

>>14761692
You wouldn't have science without philosophy. If you don't do the philosophy in science departments, you have do it in its own department. Either way, you need it.

>> No.14761703

>>14761699
>You wouldn't have science without philosophy
Maybe this is true in the same sense that we wouldn't have chemistry without alchemy. You notice we don't have alchemy departments.

>> No.14761715

>>14761703
That's absurd. Science is just philosophy that has become routinized and drained of creativity. Philosophy poses the questions, and when they start to get systematic traction in a given area, it is branched off into its own department, where progress can be made by applying algorithms without needing to think about foundations. This process unfolded for every science in history, from physics to linguistics.

>> No.14761716

>>14761671
Again this is basic logic the union of a set and its complement covers everything that exists. So a set has to be either finite or infinite(not finite) there is logically no other option.

>> No.14761720

>>14761715
No, this is all very wrong and stupid, spoken by someone who obviously has no familiarity with science beyond their high school classes and thinks that doing scientific research just amounts to plugging numbers into a spreadsheet and tweaking dials on an instrument. Established sciences ask their own questions and doing scientific research requires more creativity than incessant philosophical musing.

>> No.14761721

>>14761716
Maybe. Give me an example of a set and its opposite that you believe are infinite when taken together.

>> No.14761726

>>14761692
Without philosophy departments, almost no one would be working on quantum foundations. Just a few philosophically minded physicists employed at the Perimeter Institute.

>>14761720
I have a degree in math and physics. You, on the other hand, seem to have no knowledge of what philosophy is.

>> No.14761728

>>14761720
Can science give you a reason to get up in the morning? Can science tell you whether murder is immoral or not? How do you, as someone who denigrates philosophy, deal with those issues?

>> No.14761733

>>14761726
The perimeter institute is a nuthouse and "quantum foundations" was finished in 1927. If you managed to get through a whole degree in math or physics and never once had to think creatively then you should strongly consider contacting whatever cereal company mailed it out to you and getting your money back.

>> No.14761734

>>14761721
Any set you can think has the property that the union of that set and its complement are everything that exists. Something is a either a dog or not a dog. There is no other option. This is basic basic logic and that you don't know it makes a joke of any metaphysical speculations you have.

>> No.14761740

>>14761728
>Can science give you a reason to get up in the morning?
Can a philosophy department?

>> No.14761751

>>14761734
Not a dog is the negation of dog, not its opposite. Do you know what an opposite is? White and black are opposites, does that mean everything is either black or white? The set of natural numbers is the opposite of negative numbers, does that mean everything in existence is either a positive number or a negative number? I’m not a number, so that clearly isn’t the case. The point about dogs and not dogs is something Guenon would agree with. He actually uses that example iirc in Symbolism of the Cross

>> No.14761756

>>14761733
Wow, relying on crude ad hominems. Classy.

>The perimeter institute is a nuthouse
It employs some of the most prominent physicists in the world, anon. Do you also think the University of Oxford is shit? Because they are runner-up for Quantum Foundations.

> "quantum foundations" was finished in 1927
Obviously not. The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is incoherent nonsense on a par with the worst of Guenon.

>> No.14761764

Continental philosophy
>What is a tree? Is there an abstract "treeness" like the old Aristotelian etiology or Platonic metaphysics? Or is it just some kind of base set of elements, or "matter," obeying laws? If that's the case, what are the laws? Are they abstracts? What is the non-material ground of matter? Or is matter somehow self-grounding? Even more importantly, how is it even possible for us to be certain in our judgments about any of these things? Can we ever be certain? Can we even know things about the world? Who's to say there isn't a real nature out there, whether it's abstract "treeness" or some kind of base essence of matter and cosmological laws, except it's the nature of consciousness not to be able to know those essences and laws? Are we locked into our experience of the world, which pre-theoretically "makes sense" to us, only to be irritated any time we try to look beyond that pre-theoretical experience and really KNOW things? But how does that make any sense? Surely not everything can be subjective and "social," can it? The basic of the subjective must be the objective; or maybe a unity of the two that is higher than both? Maybe one way to know the "outside" is by better understanding the "inside," since both spring from the same source; yet a lot of philosophers are pessimistic about this, and think we are trapped in language. It's like we're right back where the Greeks started.. How are we to live in a world where we can't even get a firm footing on what it means to "be?"

