How does that prove Hodge conjecture
>>16977038Yeah gaussian primes are real; real annoying
No two snowflakes are the same so you can compare real numbers.
>>16977038>mathematical space isn't real spaceYes? This isn't exactly a secret.
>>16978215>No two snowflakes are the sameThey all/mostly have six/twelve sides, thobeit
>>16978215How do they know that though theyd have to get them all in the same room and even with computers...
>>16978215Actually the chance for two snowflakes to be identical is 50%, we're just really unlucky.
>>16977038How would a physical object show an abstract realm is real
>>16978676>math is a literal realm he sayslol
>>16978678If youre not a platonist then what do you mean by it being real
All the morons who claim that math and science are just one sided human inventions are sadly retarded. They’re only right in the shallowest sense. Math and scientific processes have been transpiring for billions of years before life as we know it even evolved. “b-but it’s not us - we’re not poking at it!”That these retards can’t see the difference between applied math:science and ancient math:science says a lot. Einstein saw it as music playing its tune regardless of us or our ability to listen in. And yes, physics does take specific mathematical shapes. Snowflakes have six sides, twelve sides, etc.
>>16978683>ancient ambient*
>>16978681Existence takes fundamental, unavoidable shapes. That’s math. A two cannot be a three. A three cannot be a two. A triangle cannot be a square. Math goes along with anything that exists. Quantification. Even in a state of absolute nothingness, a zero is still a one, a nothing is still a something.If you think math isn’t real it’s because you’re so accustomed for reality you’ve effectively become blinded by it. You’re too used to it. Sort of like how modern day people pretentiously overcomplicate everything, even when science in essence is overwhelmingly simple. This is also something Einstein feared. If you cannot explain something simply enough then you don’t understand it well enough. Communication is key. Confusion is death. Liberals confused the left and now nobody knows what a woman is. And the pride and ego has been so thoroughly pumped that no one will listen to someone who is objectively correct about anything.
>>16978687>she still isn't morphismly correct
>>16978687Math is the description of observed distinction sure, the things exist and their interactions/distinctions are observable but what sense of "exist" are you using for math here
>>16978689>>16978698Jesus Christ you don’t belong on /sci/
>>16978698If math/geometry didn’t exist then snowflakes wouldn’t have six sides. The six sided shape of a snowflake is a direct result of the geometry of water molecules and the laws of physics. At a microscopic level, liquid water is made up of molecules with one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Because of their shape, these molecules naturally lock together at specific 60^ and 120^ angles to form a tight, hexagonal (six sided) lattice as they freeze.
>it's another episode of low-grade midwits repeating reification fallacies over and over
>>16977038How do the atoms at the tip of one of the arms know there are five other arms to copy
>>16978717the problem is that every time you try to substantiate what it means for math to exist, your example can be neatly filed under a more neutral and precise statement like "reality follows mathematically intelligible patterns". since you're not demonstrating anything more, your usage just dilutes the meaning of the word 'exists'. a pattern doesn't become pure math until you abstract it from the phenomenon that exhibits it, subtracting the very concreteness that underlies the intuitive notion of existence. if that abstraction still "exists" in the same sense as the original phenomenon, where does it exist? how does it imprint its mathematical essence on its concrete physical derivatives? going down this route is how you end up with platonic mysticismi think the bottom line here is that you believe some of the stuff math covers has ontological essence, but you don't know how to articulate it besides applying the word 'exists' to mathematical structures and invokes all the wrong implications
>>16978750>pretentious gobbledygook lol
>what IS existence thoJesus Christ
>>16978687>Existence takes fundamental, unavoidable shapes. That’s math.What does existence mean and what is a shape? Philosophy requires more rigor than this. Try harder or at least read someone who has tried harder than you instead of embarrassing yourself.> A two cannot be a three. A three cannot be a two.A two is a three if the unit of measure changes mid-judgment. You need to be more precise.>A triangle cannot be a square.Just say they're forms of physical arrangement which lend themselves to certain 1d abstractions. Is this really that hard?> Even in a state of absolute nothingness, a zero is still a one, a nothing is still a something.This is literally gibberish. I understand that what you mean is that zero and nothing are still determinations, but, again, be precise.>If you think math isn’t real it’s because you’re so accustomed for reality you’ve effectively become blinded by itActually, when people ask about the reality of Mathematics they are more precisely asking for immanence. Like, what definite relation does the formula for the circumference of a circle have with the circumference of a circle? Hegel has already pointed out the fundamental philosophical problem of Mathematics, where proofs are presented as essentially taking a random other thing and then combining syllogisms to get at an answer. It gets at correct answers since the system of logic created for Mathematics works but it does not explain anything in the sense that most people intuitively mean when they ask "why."It's not like Mathematics is doomed, but it's telling that on the problem of the "reality" of Mathematics you either get vulgarity like your post, literal Platonism, a refusal to engage ("Mathematics just works different, you're a midwit") or agnostic shrugging. The problem will need to be solved at some point in history but the task is massive seeing just how much will need to be absorbed into any attempt to tackle the problem.
