[ cyb / tech / λ / layer ] [ zzz / drg / lit / diy / art ] [ w / rpg / r ] [ q ] [ / ] [ popular / ???? / rules / radio / $$ / news ] [ volafile / uboa / sushi / LainTV / lewd ]

r - random

off topic
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)
BUY LAINCHAN STICKERS HERE

STREAM » LainTV « STREAM
[Return][Go to bottom]

File: 1445049437486.jpg (38.28 KB, 549x673, tmp_16456-2012-03-30-mochi….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

ID: ffb107 No.16246

>A Japanese mathematician claims to have solved one of the most important problems in his field. The trouble is, hardly anyone can work out whether he's right

>Three years on, Mochizuki's proof remains in mathematical limbo—neither debunked nor accepted by the wider community. Mochizuki has estimated that it would take an expert in arithmetic geometry some 500 hours to understand his work, and a maths graduate student about ten years. So far, only four mathematicians say that they have been able to read the entire proof.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/math-mystery-shinichi-mochizuki-and-the-impenetrable-proof/
>>

ID: 83ce36 No.16256

>>16246
That's really cool.

I aspire to be a mathematician of a similar calibur one day. I just need to keep going forward with it.

>>

ID: 9783db No.16262

File: 1445053445519.gif (84.66 KB, 366x366, ⑀⑃⑄⑂⑅⑂⑄⑂⑊.gif) ImgOps iqdb

It Why It To Compute?

>>

ID: 7ec3b2 No.16264

>>16262
you have a texhnolyzed brain

>>

ID: 88a3d0 No.16265

So... what's the point? How can we benefit from a discovery such as this? It seems a waste to have someone who is clearly brilliant working on something that we can't benefit from because no one understands it.

>>

ID: 9783db No.16266

File: 1445055236694.gif (43.62 KB, 355x400, ∠∧≀∿∎.gif) ImgOps iqdb

⊹∝∯∎

>>

ID: 2b9e22 No.16269

>>16265
Solely to make you ask that question.

>>

ID: 2f71b2 No.16270

>>16265
That's what they said when computers were invented

>>

ID: 4a6f69 No.16271

>>16246
and?

>>

ID: 9783db No.16277

File: 1445059788875.jpg (42.17 KB, 320x260, ⥴⥀⥳.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Or?

>>

ID: 88a3d0 No.16279

>>16269
>>16270
I don't mean to dismiss his achievement. I'm genuinely curious about what can we do to benefit from it.

>>

ID: 9783db No.16281

File: 1445062417247.jpg (526.1 KB, 750x1140, ⑅⑇⑃⑀⑈⑉№.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>16279

Does math explain math in of itself?

>>

ID: 35fcb5 No.16282

File: 1445063041925.jpg (22.38 KB, 212x270, kurt_godel1.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>16281
No.

>>

ID: 4a6f69 No.16283

>>16279
>what can we do to benefit from it
i'd wager that "we" won't be seeing much from it in our lifetimes.

thats not to say that a proof of the abc conjecture isn't an important result with many (mathematical) implications.

>>

ID: e48b7d No.16286

>>16284
Gave me a Gregory Peck vibe tbh.

>>

ID: 88a3d0 No.16287

>>16283
What does it means to say a mathematical discovery is important?

Honestly, if something like this won't have application in the near future (for certain values of 'near'), I don't see the point. With future intelligence augmentation these discoveries are gonna happen anyway, so there's no point in making them now.

>>

ID: b27f77 No.16288

>>16287
>What does it means to say a mathematical discovery is important?
That it facilitates other mathematical discoveries. Math is self justifying.

>>

ID: 4a6f69 No.16289

>>16287
>With future intelligence augmentation these discoveries are gonna happen anyway, so there's no point in making them now.
or we could obtain the knowledge now giving us time to better understand, improve and extend our understanding of the proof and the concepts that will follow on from it.

>>

ID: e48b7d No.16290

>>16287

Might be useful many years from now, soykaf isn't always crystal clear.