Analytic philosophy
>◇ ∃p ≡ q{d~p} ∀m ⊢q∥~p ⊃ d p ⊧ ~p ∄ p
>∴ Matter is material.
>Ergo, mid-20th century market liberalism is objectively correct, as is every conception, ca. 1965 in Oxbridge, UK, of the ideas and culture of all past and future civilizations. Read John Rawls and John Locke every day. Ethics was solved by the Bloomsbury circle.
Reminder: Reject the boomer notion that a man must be an island. Form or join a strong community, split the bills and enjoy your life. Work 20 hours a week so you have enough money to live and enough free time to prosper.

>> No.14761765

>>14761756
>the most prominent physicists in the world
An argument from authority, and a wrong one at that
>The "Copenhagen Interpretation" is incoherent
It's the only coherent interpretation. You mean it isn't intuitive.

>> No.14761768

>>14761751
I didn't say anything about opposite and the way you're using it is nonsense in math, the negative numbers are not the "opposite" of the positive ones in any formal sense. I am pleased that I have got you to realize finite and infinite(not finite) covers everything that exists so that if the natural numbers are not infinite they must be finite which is obviously garbage.

>> No.14761777

>>14761768
they are indefinite which is a subcategory of finite, so yeah they are finite.

>> No.14761780

>>14761765
>It's the only coherent interpretation. You mean it isn't intuitive.
No, it is utterly incoherent. Obviously you are not well-versed on the subject.

>An argument from authority, and a wrong one at that
You are calling the top physics departments in the world "nuthouses". You are the crackpot here.

>> No.14761792

>>14761733
>"quantum foundations" was finished in 1927
Bell's inequalities were not even known until 50 years later, asshat.

>> No.14761794

>>14761780
Since you clearly like to cite physicists, I'd suggest you look and see which "interpretation" of QM is subscribed to by the greatest number of physicists. That should give you an idea of what people who are well-versed in the subject believe. Beyond that, the perimeter institute isn't a "top physics department," it just gets a lot of publicity.

>> No.14761798

>>14761777
The number of elements in a finite set is bounded by some natural number. That is the definition of a finite set. An infinite is a set whose number of elements is not bounded by a natural number. If the set of natural numbers is finite what natural number bounds them?

>> No.14761799

>>14761792
Bell's importance is vastly overrated and "his" inequalities are a completely trivial result.

>> No.14761803

>anti-quantum zealotry ITT
Sad!

>> No.14761809

>>14761798
that’s precisely the abuse of the term infinite that guenon is objecting to. the infinite is that which is not bounded by ANYTHING. so, the set of all natural numbers is still bounded. for example, it does not include colors, motor vehicles, animals, letters of the alphabet etc. those are bounds. infinite means utterly unbounded. that’s why a set of numbers can only, at the most, be called “indefinite”

>> No.14761815

>>14761809
So you think infinite doesn't mean not finite?

>> No.14761816

>>14761798
I would guess whatever this is. Any number higher would be impossible and nonsensical. >>14761460

>> No.14761823

>>14761815
it does mean that. indefinitude is a subcategory of finitude. hence a set of numbers (which, again, is indefinite) is finite.

>> No.14761824

>>14761794
Are you retarded? This is exactly the point I'm making. Most working physicists have zero interest in quantum foundations -- i.e., how the natural world is structured -- and care only about observable predictions.

>the perimeter institute isn't a "top physics department,"
It's not a university department, but the top people in the field give lectures there. University of Oxford is another top department -- are they shit too?

>> No.14761831

>>14761816
That number + 1. Is this not a natural number?

>> No.14761837

>>14761815
Guenon uses a different definition of "infinite" than what is colloquially used. The Infinite is that which is is totally unbounded and cannot be quantified over, bounded, etc. so there's no such thing as an infinite number because calling the Infinite "a number" would be to bound it, thus making it not Infinite.

>> No.14761842

>>14761799
Complete and utter nonsense. Results of the Bell tests establish conclusively that quantum mechanics (and hence, nature) is nonlocal. That is a massive result, overturning centuries of metaphysics.

>> No.14761843

>>14761823
If infinite does mean that how am I abusing the term? This is basic basic stuff have you every taken any type of college level math or logic?

>> No.14761844

>>14761837
Exactly. For Guenon infinity is a metaphysical concept. It has nothing to do with mathematics.

>> No.14761845

>>14761831
That number+1 isn't a number, it's nonsense. We have reached the limit of numbers. Just as there is no Absolute zero -1 degree. You can't get any colder after that.

>> No.14761848

>>14761824
They have to generate the same predictions or at least one of those theories wouldn't be Quantum Mechanics.