>>16978769>A two is a three if the unit of measure changes mid-judgmentGobbledygook. Stop dancing. A three-sided polygon can never become a four-sided polygon.
>>16978776>Gobbledygook. Stop dancing. A three-sided polygon can never become a four-sided polygon.You lack creativity. All points can be understood as the infinitesimal forms of a line, so all triangles are polygons at some point of measure. But your example was bad in the first place, we were talking about numbers and not shapes, you must establish a relation between the two first.It's fine that you didn't grasp what I said but you seem to be driven by a pathological urge to argue about things that you do not even care about understanding so I'm going to terminate the conversation for your own good.
>>16978786>so all triangles are polygonsI meant "so all triangles are four-sided polygons," sorry.
>>16978715That's blasphemy, Jesus Christ was the original scientist.
>>16978687>Existence takes fundamental, unavoidable shapes. That’s mathNo, math is taking the observed shapes and translating them into your mathematical space which allows you to do arithmetic on them
>>16978759>t. mentally ill retard
>>16978855Nope. Quantification predates man. Sorry to have to tell you this.
>>16978786>But your example was bad in the first place, we were talking about numbers and not shapes, you must establish a relation between the two first.That you can’t see the relationship between numbers and shapes is fucking hilarious
>>16978933Yes I'm sure all the electrons just woke up one day 13 billion years ago and said "lets quantify!", then they sat down and grabbed their little quark pencils and quark pens and started jotting down the maxwell equations with their photonic ink
>>16978933>Quantification predates man.There being more than one thing at all doesn't predate sentience.
>>16978952>he thinks math is invented lol
>he thinks his brown twitching is thinking
>>16978999>he thinks reality operates on math
>>16979007>he thinks it doesn’t jej
>>16979607people smarter than you (not a high bar I know) have already figured out how to put this simply for the mentally impairedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation
>>16979873But people smarter than people smarter than him still concluded that maffs is real.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlatonismSadly, they did not concern themselves with putting it simply for the mentally impaired.
>>16979878mathematics existing as an abstract has no bearing on the abstract not being made of mathematics
>>16979913>I'm a broken and hallucinating biotbot
>>16977038BasedGottem
>Abstract concepts are not real despite demonstrating causal power.Give me all your money.
>>16984078>Give me all your money.Ok. I gave you (abstractly) all my (abstract) money. What's the next step of your demonstration, retard?
>>16984082>abstract determinations of value don't influence behaviorRun away with all the monies, obviously.
>>16984087I never said your delusions don't affect your behavior. So when are you starting your run? I already gave you all the abstract value I had (it was a real event in my mind).
>>16984090>I never said your delusions don't affect your behavior.That's a rather weak attempt to pidgeonhole the principle, since even if the abstract modelling were incorrect and persistent, it would still be included in the chain of causality.>So when are you starting your run?After I take your butt, too.
>>16984093I abstractly gave you my abstract value and nothing happened therefore you're wrong and retarded. Moving on.
>>16984094You completely misunderstood the point then, so whatever, waddle on out.>Butt taken.