I'm fine with some really smart guy doing what he loves and getting paid for it when eventually humanity will reap the benefits. He'll be more productive doing something he loves than anything else.

>>

ID: 7b563f No.16292

>In December 2014, he wrote that to understand his work, there was a “need for researchers to deactivate the thought patterns that they have installed in their brains and taken for granted for so many years”.
Wouldn't that make it easier to understand for a maths graduate than an expert?

>>

ID: 781404 No.16300

>>16294
Fun is just as valid a purpose for action as any, anon :D.

>>

ID: 9c57c1 No.16302

We just need proper AI in automated theorem proving.

>>

ID: 0935e5 No.16308

>>16265
If I understand it properly, he's worked out how prime factorizations relate to one another. How the primes that multiply together to make a and b relate to the primes that comprise c.

>>

ID: 483254 No.16309

Imagine what it must be like to be so far ahead of everyone else.

>>

ID: 483254 No.16310

>>16292
Maybe at first, but you probonly have to understand dozens of underlying mathematical concepts to even begin to understand. A maths graduate might not know these yet.

>>

ID: ccd598 No.16348

>>16287
wasn't math always for soykaf 'n giggles? Like, why the hell infinite sum of 2^n approaches -1?

>>

ID: 2f71b2 No.16436

>>16302
You'd need AI first

>>

ID: 78fad3 No.16633

He gets all the women

>>

ID: 707f4c No.16636

>>16633
I'd do him if:
A) He told me his secrets to math wizardry

and/or

B) Genius babies. Everywhere.

>>

ID: 4ad882 No.16637

>>16636
We all know the secret to his wizardry and sadly it precludes making babies.

>>

ID: 4a6f69 No.16648

>>16637
Terry Tao is married with kids

>>

ID: 4bce0e No.16658

Wow, that was motivating.
I can't wait to get home and study.

>>

ID: c3dc5f No.16668

I'm curious what effects this kind of research would have on cryptography. I don't know much about this type of math, or very much about encryption. But I would assume that if there was an equation that could bring down the length of time to figure out what prime1 and prime2 are just from what they equal after being multiplied, than that could become a problem in the near future for encryption? Correct me if I'm wrong, like I said, I'm not very knowledgeable in these areas.

>>

ID: 4a6f69 No.16670

>>16668
>I'm curious what effects this kind of research would have on cryptography.
practically none. however a positive proof of the abc conjecture will help with understanding parts of the theory of elliptic curves.

>>

ID: 4a6f69 No.17234

File: 1445933765453.jpg (23.03 KB, 480x360, bboystance.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

a dig through my bookmarks shored up this interesting article on another mathematician with a significant result out of the blue

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/pursuit-beauty

>>

ID: 2b12cf No.18362

File: 1448413938517.jpg (23.2 KB, 236x213, dhfggfdh.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>16282
>>16281

Maybe - go with me on this...

Maths can disprove the existance of God!

Because maths exists outside of Gods control... The moment there is a diffrence to be counted in existance, then it can be counted - the very existance of God is somthing to count, his ideas and wishes can also be counted. Or to put it another way God can't exist without numbers. And he did not/could not create them.

If you have numbers you have maths. You have primes and the Fibonacci sequence - which seem to be replicated all throughout nature. And all beyond Gods hand.

So did math just explain its self?
>Math is GOD
>Math Goddess is (pic related)

>>

ID: a3796a No.18364

>>18362
>"If you have numbers you have maths. You have primes and the Fibonacci sequence - which seem to be replicated all throughout nature"
But why do numbers exist in the first place?

>>

ID: 2b12cf No.18365

File: 1448419115566.jpg (85.32 KB, 381x143, sadd.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18364
>But why do numbers exist in the first place?
Because differences exist. No difference in ANY of the universe, in ANY distinguishable way = no possible way to have numbers or apply them.

>>

ID: 2f71b2 No.18380

>>18362
>Because maths exists outside of Gods control

This statement is unprovable.

>>

ID: 2b12cf No.18392

>>18380
It is provable - look >>18362
Gods very existance is not possible without maths. He can't exist without maths, his very existance would enable maths. It is somthing he has no possible control over.