>> No.14761850

>>14761824
I'm well aware that you think physicists aren't qualified to discuss physics. The reality is that people who are well-versed in the subject understand that Copenhagen is the correct interpretation, regardless of what a couple people who occasionally lecture at Perimeter think.
>>14761842
No. Nature is local. This has been known conclusively since 1905 and all modern physics is built on it. You don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.14761854

>>14761843
Because you’re calling something which is limited (i.e. a set of numbers) infinite. A set of numbers has many limits (e.g. it does not include colors, soccer players, fruits, languages etc) therefore, by definition, it cannot be infinite. So to call it infinite is an abuse of terminology.

>> No.14761864

>>14761837
If by colloquially used you mean how it's used in mathematics I'll give you that but I hope we agree that redefining words to win arguments is idiot tier.

>> No.14761866

>>14761842
We all use local QFTs to describe physics in the real world. Bell tests rule out local hidden variable theories, so if you want to save hidden variables, you need nonlocal hidden variables (Bohm's interpretation). However, you could alternatively just not subscribe to hidden variable theories like normal physicists.

>> No.14761872
File: 1.58 MB, 480x270, 30ff91a77af2d1641044c9c80fea7f15.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14761872

>>14761842
>That is a massive result, overturning centuries of metaphysics.

>> No.14761876

>>14761864
Guenon would say that the misuse of "infinite" in mathematics is indicative of a world that has lost contact with the primordial nondual initiatory tradition of the Ancients and is deep into the hylic Buddhist Anglo-Saxon Kali Yuga.

>> No.14761879

>>14761854
The definition of infinite is not finite. If you think it's something different I'm free to redefine numbers to include colors, soccer players, fruits, languages etc and then the natural numbers would be infinite. Gibberish

>> No.14761881

>>14761850
>No. Nature is local. This has been known conclusively since 1905 and all modern physics is built on it. You don't know what you're talking about.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle of locality that Einstein discussed in his EPR papers has nothing to do with "signal locality" -- that is, the existence of an upper limit on signal velocity. This is a common confusion among working physicists who have never read Einstein or Bell. Contrary to Einstein's hopes, the principle of locality is false. That is, "spooky action at a distance" does indeed exist.

>> No.14761896

>>14761879
>The definition of infinite is not finite.
A one-sentence summary of profane science.

>> No.14761904

>>14761879
Yes, that’s how I am using the term. Finite means limited. Infinite means unlimited. A list of numbers has limits. It is limited. There are many things not included in a list of numbers. If you want to go back to the example of dogs, then dogs is a limited category, a finite one in the ordinary sense. Not-dogs is a limited category, an indefinite one. Together they are infinite. The set of all natural numbers is indefinite. The set of everything which is not a natural number, including colors, vehicles, languages etc, is indefinite. Together they are infinite since they have no limit conjointly.

>> No.14761906

>>14761881
>working physicists who have never read Einstein
The fact that you think such people exists says everything I need to know about your understanding of the topic. Regardless of whatever ideological reason you have for wanting non-locality (and there's only one kind of locality) to exist in nature, it doesn't. Physicists know this and all fundamental physics for the last 100 years has built upon it.

>> No.14761910

>>14761866
>However, you could alternatively just not subscribe to hidden variable theories like normal physicists.
That's wrong. You have to give up Locality. "Hidden variables" is beside the point. You have causation happening over spacelike distances. The fact that you just want to change the subject, or "shut up and calculate" is exactly the reason why quantum foundations has to be done in philosophy departments.

>> No.14761919

>>14761904
But the definition of natural numbers I'm using includes colors, vehicles, languages etc. Therefore the natural numbers are infinite.

>> No.14761923

>>14761919
How is a color a number?? How high do I have to count to get to orange? lol

>> No.14761937

>>14761923
I'm trying to point out how ridiculous it is to just redefine your terms. Infinite is not finite that is the definition of infinite. Redefining the term and then claiming something about statements using a different definition is moron level.

>> No.14761943

>>14761906
>The fact that you think such people exists
Most physicists have never read EPR. Sounds like you haven't either.

>Regardless of whatever ideological reason you have for wanting non-locality
Are you fucking kidding? Nature would be so much easier to understand if it were local.

>(and there's only one kind of locality)
No there isn't, moron. If you had read EPR, you would know how Einstein defines his Principle of Locality. Namely, the principle states that for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between the points, such as a field, must mediate the action. This has nothing to do with the speed limit of a pulse on such a mediating field.

>to exist in nature, it doesn't.
Wrong. Nonlocality is a fact of life. The Bell test experiments have demonstrated that there is no way out.