>>16984098>y-y-you completely heckin' misunderstood!Oh, I see. When you were talking about others giving you money, you actually had concrete, physical, non-abstract actions in mind. Sorry for misunderstanding your braindamaged post. :^(
Good thread OP you really buttblasted them
>>16978786based
>>16986681Shut up cunt
For any well-defined formal structure, truths about that structure exist independently of observers, whether or not those truths are computable or derivable within a finite system.Mathematical truths are not constituted by symbols or minds. They are what they are: structural, relational, determinate. Our symbolic systems are local, embedded attempts to map those structures from within. The limitation is not that the truths reside elsewhere—it's that we are finite subsystems of the mathematical landscape, and any finite subsystem can only encode a finite portion of the infinite whole. The map is not the territory, and the territory is vastly larger than any map-builder within it. Underlying mathematical logic has no inherent symbols. What we decide is a symbol for addition will not be seen as such a symbol by other species, unless they learn our arbitrary mathematical symbolism.We can only access math by computing it ourselves, or using lookup tables of precomputed knowledge. Anything incomputable is out of our reach by definition. But here's the thing: the answer might be there but we can't access it. It's like a prize on show, untouchable. We can only noisily approximate it, with calculating machines and thinking brains. The answer doesn't care, it was always there before us, and it will be there long after we're dead. All answers. They're outside of time.
>>16988398>obvious ai slop
>>16977038God created this
I get why snowflakes are 60-degree, that's the water atom angle (120).But why so symmetric?
>>16989018Some people think that God is impossible because then he needs a creator. Some think there is an infinite series of creators all the way up. They're not at all seeing the obvious and simple answer to this. The creator obviously created himself. Since he's all powerful, there's nothing he couldn't do, including bootstrapping his own existence. The only limitation he has is hating fags.
>>16977038lol gottem
>>16977038Only fools think math is an invention of man
1 + 1 = 2
>>16977038that's not math, that's nature.math is the abstraction of nature. same as science, btw.
>>16995762Proof or it didn't happen.
>>16989023depending on conditions the nucleation site can be just a gradient spike which essentially has no irregularities, but snow flakes formed around a particulate nucleus can be irregularsource: my ass
>>16995776>fundamental shapes aren’t a thing>ambient processes aren’t a thing You retards really think math and science are just invented abstractions instead of things we poke at, eh? Lmao. You aren’t truly scientifically minded if you think this way. Einstein is rolling in his grave. Listen pal. Physics is the music of the spheres. It is playing its cosmic symphony with or without our acknowledgment or involvement.
>>16989024Infinite regress is actually just a self supporting, self contained loop. All turtles rest on top of one another, eventually.
Only low IQs are platonists
>>16997745Including Plato, the classical retard. I totally agree with you. 1+1 is only 2 if you calculate it. If you don't it doesn't have an answer and we can't be sure an answer can even exist. GTFO with that whole platonic math thing amirite.
>one thing>and another thing>this makes two things total>math isn't real
>>16977038Trvth Nvke
Imagine thinking that math is invented rather than discovered
>>16977038Erm physicalist brosHow do the arms know to look the same as the other arms despite being trillions of atoms away?
>>17002183Because physics.
All models are wrong, including math, but some can be useful at explaining the world, like math
>>169957621+1=1When you add two lumps of clay, you get another lump of clay
>>17002991No, it will be two lumps of clay.
>>16977038that's not math, that's nature.nature and math are very close, but math veers into a lie, while nature remains.thorns and thistles
>>16989023>But why so symmetric?Because crystal growth is chiefly deterministic.