>I'de say this is Proof it is outside his control.

>>

ID: dbf6c0 No.18393

The guy probably invented something revolutionary on the level of calculus but nobody bothers to understand it because the guy who invented it doesn't care about getting the approval of a bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world.

>>

ID: eb04c5 No.18399

>>18393
No.

>>

ID: dbf6c0 No.18413

>>18399
why not?

>>

ID: c99b88 No.18415

Wow weve all been playing checkers but this guys been playing chess for years

>>

ID: 789be2 No.18433

>>18362
did you really think this through, but as an atheist literally any religious person would easily disagree with you here
>Because maths exists outside of Gods control...
and
>And he did not/could not create them.

yeah they would say he did. They would say he created the entire concept of differences and change in the first place

>>

ID: da0824 No.18444

>>18433
no - you missed the point...

His existance is somthing to be counted... his ideas are somthing to be counted... his desitions, his actions. To not be able to count requires no god, no nothing.
She can't exist without numbers - and she can't control this.

She did not and could not control the creation of numbers.

>God can't handle maths.

>>

ID: 6bd5d8 No.18448

>>18362
>Because maths exists outside of Gods control
No.
Mathematics does not really exist.
It's a construct used to explain the world.

>You have primes and the Fibonacci sequence - which seem to be replicated all throughout nature
This could be a coincidence.
That the system was set up, so these patterns seem to appear.

>Maths can disprove the existance of God!
No, it cannot.

To derive mathematics, you need a couple things.

One of them is Identity: A = A.

Could God not have created identity?

>>

ID: da0824 No.18460

>>18448
The fibonacci sequence or primes only need the ability to count - that ability is outside of gods control. She could not have "set it up".

>Could God not have created identity?
No - without identity she would not exist - hence she could not create it. God cannot exist without identity.

>>

ID: 820f14 No.18491

File: 1448687477804.png (176.04 KB, 437x556, 1435200181177.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>18460
>Every possible reality has to have counting.
Okay.

>>

ID: 8c6744 No.18492

okay so people can be counted therefore they don't exist!

>>

ID: 255b29 No.18498

>>18491
A reality without counting would either mean:
"There is nobody to count", so the reality would be unobservable, and realities which can not be observed can be said to not be realities at all (via philosophical argumentation, or physical observation of our reality);
It doesn't have anything to count, meaning it would be more or less 0 Dimensional, and I don't know if one would like to call something like that reality;


It has been said before here, that counting stems from the relation of equality,
but what has been overlooked is that equality is a manner of human abstraction.
(In our natural state) we call things the same if they:
either look the same (similarity of different objects),
or stay the same (change over time),
or even feel the same (mostly prevalent in social scenarios)
Only after eons of learning to abstract from our natural world into something we could call math,
humans gained a deeper understanding about something that actually is quite natural in our human thought; equality, differences and counting.


All in all it can be said that counting stems from the existence of something to be counted, and someone being there to count it.
If there is some entity that created both is a different question.

>>

ID: 8c6744 No.18500

>>18498
how do you know there isn't a reality so abstract our brains can't even begin to understand it. what if logic itself is flawed? you can find the right answers with the wrong methods.

i know this is trite at this point but I feel it has to be mentioned.

>>

ID: 255b29 No.18502

>>18500
>how do you know there isn't a reality so abstract our brains can't even begin to understand it.
That implies that there still exists something that could understand it,
otherwise it is just random, and counting in a reality that is just white noise, is meaningless.

>what if logic itself is flawed?
The flaws of Logic can not be truly shown by Logic itself.
Still if you find some flaw in Logic just construct a new manner of finding truth.
We often see Logic as this fundamental thing that exists somewhere in this sphere of reality,
but it is just an abstract construct we have invented to find truth,
if it doesn't work, or if it doesn't portray reality, we just have to invent something that does.
But history shows that logic actually works pretty great, at least for our reality.

>you can find the right answers with the wrong methods.
But if it always finds the right answer then the method isn't wrong.
I would argue that there are no flaws in logic, (apart from it not being able to make claims about itself)
the problems that mostly arise are that people don't know which questions they are really asking.