>> No.14761945

>>14761937
That’s Guenon’s point. mathematicians in the 19th century redefined “infinite”. Infinite means, as you say, not finite, and yet mathematicians call finite things like sets of numbers infinite. The etymologically rigorous definition of infinite is not finite, not limited in any way.

>> No.14761953

>>14761945
But if that is his point why is he even talking about mathematics? If his definition is different he has nothing to say about math using a different definition.

>> No.14761959

>>14761945
See >>14761798 from the definition of infinite used in math the set of natural numbers are provably infinite.

>> No.14761960

>>14761943
If you prepare a Bell state, and then collapse it by measuring the spin of particle A, no force mediators are exchanged between particles A and B. It's not an interaction.

>> No.14761965

>>14761953
Because it erases the notion of infinitude from out language. Because mathematics borrowed this term in an incorrect fashion people now think infinite means “a list of numbers that goes on and on and on etc”. That is still, in the rigorous sense something finite. So now the very concept of infinity, in the rigorous sense of something NOT LIMITED IN ANY WAY, has completely disappeared from discourse. People have literally forgotten such a concept exists because mathematics misappropriated it. That’s why Guenon makes the suggestion of using the term “indefinite” to describe things which “go on and on and on” as much as you’d like while still having certain limits.

>> No.14761966

>>14761960
Agreed! That is why the results violate the Principle of Locality.

>> No.14761967

>>14761943
>Most physicists have never read EPR
Again, you're clueless. Every undergraduate student is exposed to it in their first quantum class. The paper is wrong.

>> No.14761971

>>14761953
Because he wants us to develop a sacralized (as opposed to profane) approach to mathematics in accordance with the primordial Tradition.

>> No.14761976

>>14761967
>The paper is wrong.
No shit, Sherlock. Because the Principle of Locality is false. "Spooky" action at a distance does indeed exist.

>> No.14761977

>>14761959
They are not infinite in the original sense or the etymological sense of the term. Only if you twist the term can you then call a set of numbers “infinite”. Finite means limited, so by definition a set of numbers is always finite.

>> No.14761978

>>14761971
so basically >>14761501

>> No.14761982

>>14761965
But none of this has anything to do with mathematics. The name of the fucking book is The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus and what you're saying is that none of what Guenon is talking about has anything to do with math. I hope you understand how dumb this is.

>> No.14761985

>>14761976
Nature is local. I'm sorry this is hard for you to accept for whatever reason.

>> No.14761992

>>14761977
In- finitus not finite. Don't pretend Guenon is some great language scholar either he's just pulling this shit out of his ass.

>> No.14762001

>>14761985
How do measurements affect each other over spacelike distances if "nature is local"?

>> No.14762002

>>14761982
The title of the book is the METAPHYSICAL principles of the infinitesimal calculus. One of the main points Guenon makes is that infinity is NOT a mathematical notion, and cannot be by definition. That’s why he proposes that mathematicians use the term indefinite instead of distorting the metaphysically crucial concept of the infinite. I think it’s a justifiable request on his part.

>> No.14762009

>>14761992
Uh, yeah. Infinite means not finite. Finite means limited. Hence infinite means not limited.

>> No.14762022

>>14762002
This is hopeless. You're saying something being not finite is not a mathematical notion. I hope we can agree that from a mathematical point of view Guenon is full of shit.

>> No.14762028

>>14762022
There is nothing in mathematics which is not limited. Name one thing in mathematics which has no limits whatsoever.

>> No.14762032

>>14762028
Decimal expansion of pi.

>> No.14762037

>>14762009
And now you're just shifting from redefining infinite to redefining finite. A finite set is a set where the number of elements in the set is bounded by a natural number. If you use some different definition you're no longer talking about math.

>> No.14762040

>>14762032
Indefinite. If I keep expanding pi, will i eventually get to colors? How far do I have to expand pi before i reach christian bale?

>> No.14762044

>>14762028
The set of natural numbers is no finite. If you think it is finite what is natural number bounds it?

>> No.14762045
File: 324 KB, 1200x629, reflect_39a796c8-166f-4519-8495-a5fa845d0d2b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14762045

>>14762040
>How far do I have to expand pi before i reach christian bale?
Baste.

>> No.14762047
File: 117 KB, 1125x568, D5CA4D34-184A-45F5-9F0F-96824F7583AF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14762047

>>14762037
Again, Guenon’s point. Mathematicians redefine these terms in a way that distorts their meaning. I’m not the one redefining. I’m using the original definitions.

