at what point does math become philosophy? is
>>16834513Set theory, type theory, topos theory, other types of schizo category theory like cosmoi.
>>16834534Nah, those are still part of math, and are distinct from philosophy.Philosophy only appears at the point where you have to choose which axioms to accept, or refuse, and in which frame of logic to work.Logic itself lies at the intersection of math and philosophy, but that's all.
>>16834537>Philosophy only appears at the point where you have to choose which axioms to accept, or refuse, and in which frame of logic to work.You don't know what type theory and topos theory are, don't you?
at what point to philosophers stop trying to claim successful fields as their own and just admit their branch of "knowledge" is irrelevant and has contributed nothing of value to the world?
>>16834562What even constitutes as knowledge and how it's acquired is a whole branch of philosophy if you didn't know. Now stay in your lane, enginigger.
>>16834551I've gone through most of MacLane and Moerdijk's book on topos theory, so it's quite likely I know more than you.
>>16834571epistemology is safely within philosophy, at least, and equally useless, both in theory and application>stay in your lanelol, lmao, that's exactly what i'm saying to you philosotards
>>16834586>muh usesStay. In. Your. Lane. Enginigger.>>16834579And you don't think topos theory is "out there" in the realm of metamathematics rather than what most people would think of as mathematics? I don't believe you one bit.
>>16834605i said THEORY AND applicationi don't think everything needs to have an application to be interesting, hence why i included theoryhowever, philosophy is not interesting even in its theory, it's just full of self-important people with pet ideas that have a melty when you point out all the holes in their ramblings and that everyone gets along just fine without themyou are proving my point splendidly, child
Always has been.
>>16834513axioms i suppose
>>16834711Name philosophical works you actually read. And no, skimming wikipedia articles doesn’t count.
>>16834717hoho, here comes the logical fallacies! we learned about those sophomore year!
>>16834719Name them, nigger.
>>16834571>epistemology>entire branchThe entire "branch" of epistemology boils down to 2 options. Anything else are wordcels up to their usual game."Knowing" simply means predicting the future. You either predict the future based on observed past patterns of reality (empiricism, /sci/entific method) and hope the universe isn't going to fuck you over later, or you are somehow getting direct downloads (aka /x/ divine revalation) from the universe/God/matrix and just know shit and hope things pan out and you aren't going full schizo.You literally tell me a third option that isn't some retarded play on made up words I'll recognize that "branch".
>>16834767>muh future>some nonsense rambling about muh matrix and other reddit shitholy filtered
All things in the universe are Number Theory in Hilbert Space.
>>16834776>can't formulate any sensible reply from individual thoughts>spams portrait of 200 year old dead man out of habitual indoctrinationAbsolute state of modern philosotards. It's so over.
>>16834605Your first hint that you're wrong should be that Grothendieck was a mathematician, not a philosopher.Its utility as a good setting for cohomology theories alone places it firmly in mathematics. Moreover, all the preliminary work - besides size issues - one does to establish the theory of topoi is math and not philosophy.The fact that it sees ways to approach logic makes it no more a part of philosophy than linear algebra is a subfield of physics.
>>16834767>"Knowing">or you are somehow getting direct downloadsChoices are made before conscious rationalization is hypothesised, and signals from gut biome or yourself or invisible signals makes no difference and has no means of determination (largely, I can within myself but have no way of teaching it).Split brain patients "receive signals" from themselves. These can all be on the same vector denoted with "side length 1 of ____".>>16834562>at what point to philosophers stop trying to claim successful fields as their own and just admit their branch of "knowledge" is irrelevant and has contributed nothing of value to the world?Every major STEM field is being revolutionized as we speak and the majority of them promote Theology as being a part of the equation. Psychology, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Medical, Maths even. All of them.>>16834513>at what point does math become philosophy?Things such as Pi or Phi have direct correlations to physical reality at ever scale, including the hueman scale at hueman-mortal timeframes (your lived experience...).Living out the embodiment of something like Phi is a recorded phenomenon, this is where Geometry, Psychology, and Physics overlap.