>>

ID: 6bd5d8 No.18510

>>18460
>She could not have "set it up"
You misunderstand me here.
Mathematics, logic and even counting are human concepts, they were made by people.

>No - without identity she would not exist - hence she could not create it. God cannot exist without identity.
Why is that?
What having identity means that something is knowable. If something has an identity you can know what it is.
God not having an identity would be perfectly valid, as, as far as can know right now, we can't know exactly what God is.
The concept of God refers to a vague idea, but it is not something explicitly defined as something other than itself.

And also, if She is omnipotent as described, She can be without being what She is.

>>18498
>the relation of equality
The identity principle is on a far more abstract level than equality.
It states "A is A".
At the of the day it doesn't say anything other than it is possible to know what A is.

It's insanely abstracted, but it doesn't even involve relations other than "not A is not A".

>(In our natural state) we call things the same if they:
You know English is a bad language for this kinda argument, because "same" is often used synonymously to refer "alike", which obviously do not mean the same.
Here you are using "same" as "alike", when the concept of Identity explicitly only refers to things that are one and the same.

>>18502
>I would argue that there are no flaws in logic, (apart from it not being able to make claims about itself)
Being incapable of describing itself is a major systematic flaw, isn't it?

>>

ID: 0f1a6a No.18511

>>16246
Man, it would feel so good to be that jap, just look at his fuarrrking face.

>>

ID: da0824 No.18513

>>18510
>Mathematics, logic and even counting are human concepts, they were made by people.

No, other creatures count... Maths is not somthing we made - its somthing we discovered. (we cant make it any other way - its all just waiting to be discovered)

>God not having an identity would be perfectly valid
No it would identify as God - even God has an ID (and the NSA probably has it on file)

>>

ID: 6bd5d8 No.18515

>>18513
Identity has nothing to do with what something considers itself.
It's more abstract than than.

It's really hard to explain what "identity" is.
Look, let's try this:
"A is A; Not A is Not A"
That is what an identity is. Something is what it is and is not what it is not, do you understand what I am saying here? I'm not very confident in my ability to explain a concept as elementary as identity.

So when I say "God does not have an identity", based on the previous premise that an identity is defined by "A is A; Not A is Not A", I am saying "God may or may not be God; Not God may or may not be Not God".

What do these four statements tell us about A and about God?
The first two states that if you know what A is you know what A is, which means that you can know what A is.
But here's the thing about the second one, where we assume something does not have an Identity: If you know what God is you may or may not know what God is.
Therefore you cannot know what God is.

This matches what we know about God. Therefore it may be reasonable to believe that God does not have an Identity.

This was really clumsy and roundabout, sorry about that.

>other creatures count
Sure they do.
I use "People" for brevity.

>its somthing we discovered
No, it is a system used to explain and a language.
It very much is constructed by people.

>>

ID: caae96 No.18524

Reminds me of the guy who worked alone for 7 years and made the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem

Here's a documentary if you have some free time
https://vimeo.com/18216532

>>

ID: c0c8d6 No.18525

File: 1448740260631.jpg (9.41 KB, 480x360, darkfantasy.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18511

Now imagine this man with a proper haircut. I wish I could be a Japanese man living in rural Japan, with proper ethnic facial features and not some kind of half-jewish half-flemish looking mess of face staring at the end of my nation. This is my fantasy. My deep. Dark. Fantasy.

>>

ID: ca7c08 No.18529

>>18510
>The identity principle is on a far more abstract level than equality.
Not really. It's pretty much the same, but the Relation of Equality is defined for every Object in our given Universe.

>Being incapable of describing itself is a major systematic flaw, isn't it?
Not really. It simply has it's purpose and things it can't do.
You just have to realize if the question you are asking is something it can't do.
I heard a higher system which actually can be quite self-descriptive is n-Category-Theory,
but don't take my word for it as I have stopped at 2Cat.