>> No.14762049

>>14762032
That's limited, by restricting oneself to the decimal expansion OF something, one is placing a limit on the concept, in contrast to the Infinite which is ineffable, without limit or restriction.

>> No.14762053

>>14762044
see
>>14762047

You’re distorting the meaning of “finite”

>> No.14762055

>>14761532

It's not my fault he was too stupid to understand mathematics.

>> No.14762063

>>14762047
So Guenon is not talking about mathematics and from a mathematical view what he's saying is gibberish. That is what I've been trying to say from the very beginning.

>> No.14762069

>>14762063
Guenon's point of view is that modern profane mathematics is the real gibberish.

>> No.14762070

>>14762063
>mathematics are a modernist phenomenon

>> No.14762073

>>14762069
so he's an idiot

>> No.14762077

>>14762063
He’s criticizing mathematics for BORROWING terms that already had a meaning and then using those terms in ways that are antithetical to the original meaning. This leads to distortions of our concepts. They should just use different terms, or use them correctly. Again, it is mathematicians that are redefining things, and, moreover, they are doing it very awkwardly and inexpertly.

>> No.14762079

>>14762001
The wavefunction is not a physical object. It tells you what the observer knows about the system.

>> No.14762080

>>14762073
That's just what someone living in Kali Yuga would think (as opposed to someone in contact with the primordial nondual initiatory tradition of the ancients).

>> No.14762089

>>14762080
contact deez nuts fag

>> No.14762114

>>14762079
I never said anything about the reality of the wavefunction. I said the Bell experiment outcomes show that Principle of Locality is false. That is, it is NOT the case that for A to affect B something must propagate in the space from A to B. Observe that this does NOT violate Special Relativity, which only imposes a cap on the speed with which anything can propagate from A to B. Here's how the wikipedia article explains it:

>The word locality has several different meanings in physics. EPR describe the principle of locality as asserting that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to make, as it seems to be a consequence of special relativity, which states that energy can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality.[18]:427–428[20]

>However, it turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate EPR's principle of locality without violating special relativity or causality.[18]:427–428[20] Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e., information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining "+" and 50% probability of obtaining "−", completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, the no cloning theorem, which makes it impossible for him to make an arbitrary number of copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting "+" and 50% of getting "−", regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice's.

>In summary, the results of the EPR thought experiment do not contradict the predictions of special relativity. Neither the EPR paradox nor any quantum experiment demonstrates that superluminal signaling is possible.

>However, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein derided the quantum mechanical predictions as "spooky action at a distance". The conclusion they drew was that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory.

As you said before: EPR was wrong. What they were wrong about was the principle of locality.

>> No.14762130

>>14762077
Why should anyone care? Calculus originally meant small stone does that mean Guenon is talking about the metaphysical properties of stones?

>> No.14762139

>>14762130
Because it’s not just etymology that is distorted but concepts. The concept of the infinite in its original sense has been erased from discourse, not just popular discourse but even educated discourse. If you can’t see a problem with that the you’re tuly a brainlet.

>> No.14762148

>>14762077
Shit metaphysics in it's original meaning is just after physics. Aristotle wrote what we call the Metaphysics after he wrote Physics. Does that mean Guenon thinks Aristotle invented calculus?

>> No.14762150

>>14762114
No, locality is right. Their problem was they didn't understand complementarity, as Bohr pointed out.

>> No.14762162

>>14762139
Are you saying that conceptually the ancient Greeks thought small stones were equivalent with the math we call calculus?

>> No.14762163

>>14762150
Nope. If you retain the PoL you would have to scrap special relativity.

>> No.14762168

>>14762148
It’s not just etymology but concepts that are being distorted. Already addressed that. Incidentally, Guenon discusses this aspect of the term “metaphysics” in one of his books (I think Intro to Hindu Doctrines). Though, I fail to see what the relevance of that is here...hmm, you wouldn’t be trying to quietly move the goalposts?

>> No.14762179

>>14762162
My god, you are retarded. Or maybe just obtuse. It’s ok to admit that I’m right, man. This is an anonymous board. Do you not see the value of the concepts of “that which is limited” and “that which is not limited”? Do you really think it’s a good thing to erase that from intellectual discourse? Come on, man. Don’t kid yourself.

>> No.14762187

>>14762163
No, if you lose locality you lose relativity. This is obvious.

>> No.14762189

>>14762168
I'm not the one who started talking about etymology. As far as I'm concerned the original definition of something is pointless what matters is how it's used now. Infinite means not finite the original etymology is irrelevant.