>>16978683science is discovery + confirmation + understanding>this is thing, and it does this>yes, that is thing and it does do that>thing does that because of reason>yes, reason makes sensethe last part of science is where things begin to stray between science and religion.math on the other hand, is not science, it falls under understanding>this is thing, and it does this, here is formula>that is thing, and formula and thing match>thing does that, in varying degrees, and formula confirms it, because of reason>yes, formula does confirm, in varying degrees, the thing that does that, but why this reason and not other.>reason plausible, while other less plausibleat that point science just became a game of dice rather than concrete confirmation.nothing more than a gamblers bet wrapped up in a belief.math is confirmation bias>i rolled a six, 5 times in a row, so i'll get a six again, because it will be a six 6 times in a row, the math proves it.patterns aren't science, they're meth, recursive confirmation because the confirmation is recursive.a mirror reflecting back itself to itself until it reaches a point it can no longer see itself, claiming that it is the only thing that there is because it confirms it is it itself.math is meth for m'tformulas = drug = death
>>17002239there's a difference between a model and a theory
Quantification isn’t math and vice versa? Nah that’s just pure fucking cope lmaoo
>>17003342>science is discovery + confirmation + understandingRetard, you missed the most important part. Science is discovery + confirmation + understanding + AI.
>>17005407>+ AI.*sigh**drink coffee**put capslock on**take a deep breath*I'M GOING TO FIND YOU AND I'M GOING TO ASASAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!
>>16978152That's not how you use a semicolon.
>>16978152Yeah – use an em dash instead of a semicolon when you add retarded filler like that to sound more spontaneous.
0111000101010101010101000101010101
>>16978683>All the morons who claim that math and science are just one sided human inventions are sadly retarded.true, but only because of the qualifier 'human".it's more like a one-sided organism invention.
>>16977038mathematical structures don't have irregularities like this. that they aren't perfectly symmetric radially implies they're non-mathematical.
>>17003199>>17002991>>16995762>PHAEDO: Socrates, they say arithmetic is the surest of all knowledge, that one plus one must always yield two.>SOCRATES: So they say. But tell me Phaedo, if I bring one torch to one river, what do I have?>PHAEDO: A wet torch, I suppose. Or a dead flame.>SOCRATES: So one fire and one water have yielded what exactly? Two things?>PHAEDO: No, something has been destroyed. We have less than we began with.>SOCRATES: Then arithmetic has failed us?>PHAEDO: Perhaps fire and water are poor examples for arithmetic. A mathematician would say we must count properly distinguished units.>SOCRATES: Ah, and there is the admission. For a unit to submit to arithmetic it must remain what it is while being counted. It must sit still, as a stone sits, indifferent to its neighbor.>PHAEDO: And fire does not sit still.>SOCRATES: Fire is never a thing at all in the way a stone is a thing. It is purely consuming, it exists only by becoming something else. Water likewise, it yields, it dissolves, it accommodates everything it meets, it changes what touches it. Neither is a unit in any honest sense.>PHAEDO: So arithmetic presupposes something earthen about its objects.>SOCRATES: The stone seems stable. But is it, under sufficient scrutiny?>PHAEDO: I suspect you are correct. >SOCRATES: But the elements do not hold their nature equally. They transform each other. Fire meeting water is not addition. It is a kind of argument between natures, and one nature loses.>PHAEDO: It seems so. We dressed fire in the clothing of a countable thing, when fire refuses to wear it.
1s and 0s
>>16977038Based
>>17012113superbased
>>16978683>mathIs just the language description of the physical process.No, it is not "real">scienceIs the empirical method for determining a true fact.The words you are looking for are "physics" and "processes".The natural world has physics and processes that are real.Math and science is the human concept for understanding them.Language isn't difficult if you spend the 2 minutes to read word definitions instead of running purely on word association.
>because I can count Platonic ideals are actually real>okay well actually only this one that I personally care about all the other ones are obviously stupid and fakeWhy are basedentists like this?
>>17014102>Math and science is the human concept for understanding them.To people who aren’t idiots, these mathematical axioms and scientific processes are quite ambient, and we did not actually create them. You people always talk and act like humans invented science and base maths.
>>17014102I refer you to >>16935316
>>17009316>SOCRATES: So they say. But tell me Phaedo, if I bring one torch to one river, what do I have?>PHAEDO: A wet torch, I suppose. Or a dead flame.>SOCRATES: So one fire and one water have yielded what exactly? Two things?>PHAEDO: No, something has been destroyed. We have less than we began with.>le negative number enter le chat
>>17014596lol