>Here you are using "same" as "alike", when the concept of Identity explicitly only refers to things that are one and the same.
What I am trying to say is that the concept of one and the same (pretty abstract) stems from the concept of alike (pretty natural)

>>18513
Discovery and Creation are the same when it comes to Ideas.
One could argue that every Idea already exists in some Metaphysical sense, and we are just discovering them,
just as you could say every Idea is created by the process of thinking.
If it's humans thinking or something else doesn't matter.

>>

ID: 6aa8b4 No.18530

>>18529
>What I am trying to say is that the concept of one and the same (pretty abstract) stems from the concept of alike (pretty natural)
That's just not true.
Identity is something required to formulate the idea of things being alike.

P1: "A is A".
P2: "B is B".
P3: Let A be composed of AA AB and AC.
P4: Let B be composed of BA AB and AC.
P5: All components of A and B have an identity of their own.
P6: For things to be considered alike the majority of their components need to be the one and the same.

C1: A is alike to B

Obviously you can attack this by knocking down P6, but then you would need to offer another definition of "alike".
Also, I don't see a way to formulate the concept of things being alike to each other without identity.

>>18529
>the Relation of Equality is defined for every Object in our given Universe
To state something like this with certainty you would need to examine EVERY SINGLE THING in our give universe in every single moment.

Not to mention that you couldn't know if something did not follow this relation.

>>

ID: ca7c08 No.18532

>>18530
>That's just not true.
Yes it is. I don't think you understood where I was coming from though.
Monkeys can reason about likeness, but not about sameness (probably).
Meaning Beings first learn about the idea of likeness, and only later they will learn about sameness, and what it even entails.

>To state something like this with certainty you would need to examine EVERY SINGLE THING in our give universe in every single moment.
No, it's just how the Relation is defined.
First something needs be an object and if that object is the same as itself, then it is equal.
Mathematically this results in a set of Tuples which look like this:
for every a, a is an element of our Universe: (a,a)
That this Set is large (infinte even) doesn't really matter.

>>

ID: 6aa8b4 No.18533

>>18532
>Yes it is.
Then offer a proof for the likeness of two things that doesn't involve identity in the proof.

>I don't think you understood where I was coming from though.
I think I do now. We're looking at this from opposite sides.
You're using this firmly phenomenological approach, a very scientific approach.

Unfortunately it is limiting you to think in examples and observations instead of abstracting as much as you can.

>No, it's just how the Relation is defined.
How do you know your definition is correct? I'll repeat myself: What if there really are objects that are not what they are and how would you know if they are not?

>>

ID: ca7c08 No.18535

>>18533
>How do you know your definition is correct?
Correct for what exactly?
It portrays what it intents to portray.

>What if there really are objects that are not what they are and how would you know if they are not?
This sentence is senseless. An object is always itself.
This is clearly represented in the Relation of Equality.

>You're using this firmly phenomenological approach
not really...

>Unfortunately it is limiting you to think in examples and observations instead of abstracting as much as you can.
I did abstract in previous posts, but this is not what I was after there.
At this point I don't even know what you are trying to argue about.
There is not much interesting about Equality (or Identity), and the Notion is already completely explained by it's mathematical definition.
If you want to learn more, read a Book about Discrete Mathematics or something.
Anyway what I was trying find was an answer to this question:
what is necessary for the existence of counting in some reality?

The Fact that something in a Reality is countable means that there must be something to count and someone to do the counting.

For there to be something to count, there must be a difference, or formulated differently there must be likeness.
The notion of complete Equality is born out of Humans desire to bring order to their World of Thoughts, the building of the Abstract.
What we call Abstract may be something completely pure, and may exist in some metaphysical sense,
but if you think about it, this complete Equality is something that doesn't really apply much to our physical reality,
what you most get is that some particles have the chance to be in the same state. (And even then there will be so much different about them)

Now for there to exist someone who does the counting there has to exist some form of consciousness,
since talking about counting in a context without consciousness is meaningless.
This consciousness must think that things may be alike or actually pretty much the same, for him to be able to count,
but the intuition it forms about this process of counting may differ from being to being.