>> No.14762195

>>14762179
The way you've been using limited and not limited is extremely vague and meaningless. What I object to is trying to assign some logical significance to it to bolster your mystical gibberish.

>> No.14762201

>>14762150
>>14762187
Nope, the opposite is the case. If the PoL were true, then the only way A could affect B would be via a superluminal signal, which is ruled out by Special Relativity.

See this paper given at the Bell symposium, published in Journal of Physics A: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1408/1408.1826.pdf

>On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier arguments of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local.

>> No.14762218

>>14762189
I bring up the etymology because it’s consistent with the original conceptual meaning. That conceptual mean is “that which is no limited”. The conceptual meaning of finite is “that which is limited”. These are still pertinent concepts, so distorting them is fairly evidently a bad thing.

>> No.14762224

>>14762201
>maudlin
Of course, lmao. A is not "affecting" B. There is no interaction occurring. This is something they teach you in QM 1. EPR, like you and Maudlin, were confused from the very beginning about the fundamentals

>> No.14762231

>>14762195
These are extremely basic concepts. It’s not gibberish, in fact, the concepts of limited and unlimited are highly pertinent to logic, to any basic philosophy. Feel free to admit that I was right all along any day now. Anyway bringing up mysticism is a total non sequitur since I never brought it up and, moreover, I don’t even buy into Guenon’s mysticism

>> No.14762243

>>14762218
How could the etymology not be consistent with the original conceptual meaning? Calculus originally conceptually meant small stones and conceptually it changed to mean a field of math. If Guenon can use calculus in it's new meaning in the title of the book what reason does he have for not using infinite in what he claims is the new meaning.

>> No.14762252

>>14762231
What is the definition of limited as you're using it?

>> No.14762254

>>14762243
Oh my god, he’s actually retarded. Yeah, I’m done here.

>> No.14762256

>>14762224
> A is not "affecting" B.
You're still not getting it. If A gets heads, then there's a 100% probability that B gets tails. Given no hidden variables (Bertlmann's socks), how is that possible unless A's measurements are affecting B's outcomes?

>There is no interaction occurring.
Exactly - that's precisely why the Principle of Locality is false. There is no signal mediated by a field traveling from A to B that influences B's outcome. That's because such a signal would have to be superluminal given the Bell test results.

>> No.14762259

>>14762252
>What is the definition of limited
jesus fucking christ

>> No.14762260

>>14762254
The guy who is defending Guenon committing undergrad level errors and saying in- finite doesn't mean not finite is calling me a retard.

>> No.14762264

>>14762259
Again you're saying infinite doesn't mean not finite. When you redefine basic terms I have every right to ask what your new definitions are.

>> No.14762269

>>14762256
I have two boxes. One has a red ball. One has a blue ball. I tell you this, then give you one box and take the other one with me on a spaceship to Andromeda. Once I get there you open your box and find a red ball inside. Instantly you know that I have the blue ball way over in Andromeda? How did this happen? How has locality been violated so horribly?
There is nothing fancy going on here.

>> No.14762278

>>14762269
>I have two boxes. One has a red ball. One has a blue ball.
That's "Bertlmann's socks" and it's a classic example of a hidden variable theory. All local hidden-variable theories are ruled out by the Bell test results.

>> No.14762285

>>14762278
Yeah, so we can't actually assume that the quantum "balls" are definitively red or blue before they've been measured. But it's still a simple correlation. There's nothing nonlocal going on.

>> No.14762289

>>14762259
Here I will provide a definition pulled off a google search and you can tell me where your new definition is different

limit
[ lim-it ]
noun
the final, utmost, or furthest boundary or point as to extent, amount, continuance, procedure, etc.: the limit of his experience; the limit of vision.

There is no limit on the natural numbers as to the amount or continuance of them. Therefore the natural numbers are unlimited according to normal usage of the word. What is your usage?

>> No.14762298

>>14762289
There is a boundary to them. They do not reach colors, automobiles, fruits, etc

>> No.14762299

>>14762285
That's not the problem. It has nothing to do with our information level. There is no local hidden variable theory that is consistent with the correlations between measurement outcomes that we observe in the Bell tests. Make it as complicated as you want, throw in a mechanism for randomization, whatever -- it's mathematically impossible.

>> No.14762308

>>14762298
Using the definition I gave colors, automobiles, fruits, etc are not a continuance of them. If your definition of limited means defined that means that limitless means undefined.