>>16834802Citing Grothendieck when talking about modern topos theory is about as useful as citing Newton when talking about real analysis. Pseud indeed.
>>16834807Okay, enlighten me.
>>16834804stay on /x/ you schizo
>>16834834What is your major, pupil? Lets figure out where the trouble is.I just left Kabul and left because it was too feminist and liberal for me. Im now in Chiang Mai formalizing Atomic Cognition to Molecular, Cellular, Collective, and many other fields, such as, Pure Mathematics and Psychology.This is why /sci/ hides...they havnt graduated to /sxi/.
>>16834845>it was too feminist and liberal for meI was quite vocal about it as it played out...just not here (firewalled nation).A woman's place is barefoot, pregnant, making breakfast.[King Baldwin backhand]Or my wrath shall be on what is mine by dominion.
>>16834513>at what point does math become philosophyOh, and the definition of the number 1. You will find yourself in a series of loops, when added together, makes a giant page of bullshit. It becomes this untied end that still holds if we dont fuck with it."Crisis is the foundations of Mathematics". Its tied to perspective which is tied to Cognition, then the rest flows.
>>16834720He can't because he is a self-righteous retard who hasn't read a book in his life.
>>16834513The Zero Point.
Pic rel is why engineers seethe at philosophy
>>16834767>"Knowing" simply means predicting the future. You either predict the future based on observed past patterns of reality (empiricism, /sci/entific method) and hope the universe isn't going to fuck you over later,Are you this retarded so as to confuse induction with epistemic position of empiricism? Are you this retarded? Please don't tell me you're this retarded.
>>16835155>epistemic position of empiricism>It holds that the mind is a "blank slate" (\(<<!nav>>tabularasa<<!/nav>>\)) at birth, and all ideas are acquired through experience and observation.
>>16835177Yes this would be the more accurate account of what empiricism signifies. The mind is said to abstract what what is impressed upon it through sensory experience, making it possible to hold ideas.
>>16835177>It holds that the mind is a "blank slate"god i hate that retarded notion
>>16834513The moment you establish your axioms.
>>16835210I accept all the axioms of modal logic, 4, 5, D, B, T, K, all of them. S5 is the most accurate reflection about how humans think about modalities.
>>16835351>make me a maltedPoof. You're a malted, Philosopher.
>>16834513>at what point green turns into blue?>at what point a boy becomes a man?>at what point the sea and the sky touch?
>>16835380All of these things which you mentioned are constructed. That's not say they're not mind independent, just that, there are no concrete substances like colors, water, sky, etc. Same with math. There are no concrete objects like numbers or sets. We construct them because in doing so they give us access to mind independent things which are like them.
>>16835188>this would be the more accurate account of what empiricism signifiesThen Empiricism is the 1800's reach at "Psycho-Analysis" and is nonsense today.>Empiricism rejects the idea that humans are born with innate knowledge or pre-existing concepts.A sea turtle is born...why do they all go to the water?>Knowledge is acquired through sensory data (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) and can be confirmed or denied through empirical evidence and observation.Honor, truth, love, betrayal, where are these?>It stands in contrast to rationalism, which holds that reason is the source of knowledge.Perspectives about the observed "object" dictates it's "rationality", reason from what values? An egg is something to love for a bird but but eat for a snake, is it knowledge that an egg is food to a bird?>Francis Bacon: Often called the "father of empiricism" for his advocacy of the scientific method, which relies on observation and experimentation.Measurment Theory is what he is doing, not "Science". Confusing thr facts with the meaning, Richard Dawkins does this, he calls measurements "truth" not realizing its merely a "fact". What he is measuring for, for where to where, and expecting as results, is just tape measuring...not saying what shape it is. He measured for what he was looking for/could see, not what occured.I used to think I was aware of the true natures of people and the world...
>>16835403>A sea turtle is born...why do they all go to the water?Didn't know a sea turtle was a human>Honor, truth, love, betrayal, where are these?Social constructs
>>16835403>A sea turtle is born...why do they all go to the water?Instinct. A sea turtle doesn't know that if it doesn't make it to the water it will die. It does it instinctually. >Honor, truth, love, betrayal, where are these?By observing what we see in other people or in ourselves. >Perspectives about the observed "object" dictates it's "rationality", reason from what values? An egg is something to love for a bird but but eat for a snake, is it knowledge that an egg is food to a bird?You're still confusing instinct with knowledge and belief. You know you can be an empiricist and still be religious right?
