/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15073418]

.

[Anonymous No.15073422]

Is that Manson?

[Anonymous No.15073426]

Nigga has a point, can't refute him.

[Anonymous No.15073431]

>boomer never used a computer
>doesn't know that computers are physical implementations of logic
Many such cases

[Anonymous No.15073433]

>>15073431
we tell the computer what to do, we embed it with logic

[Anonymous No.15073438]

>>15073431
retard, computers do A then B then C
doesn't mean they could simply do A then C
he has a point

[Anonymous No.15073439]

>>15073418
I've been saying this for years on /sci/ and everyone has called me a retarded schizo for it.

[Anonymous No.15073445]

>Gromov
Oh, it's just Russian disinfo and demoralization. Nothing to see here.

[Anonymous No.15073452]

>>15073445
What's wrong with gromov?

[Anonymous No.15073456]

>>15073418
BASED Gromov. But seriously, he's one of the best mathematicians of the last century and basically strip mined differential geometry of any results a mere mortal might consider proving. What's that, you have a cool conjecture? Too bad, Gromov already did it.

[Anonymous No.15073462]

>>15073445
Cope

[Anonymous No.15073471]

>>15073418
This entire argument is self-defeating. If the world isn't logical, why should experiments tell you anything about the world. After all, if anything follows from anything else, why not assume you're just dreaming right now? Why not assume you're a Boltzmann brain? Why would you you assume that just because an experiment resulted in X 10 times before that it won't result in Y the next time?

Science is essentially based on logic. The concept of natural laws (which is open to many forms of other criticism) makes no sense without logic.

If you measure a particle and it has positive charge, why assume it is a proton? That only makes sense with logic. Why can't be be a particularly heavy, positively charged electron?

[Anonymous No.15073478]

>>15073471
Nigga, the problem is logic is based on nothing, sure is useful but if you dig enough you realize that logic at his foundations is a lot of unprrof and assumptions and intuition.

[Anonymous No.15073480]

>>15073418
>There is no experiment that can check 'if A implies B and B implies C then A implies C'
I honestly don't understand what he means by this. Literally every experiment confirms this. It is the basis of testing any hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.15073507]

>>15073438
computers do A which leads to B which leads to C
when computers do A it leads to C

[Anonymous No.15073518]

>>15073478
How is "if a coin is heads' side up it is not heads' side down," any less well vetted by than anything else in science?

If logic can't be trusted than mathematics is out. How many scientific findings don't rely on mathematics? Quantum mechanics would be out. Anything relying on statistics is out.

That's what makes the quote so dumb. It belies a total lack of knowledge of mathematical foundations. If logic is out, so is science, because all findings in science are grounded in logic.

This is like saying "experiences are open to misinterpretation and manipulation. There is no experiment that can tell if experience is fundementally flawed."

Ok, sure. Radical skepticism. But don't pretend this leaves other knowledge claims intact.

[Anonymous No.15073519]

>>15073480
This. The senile old man is talking out of his ass. The laws of logic are not some arbitrary a priori, they are established because they are congruent with observable reality. You can make up some other nonstandard axiomatic system, but if it isn't equivalent to standard logic it will never be more than a shitty toy incompatible with observation.

[Anonymous No.15073524]

>>15073519
>This. The senile old man is talking out of his ass.
When I said "he meant", I was talking about OP. I'm yet to see any proof that Gromov actually said this. nu-chinners are incredibly gullible.

[Anonymous No.15073525]

>logic can't prove logic
Gödel got there first, decades ago.

[Anonymous No.15073527]

>>15073525
>>logic can't prove logic
That's not what the quote implies.

[Anonymous No.15073532]

>>15073525
Being continually violates logic. Contradiction is resolved through sublation. Logic is ontologically basic.

[Anonymous No.15073542]

>>15073532
Something so incoherently retarded can only come from Hegel.

[Anonymous No.15073545]

>>15073426
The validity of empirical observation is based on unfounded axioms in the same way that logic is. You can make this argument about any field of human thought. It's literally epistemology 101.

[Anonymous No.15073550]

>>15073439
because you are.

[Anonymous No.15073554]

>>15073527
>All other fields are more rigorous than logic
Why are they more rigorous?
>Because they can use logic to prove themselves

[Anonymous No.15073558]

>>15073478
>logic at his foundations is a lot of unprrof and assumptions
And now think about where those assumptions come from. Spoiler: It's observations in nature.
>>15073532
Did Urs Schreiber write this?

[Anonymous No.15073560]

>>15073439
say/publish stuff with a degree: people notice it
say/publish stuff without a degree: people don't even acknowledge it
maths cabal in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.15073562]

>>15073418
Natural science and experimental method implies 2 (or more) outcomes, logic doesn't, simple as.

[Anonymous No.15073564]

>>15073558
>And now think about where those assumptions come from. Spoiler: It's observations in nature.
He's retarded but so are you. Those "assumptions" are hardwired into your brain.

[Anonymous No.15073568]

>>15073564
And thus they come from nature. Look up the term "evolutionary logic".

[Anonymous No.15073591]

>>15073568
>And thus they come from nature
They don't come from observations.

[Anonymous No.15073596]

>>15073418
Actually, it's the exact opposite. Pretty much every experiment ever done checks transitive implication

[Anonymous No.15073647]

>>15073525
Gödel is generally misunderstood. Incompleteness is a problem for subjective logic and axiomatic theories. It is not a problem for objective logic.

Bourbaki's deduction of structures from other structures would be an example where axioms aren't essential.

[Anonymous No.15073654]

>>15073542

[Anonymous No.15073664]

>>15073654
Called it.

[Anonymous No.15073685]

Logic is playing with words in a way that ensures you are always correct.