>> No.14762309

>>14762299
>It has nothing to do with our information level.
It has everything to do with that, because that's all QM can tell us.
>There is no local hidden variable theory that is consistent with the correlations between measurement outcomes that we observe in the Bell tests
Yes, this is almost as obvious as the manifest locality of physics.

>> No.14762318

>>14762308
lord jesus christ have mercy on this retard

>> No.14762320

>>14762309
Then why did you propose a local hidden variable theory to explain the correlations between spacelike-separated measurements?

>> No.14762321

>>14762298
And undefined means meaningless so yes if that is your definition of unlimited it is literally meaningless gibberish.

>> No.14762328

>>14762320
I didn't, that would be retarded. I was trying to get you to understand the concept of a correlation.

>> No.14762330

This scientism fag is embarrassing himself.

>> No.14762338

>>14762318
This is like pulling teeth but we're getting there. Do you believe that colors, automobiles, fruits, etc are somehow a continuance of the natural numbers? Or that there is some procedure to go from natural numbers to those objects? There is certainly a procedure to go from natural number to natural number the successor operation in the Peano axioms.

>> No.14762343

>>14762328
You literally wrote this:

>I have two boxes. One has a red ball. One has a blue ball. I tell you this, then give you one box and take the other one with me on a spaceship to Andromeda. Once I get there you open your box and find a red ball inside. Instantly you know that I have the blue ball way over in Andromeda? How did this happen? How has locality been violated so horribly?
There is nothing fancy going on here.

Which is precisely the theory that has been conclusively ruled out by the Bell test results.

>> No.14762351

>>14762318
I have to use the accepted definition of limit if you refuse to supply your new one.

>> No.14762355

>>14762343
I know what I wrote, the problem is that you clearly don't. I'm trying to get you to understand that two things can be correlated without affecting each other in any way. In actual quantum mechanics the balls are |Red> + |Blue> and |Blue> + |Red> but the situation is otherwise identical.

>> No.14762388

>>14762355
Reliable correlations that are not flukes ultimately have a causal explanation. If two sets of events A and B are correlated, and no event in either is a cause of any event in the other, then they have a set of common causes C that explains the correlation. Leaving stable correlations unexplained is not an option.

>> No.14762420

>>14758392
Concepts do not exist

>> No.14762919

>>14760894
I am not anglo retard, in fact I live in France, and I was born in a Muslim country. I am closer culturally to Guenon then all the American larpers and pseuds in this board, but contrarily to them I can use my brain so I don't get influenced by the unfounded claims of this "trad" pseuds.

>> No.14762926

>>14760909
David Hilbert does not endorse it, same goes for every big mathematician after him (particularly the french school, who have produced the most important theories of the last century in math). Now this isn't even relevant because unlike Guenon we don't like namedropping and arguments from authority, but actually use logic to support our claims.

>> No.14762943
File: 82 KB, 329x470, 1582275554265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14762943

>>14762926
>David Hilbert
Retroactively refuted by Brouwer, who was in turn retroactively refuted by Guénon (pbuh), completing the chain of retroactive refutations and establishing Guénonian (pbuh) supremacy over all mathematics, created and uncreated.

>> No.14762983

>>14761062
This is OP. You guys could not read correctl a text even if your life depended on it. I am going to slowly explain my argument, so that your pea brains actually understand it. It's not about utility, it's about the essence of the theory being made null.
Newtonian mechanics main idea is the idea of being able to expresses the relation between forces and mouvement (F=dp/dt), this allows us to express interactions between objects numerically, and thus describe them more precisely, and thus understand them more profoundly. Now suppose we did as guenon said and replaced + with x, then, in order to for instance describe the interaction of an oscillator (a oscillating pendulum for instance) with a good approximation, then by using Newton's law, we would have after some calculations what is known as an ordinary differential equation (equation with derivatives, in this case second degree, of the form ax'' + bx' + cx + d = 0). Now with +, you can use math to solve this, and so you can by solving it describe entirely the movement of the oscillator with a good approximation, and so you have understood it better. With Guenon's way of doing things, you would not be able to solve this, (ax''bx'cxd=1) and even if you could, what you would find would be utterly complicated and wouldn't even describe accurately the system, simply because what he is describing does not correspond to the reality (the relation between the forces is not a relation of proportionality, the signs + and x have a well-defined meaning in physics because of their mathematical properties) but only describes what HE views as reality. His way of doing things is not science (both in the platonic sense and the modern sense) since he does not try to better understand the world using it. He already has a vision of the world he has gained from reading ancient texts or whatever, and is just blindly following, not even once doubting the thing he believes in.
I too hate the scientism of anglos, but I believe that you guys are just like them, you blindly follow a doctrine and act as if it destroys all others (your Guenon btfo'd is the same as their Dawkins btfo'd). At no point does Guenon use any sound reasoning to argue for his case, and at no point does he define, even slightly, the word he uses. He is a joke of a writer and isn't taken seriously for a reason...