>>16835404>Didn't know a sea turtle was a human>The philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) followed the Aristotelian position, which held that animals possessed "sensitive souls". However, he distinguished this from the human "rational soul," which he considered to be the uniquely immortal part given by God. A clitoral orgasm is an immature orgasm.
>>16834513(a). Suppose <>[]p. Assume for contradiction ~[]p. ~[]p=<>~p. By axiom 5 <>~p implies []<>~p. []<>~q=~<>[]p. But this contradicts our first assumption. Therefore we must conclude []p. Thus if <>[]p then []pSuppose []p. Assume for contradiction ~<>[]p. ~<>[]p=[]<>~p. By axiom 4 []<>~p implies <>~p. <>~p=~[]p. But this contradicts our first assumption. Therefore we must conclude <>[]p. Thus if []p then <>[]p. Hence []p <-> <>[]pWant me to do more /sci/?
>>16835380>at what point green turns into blue? Independent sliders on my PC. Is trick question?>at what point a boy becomes a man? Puberty, is phase.>at what point the sea and the sky touch?Horizon, but is line, not point.
Every body of knowledge is philosophy.
>>16834513Math is just a small subset of formalized logic. Logic is a small subset of philosophy used to advance arguments.
>>16835703You can't define logic without set theory.
>>16834513When you have got nothing to start with
All modern science owes its success to the axiom of induction, which is only philosophically grounded at best
>>16835705You can define logic in a fragment of arithmetic (e.g. the bounded arithmetic).It is possible to write a computer program which checks if a proof is correct without reference of a set theory.
define "define"
>>16836518to trivial for me to bother
>>16836077That's just substituting one foundation of math for another
>>16834551If you think type theory or any other category theory is philosophy, you either don't know what philosophy even is, or you don't know what set/type/group/etc theory even are. Pick one, or both and shut the fuck up.
>>16835380Wasn't calculus invented to answer these kinds of questions? Like, isn't this what you use integrals to express? Nature is full of continuous systems, but that doesn't mean we can't express them mathematically. There are these things called differential equations, maybe you've heard of them?
>>16836815>Wasn't calculus invented to answer these kinds of questions?No. It was invented to find the area of a circle.
>>16836815holy pseud
math has as much to do with philosophy as chemistry does with alchemy
>>16836819Because a circle is continuous.>>16836821No, just tired of your stupid shit.
>>16836829>Because a circle is continuousDon't use words whose meaning you don't know.
>>16836830>he doesn't even know what an integral isTry to understand them better yourself before you project your own ignorance.
>>16836829holy pseud, get a grip
>>16836826then how come that alchemy, chemistry, & maths get used nicely in fiction(fantasy & scifi), yet philosophy gets zilch?
>>16837171When has math ever been used in fiction?
>>16837171What does it mean to "use" philosophy in fiction?
>>16837280"We have two chief survivors of those ancient schools: the Bene Gesserit and the Spacing Guild. The Guild, so we think, emphasizes almost pure mathematics. Bene Gesserit performs another function..." -Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
>>16837352>almost pure mathematics.Almost?!>Bene Gesserit performs another functionYeah, the other function is being barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen cooking breakfast for one adult and one toddler.But really its "form" with vectors and such and "formless" with reactionary/alternative/orthogonal.
>>16834513>at what point does math become philosophy?This very, fucking, second, buster.https://youtu.be/F5awllN5W4w
>>16837408You should have just posted this one and left./thread
>>16837521Im so overqualified to teach you the irriducible, axiomatic mechanics, with numerical measurements.Metrology, where unit measure and reality converge...because youre in reality. Philosophy utilized something the Maths doesnt but does account for. "Want".Dont "want" to be right, BE right.
>>16834513Philosophy is just math for mental midgets.