>>

ID: 5627a6 No.18536

>>16309
I've had some extremely intelligent colleagues who are currently doing research in pure math. I'm doing a phd in applied physics myself, a total pleb in their view, although I personally find what they do just useless. Anyway, these people usually have a pretty naive view of the world, probably as a result of being really self absorbed and not paying much attention to the things around them.

To illustrate, picture someone like that: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/30/physicist-model-suitcase-of-cocaine

>>

ID: 5627a6 No.18537

There is a Satoshi Nakamoto vibe to this

>>

ID: 0d2a7d No.18539

>>18537
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Theories
>In May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Nakamoto is really Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.[19] Later, an article was published in The Age newspaper that claimed that Mochizuki denied these speculations, but without attributing a source for the denial.[20]

>>

ID: a0f9d6 No.18568

>>18515
>>18529
>Discovery and Creation are the same when it comes to Ideas.
>No, it is a system used to explain and a language.
It very much is constructed by people.

No - the prime numbers exist regardless of our discovering them. We did not build maths - not like we build a house - as in we can not change or chose any of the aspects of maths. It is presented to us, we discovered it. (there will be plenty of maths we have not discovered - its workings exist right now, we just have not found it yet.
We can not change maths to our liking.

>identity
Don't get hung up on this aspect - more important is if there is any difference to be counted - god (identity or not) would be somthing to count, as god is not, not god!

>>

ID: ed3648 No.18625

>>18568
Identity is what this is all about, though.
For something to be countable it has to be knowable.

If you can't know something it can't have an identity

>>

ID: 768148 No.18640

>>18625
>If you can't know something it can't have an identity

True - so god has an identity - we know of it.

>>

ID: ed3648 No.18641

>>18640
Do we know what God is?

>>

ID: 7ec3b2 No.18643

>>18641
it's a thing that people spent entire bibles trying to define, or at least roughly describe. obviously it's something so big that a single human can't really express, and multiple humans do even worse because of communication costs and difficulties. some say it's just the universe plain and simple - which is quite reasonable at it.
god created the universe -vs- the universe created.
god made rain fall -vs- rain fell.
this also eliminates the science vs religion problem, because they both become attempts at understanding the universe, with one taking a dogmatic/axiomatic rough guess approach, while the other a bottom-up methodic approach

>>

ID: a0f9d6 No.18655

>>18641
My original idea was to disprove god with the existence of maths.
i.e. god does not exist, i.e. god is nothing that has any hand in the creation of the universe.
>we know what god is.

>>

ID: f76593 No.18661

File: 1448952240177.jpg (326.49 KB, 1000x833, image.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18362
I am making a new branch of argument since the old one appears to be long, complicated and fruitless.

You only believe that logic and number theory are truth because they describe the universe 'universally'. If you woke up tomorrow and found your understanding of logic to be flawed, you would correct it. You arrived at logic through the process of induction so there's no use in trying to postulate about the preuniversal based only what we know about our walled garden universe. You would have to experience the preuniverse before you could reliably describe its workings with logic or mathematics. For all you know, the preuniversal doesn't exist.

In a word: humans have never experienced authentic creation from nothing so our logic system may not be built to account for it. This may be, in fact, the oldest philosophical problem.

An example: by your same theory logic itself could not exist. Logic is an entity and therefore must be enumerable. But it can't be enumerable without the existence of logic.

At any rate your argument, confined to a deconstruction of God, brings little more to the table than Euthyphro's Dilemma does. Please consider the broader ramifications.

>>

ID: 079cbf No.18669

File: 1448995584178.jpeg (12.25 KB, 300x300, images.duckduckgo.com.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

>>18661
>For all you know, the preuniversal doesn't exist

No it does not - by definition it does not. Thats like saying pre ANY|THING.

>Logic is an entity and therefore must be enumerable
No logic is not an entity, it is the result of some very complex reactions.

Your basically saying:
>how do you know that what you perceive is so.

I think therefor i am.

You can also apply "Occam's razor" to this (are we are what we perceive) stance, this provides a good direction to your query, after i think therefor i am has been applied. - or even "I think I think, therefor I am..."