Now I am going to end this with something that just came up to me: maybe guenon meant that + become x and 0 becomes 1, basically just exchange the signs without the meaning (0x0=2 for 1+1=2 for instance and 0+2=2 for 1x2=2) even though I doubt he meant this, that is, for obvious reason, absolutely retarded, since it is literally the same thing...

>> No.14762993
File: 141 KB, 656x751, 1582276680953.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14762993

>>14762983
>This is OP. You guys could not read correctl a text even if your life depended on it. I am going to slowly explain my argument, so that your pea brains actually understand it. It's not about utility, it's about the essence of the theory being made null.
>Newtonian mechanics main idea is the idea of being able to expresses the relation between forces and mouvement (F=dp/dt), this allows us to express interactions between objects numerically, and thus describe them more precisely, and thus understand them more profoundly. Now suppose we did as guenon said and replaced + with x, then, in order to for instance describe the interaction of an oscillator (a oscillating pendulum for instance) with a good approximation, then by using Newton's law, we would have after some calculations what is known as an ordinary differential equation (equation with derivatives, in this case second degree, of the form ax'' + bx' + cx + d = 0). Now with +, you can use math to solve this, and so you can by solving it describe entirely the movement of the oscillator with a good approximation, and so you have understood it better. With Guenon's way of doing things, you would not be able to solve this, (ax''bx'cxd=1) and even if you could, what you would find would be utterly complicated and wouldn't even describe accurately the system, simply because what he is describing does not correspond to the reality (the relation between the forces is not a relation of proportionality, the signs + and x have a well-defined meaning in physics because of their mathematical properties) but only describes what HE views as reality. His way of doing things is not science (both in the platonic sense and the modern sense) since he does not try to better understand the world using it. He already has a vision of the world he has gained from reading ancient texts or whatever, and is just blindly following, not even once doubting the thing he believes in.
>I too hate the scientism of anglos, but I believe that you guys are just like them, you blindly follow a doctrine and act as if it destroys all others (your Guenon btfo'd is the same as their Dawkins btfo'd). At no point does Guenon use any sound reasoning to argue for his case, and at no point does he define, even slightly, the word he uses. He is a joke of a writer and isn't taken seriously for a reason...
>Now I am going to end this with something that just came up to me: maybe guenon meant that + become x and 0 becomes 1, basically just exchange the signs without the meaning (0x0=2 for 1+1=2 for instance and 0+2=2 for 1x2=2) even though I doubt he meant this, that is, for obvious reason, absolutely retarded, since it is literally the same thing...

>> No.14762998
File: 95 KB, 476x598, Portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14762998

>>14762983
>This is OP. You guys could not read correctl
Stopped reading there.

>> No.14763026
File: 112 KB, 1300x866, 83037734-portrait-of-red-tail-monkey-or-schmidts-guenon-cercopithecus-ascanius-ape-isolated-on-black-backgroun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14763026

>>14762983
>anglo bugman utilitarian calculationist """""argument"""""
OH NO NO NO NO

>> No.14763132

>>14762998
>>14763026
>>14762993
you're pathetic man, everyone knows that you're just the same guy spamming this unfunny posts. truly pathetic, unauthentic and bugman behavior. you're just adopting esoteric views to seem cool and use it as a replacement for your personality, because deep down you're an empty shell. the worst part about this is that you're also stupid.

>> No.14763135

^
absolutely SEETHING kek

>> No.14763153

>>14763135
Whatever man, I made this post to see if any anon would be able to make any argument in favor of guenon. I see no one did here, all of you just work within the guenonian framework but never justify it. The second you are asked to justify something outside of your little imaginary boxes, you become speechless and just spam basedjacks to disagree with people or chads to agree with people. Absolutely zero authenticity, which is funny for a group who acts as if they are outsiders. You truly remind of people I know in CS: absolute NPCs. You guys have different beliefs but the same way of thinking as them, same thought structure: the structure of the bugman.
See ya retards, this is my last reply.

>> No.14763190

boi he mad

>> No.14763221
File: 154 KB, 346x350, 1577188805890.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14763221

>>14763132
lmfao. seething hylic deluded by maya detected.
SHAMEFUL!

>> No.14763519

>>14761641
Interesting. Got any recommendations?

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action