[Anonymous No.15073700]

>>15073685
Quite high IQ post, witty even.

[Anonymous No.15073716]

>>15073591
It has to have evolved from somewhere, somehow.

[Anonymous No.15073721]

>>15073685
only brainlets who don't know the difference between truth and validity think this lol

[Anonymous No.15073734]

>>15073524
I'd believe he said it.
I went to one of his talks recently and he really has lost some of his marbles

[Anonymous No.15073740]

the quote that buck brcoken the mathematician of /sci/ absolutely btfo

[Anonymous No.15073768]

>>15073716
>It has to have evolved from somewhere
Okay. It's still not rooted in observations.

[Anonymous No.15073773]

>>15073734
>he really has lost some of his marbles
I don't trust normies on issues like this. Even if he did say it, it's presented without context so the most I could say is, again, that I don't know what was meant by it.

[Anonymous No.15073778]

I think the point is that since logic gives rigor to everything else then there's nothing outside it to give it rigor.

[Anonymous No.15073783]

>>15073778
Doesn't explain how it's "the most unrigorous subject", since from that point of view, it's exactly as lacking in rigor as anything else. How do you figure scientific reasoning is valid without relying on logic?

[Anonymous No.15073919]

>>15073783
>How do you figure scientific reasoning is valid without relying on logic?
Once upon a time God was high up in the sky, today the logic God is below you feets, but nothing have changed
>muh how can I conceive the world outside of God?
Your question is stupid in the first pace. Logic is not the starting point. If you consider anything else than physical reality as the starting point, you're are mastubating yourself into the void.

[Anonymous No.15073936]

>>15073445
>mother lea rabinovitz
he looks much older than his age desu

[Anonymous No.15073938]

Is Mathematics unrigorous then? We study the kind of mathematics that we do because our human perceptions of space and time. The kind of mathematics we do is directly informed by what perceptions we evolved, nothing else.

[Anonymous No.15073953]

>>15073938
LMAO, no, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.15073964]

>>15073721
>truth
Unknowable and therefore irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15074047]

bump

[Anonymous No.15074090]

>>15073938
isn't this the the consensus?

[Anonymous No.15074484]

>>15073418
>There is no experiment that can check 'if A implies B and B implies C then A implies C'
Gromov needs an "experiment" to check the transitivity of implication?
Does he think Russell & Whitehead were "unrigorous" in their treatment of the subject?

[Anonymous No.15074486]

>>15074090
I just don't get his point. Mathematics that we do is also arbritrary as a result of our evolved perceptions. It is all intuition for how things should work.>>15073964

[Anonymous No.15074496]

>>15073418
Sounds like classic talmudic pilpul from a literal kike to me

[Anonymous No.15074664]

>>15074496
>Muh Jew

Retarded

[Anonymous No.15074717]

>>15073532
You know, I can kind of see this kind of thing, as well as most if not all of nLab, if you treat it as a What-If exercise, where you suspend disbelief and just push the idea through to its logical conclusion for your own amusement. Like experimental music or whatever, where nobody is SERIOUSLY expected to listen to it, especially given the existing record of totally unlistenable experimental music by other people. It’s fun to make and hey, you might learn something more practical along the way. What worries me is that maybe these guys aren’t looking at it that way at all

[Anonymous No.15074720]

>>15074717
Your neurional activity is weak. Stop taking drugs, christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15074738]

>>15073418
Based Gromov. Mathematics and logic should be considered as a proper subset of natural science and be subject to experimentation.

[Anonymous No.15074741]

>Mathematics and logic should be considered as a proper subset of natural science and be subject to experimentation.

[Anonymous No.15074743]

>>15074741
I knew you would be triggered, psychotic wojak spammer

[Anonymous No.15074750]

>I knew you would be triggered

[Anonymous No.15074889]

Bump

[Anonymous No.15074944]

>>15074664
>Muh >Muh Jew
Retarded^2

[Anonymous No.15074981]

>>15073422
HELTER SHELFER

[Anonymous No.15074982]

>>15074944
>Jew are to blame for everything!

Peak science reasoning there

[Anonymous No.15074985]

>>15074982
>Jew are to blame for everything!
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15075009]

>>15074985
Go back to /pol/, NIGGER.

[Anonymous No.15075018]

>>15075009
Fuck off back to /pol/, ZOG shill.

[Anonymous No.15075020]

>>15073418
An fpga can prove that

[Anonymous No.15075033]

>>15073418
this is the kind of contrarian edgelord bullshit that encourages flat-tards

[Anonymous No.15075106]

>>15074717
There are both. Some people take the dialectical as a model, more social sciences folks. Some people take it as ontological. These tend to be information theoretic folks more on the physics or biology side, or pure philosophers and theologians. Hegel is having a huge ressurgance in physics, biology, and cognitive neuroscience through Pierce, information theory and semiotics, and logic and mathematics through category theory. Russel is rolling in his grave

[Anonymous No.15075272]

>>15075106
fucking kek. nobody who matters gives a shit about that schizo
>cognitive neuroscience has something to learn from Bagel
holy fuck you are delusional

[Anonymous No.15076965]

>>15075272
Hegel gets cited in cognitive neuroscience occasionally. His solution to realism vs nominalism, where the two create each other in a feedback loop and the universal shapes cognition is actually a great intuition about how perception works, particularly sight.

[Anonymous No.15077003]

>>15074717
>if you treat it as a What-If exercise, where you suspend disbelief and just push the idea through to its logical conclusion for your own amusement
since around 1890, all math developed in math departments is exactly this procedure

[Anonymous No.15078316]

>>15073445
>>15073418
>His Russian father Leonid Gromov and his Jewish[1] mother Lea Rabinovitz[2][3] were pathologists.[4]