>>

ID: 079cbf No.18670

File: 1448996441484.jpeg (55.78 KB, 500x375, images.duckduckgo.com.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

>>18669
>>18661
Apon re-reading I see you may be eluding more to the "we cant comprehend what came before" - If so (this would still be called the universe, just a different state of the universe) then this other state of universe although we may never "understand" it (can you truly understand anything?) we can still apply our understanding of numbers to it. For it to be anything at all there must be differences - or else you are talking about a 0 dimensional existence - which by definition does not exist.

>Our understanding of numbers can be applied to any universe that can possibly exist (and applied in exactly the same way).

>time for a bowl.

>>

ID: 7ec3b2 No.18673

>>18669
>Occam's razor
I haven't heard that in a year at least. The simplest thing you can come up with is not assuming anything, just seeing things and.
Stop discussing. Can you?

>>

ID: faed15 No.18675

>>18669
>by definition it does not
How do you know your definition is correct? It's very much about what you know.

>No logic is not an entity, it is the result of some very complex reactions.
You're wrong here.
Logic is something constructed using observation.

>I think therefore i am.
Define "thinking".

>Occam's Razor
Wow, people actually admit to being willing to use this?
It's ridiculously fallacious.

>>

ID: 85fa00 No.18680

Guys this is about some genius chink, not about god, who even cares about that soykaf .

>>

ID: 079cbf No.18682

File: 1449015105648.webm (3.81 MB, 475x320, 1448956188761.webm) ImgOps iqdb

>>18673
>The simplest thing you can come up with is not assuming anything
Well i'm just saying reality we observe is more simple (and less of a hypothosis) than a god we don't.

>>18675
>How do you know your definition is correct?
It's not mine - The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. (whatever they may be - no time = a static universe), no space = no thing.

>Logic is something constructed using observation.
Constructed from observation, by complex chemical reactions.

> admit to being willing to use this
For a further movement from I think therefor I am, and placing the weight in the lets go with what we observe is to be assumed is true. (for if we were to argue about is what we see true, then we could start arguing about the actuality of this argument).

>>18680
Sorry, saged, end of... no more.
Was just a fun idea.

>>

ID: 86db40 No.18683

File: 1449016665338.jpg (111.74 KB, 419x536, Metaphysical Disney.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18682
>I think therefor i am.
No you aren't. Your conscious is just a result of very complex reactions. It's not an entity.

>>

ID: 4c75cd No.18684

File: 1449016995570.jpg (82.06 KB, 599x554, stick.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18683

your very complex reactions are just a result of my concious ;)

>>

ID: 86db40 No.18685

File: 1449017320757.png (288.01 KB, 860x550, Who would win waterfall pa….png) ImgOps iqdb

>>18684
Trust nobody, not even yourself.

>>

ID: 4c75cd No.18687

File: 1449017454771.jpg (65.02 KB, 480x463, Texas_large_large1.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18685

trust everything, because the universe is smarter than you

>>

ID: 88a3d0 No.18690

>>18685
How many paper towel rolls would take to dry up the Niagara Falls? Someone send it to what if.

>>

ID: 5a2fb9 No.18691

You cannot use logic to disprove the existence of God. Do you agree the universe had a beginning? And that the entire evolution of the universe since then can be described by laws of logic? I expect you do.

Ok, now what made the universe? We do not know anything about that. Unless we invent a time machine, we *can not* know anything about that. It's no more nonsensical to say that God made everything than it is to say it spontaneously came into existence, or whatever.

>>

ID: c90c1e No.18692

>>18691

Logic is not a means of proof it's just a means to test arguments for validity. Validity and Truth are not connected - you can have a perfectly valid argument that is mere gibberish. Logic is not concerned with Truth.

>>

ID: 2f71b2 No.18693

>>18692
>Logic is not concerned with Truth.
this sounds like your opinion, mate

>>

ID: 55d554 No.18716

>>18693

I think what lainon is getting at is how you could say a statement like:

"A fish is a creature with scales. Lizards have scales. Therefore all lizards are fish."

The statement itself is somewhat logical, though it's not necessarily "true" unless the only criteria for being a fish now is having scales.

>>

ID: 7ec3b2 No.18717

>>18682
but not assuming that the "reality" has natural laws, or not assuming that you can know something about it is even more simple
however, not using the razor to simply stop thinking means you're just abusing it to gain some petty victory against one dogmatic idea (god) to dogmatize yours (whatever it is)

>>18682
i doubt, therefore i think, therefore i am.

people always make up new gods. it used to be natural phenomena, the emperor, the high priest, etc. Now it's science, logic and arguments.
The few who are aware of the scientific method and are not just throwing around "definitions" and "facts" never question it. Those very few who even question the scientific method are only doing so because the scientific method tells so...

>>

ID: b2f8ea No.18726

>>18682
>The Universe is all of time and space and its contents
Yes,that is the definition you are using. You do not know whether you defined it correctly or not.

>Constructed from observation, by complex chemical reactions
What does that have to do with anything.

>I think therefore I am
I'll repeat a question you haven't answered yet:
"Are you, or is any other human, capable of thinking?"

>>18683
>Your conscious is just a result of very complex reactions
Determinism is silly because it dogmatically denies any idea of time-independent metaphysics.

>>18693
He's right about that, let me show you with an example:
>P1: All bananas are yellow
>P2: All yellow things are not bananas
P3: I am yellow
>C1: Therefore I am a banana.
It's a logically sound argument.
Pure logic cannot touch the obvious weak point that is premise 2.

>>18717
>i doubt, therefore i think, therefore i am.
Are you as human capable of thinking?
What does it mean to "think".
Define it.

>Now it's science, logic and arguments
And this is why we need philosophy.
Don't let anyone tell you that philosophical research is worthless, but don't believe this because I told you.

>>

ID: b2f8ea No.18727

>>18726
P2 should obviously be "all yellow things are bananas"

>>

ID: 86db40 No.18741

>>18726
>He's right about that
His statement was that in no case is logic "concerned with truth". Your statement proves that there is at least one case in which logic is "not concerned with truth". That's not enough to prove his statement completely.

You would either need to prove deductively that there is no such statement or observe every conceivable statement and demonstrate on a case by case basis how each statement falls into the category of "not being concerned with logic". I can guess which line of reasoning you would prefer.

The irony here, of course, is that his statement can't be determined to be true without the intervention of pure logic.

>>

ID: ccd598 No.18744

File: 1449099686984.jpg (158.49 KB, 966x1300, 8892487-Animal-domesticate….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>18716
PLATO'S HUMAN

and yes, it's hella flawed.

>>

ID: 7ec3b2 No.18760

File: 1449149319553.png (2.27 MB, 1000x1000, ran.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>18726
>Are you as human capable of thinking?
who am i to tell?
i don't don't believe i just quoted a more complete form of the saying from mr. cartes.
>What does it mean to "think".
who am i to tell? can it be that pyrrho is my great^? granddad?
>Define it.
to think is to to think to think to be mean sort of grey or basin.
please adopt this definition for the rest of the discussion, please avoid trying to lengthen discussion by arguing about the correctness definitions.

>Don't let anyone tell you that philosophical research is worthless, but don't believe this because I told you.
i'm a spectator, tell me stuff! let me see things, see other things, hear ideas, have ideas, spectate as they mingle and fight! do i believe anything?

am i roleplaying now?

>>

ID: 2f71b2 No.18835

>>18716
>"A fish is a creature with scales. Lizards have scales. Therefore all lizards are fish."
The third statement is a type of existential logical fallacy and doesn't prove anything. Bad logic doesn't count.

>>18726
>P1: All bananas are yellow
>P2: All yellow things are not bananas
This is a direct contradiction. I command you to halt this autism at once.


Delete Post [ ]
[ cyb / tech / λ / layer ] [ zzz / drg / lit / diy / art ] [ w / rpg / r ] [ q ] [ / ] [ popular / ???? / rules / radio / $$ / news ] [ volafile / uboa / sushi / LainTV / lewd ]
[ Return / Go to top /