Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:09:35 UTC No. 16418674

Our world is fundamentally mathemathic, so what do you think?

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 05:14:57 UTC No. 16418681

>>16418674
Our world is fundamentally logical. If it were fundamentally mathematical, then everything would be computable, but as Gödel has proved, it is not.
So we can describe the world a posteriori in mathematical terms, for math is (probably) the closest we can get to pure logic.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:11:31 UTC No. 16418748

>>16418681
>but as Gödel has proved
You're either 14 and/or an irredeemable retard with pop sci brainrot. All the incompleteness theorem proves is that some true statements within an axiomatic system require additional axioms to prove ie you can't brute force search math

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:12:45 UTC No. 16418750

>>16418681
Our world, or our experience of world, because we are educated to have it like that?

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:13:39 UTC No. 16418752

>>16418674
>Our world is fundamentally mathemathic
show me where a point, a line, or a number 3 is in real life?
you're confusing the mathematical tools human invented to model how the world change with what the world actually is.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:15:56 UTC No. 16418808

>>16418748
The reason statements within such a system can not be proved using the system, is because such proofs would require the fundamental logic in itself to proof them.
Or simply, the logic is fundamental to the system, and the fundamentals are required to prove an entire system.
>>16418750
This world as is the case

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:06:44 UTC No. 16418859

>>16418588
Math exists in physics just because people are comfortable counting the quantity of something. But, in the physical world, quantity maybe doesn't exist.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:15:47 UTC No. 16418862

Hello, I just started learning math! :D I'm still learning to count with squirrels but I like reading these interesting threads, so please keep the discussion going! :D

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:27:20 UTC No. 16418873

>>16418681
>If it were fundamentally mathematical, then everything would be computable
Not necessarily if you introduce inherent randomness.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:29:22 UTC No. 16418875

>>16418859
>But, in the physical world, quantity maybe doesn't exist.
Our world is quantum, so it actually very much exists at the most fundamental level.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:31:36 UTC No. 16418877

>>16418752
3 is the number of of possible states of the quark's color property, so it's everywhere.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:40:13 UTC No. 16418878

>>16418875
>Our world is quantum
Our world needs to be atomic (in greek meaning) for existing quantity.
But yesterday atom is atom, today is quantum, and next day is whatever else.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:54:23 UTC No. 16418882

>>16418878
Well our world *is* atomic (in greek meaning). The ancient greek Demo-something even proved it to you using logic.
>if matter was infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller pieces
>then at the end, would you end up with pieces with dimensions? Of course not, because anything with dimension you can keep dividing.
>so you'd end up with dimensionless dots
>how then, could these dimensionless dots, recombine into an object with dimension? 0*infinite=0
>in other words, how come something be finite (with a specific size) and infinite (contain an infinite number of parts) at the same time?
>therefore, the world is atomic and made up of indivisible particles.
The brilliance of the white men in the past has never ceased to amaze me.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:26:37 UTC No. 16418904

>>16418882
>if matter was infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller pieces
I doubt about existing matter. What is matter. You can show me matter?

>so you'd end up with dimensionless dots
If you can using only maths. Why dots are dimensionless if, probably, they are too can be divesible.

>how come something be finite (with a specific size) and infinite (contain an infinite number of parts) at the same time?
If you can make some standard matter, like meter, it's not meaning matter is finite.

>therefore, the world is atomic and made up of indivisible particles.
Therefore there is not proof and idea of atomic world is doubtful, cause it's unprovable, like all other concepts of our world in philosophy.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:32:13 UTC No. 16418906

>>16418904
>Why dots are dimensionless if, probably, they are too can be divesible.
If they're divisible, then you haven't finished dividing them.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:41:27 UTC No. 16418917

>>16418906
>then you haven't finished dividing them.
Why? Where proof that? Dimensionless dots can be divide into 1/2 (or 1/x) dimensionless dots via some abstraction.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:01:49 UTC No. 16419633

who is at the top of this social hierarchy, OP??

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 19:03:39 UTC No. 16419636

>>16419633
>Wubba
Lubba
>dub-
dub

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:12:08 UTC No. 16419724

>>16419633
I don't know, it was Einstein for a while... then Hawking I guess, these days it's probably ChatGPT

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:37:23 UTC No. 16419754

>>16418862
happy for you friend! Start with serge langs basic math and if you don't get all the exercises then you should just give up and die

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:24:20 UTC No. 16419830

>>16418588
Only a basic understanding of any given field of mathematics is necessary to understand the physical world at a conceptual level. But these simpler mathematical tools aren't good for describing or predicting more complex behavior. More complicated mathematics is needed to approximate the behaviors of more complicated systems.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 05:40:18 UTC No. 16422406

>>16418588
You'd like to think that because it makes it seem like the things you don't know aren't really important and you are really smarter than the physicists who are acting irrationally.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:03:30 UTC No. 16422505

>>16418588
>Is exotic mathematics required to understand the physical world
most of the math is 100 years old and you'll need it just to understand what's been done so far.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:20:34 UTC No. 16422609

>>16418588
>exotic
And what do you mean by that?

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:54:56 UTC No. 16423446

>>16418588
Physicists are some of the most autistic anti-social fucks I've ever seen. I can't imagine how hellish it is to try and fit into their miserable bag of navel gazing fuckery.

Also, esoteric mathematics doesn't help you understand the physical world. It helps you understand how physicists model physical processes in an inferential sense. The map and the territory are not the same thing.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:13:10 UTC No. 16423484

>>16418588
any language is just relations upon relations which eventually seem to describe 'reality' in certain circumstances, that's all there ever was and ever will be

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:18:46 UTC No. 16423497

>>16418681
False. Gödel's theorems are a problem of (first order) logic, not of math in general. There are axiomatic systems in math to which Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not apply.

>>16418748
You are just as ignorant as him. Don't sperg out at the mentioning of Gödel when you yourself don't understand his theorems.

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:20:22 UTC No. 16423501

>>16418588
Exotic math? I'm more into erotic math.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 06:30:54 UTC No. 16424300

>>16418882
>in other words, how come something be finite (with a specific size) and infinite (contain an infinite number of parts) at the same time?
infinitely divisible =/= infinite in length, you can divide 1 into infinitely continuous segments yet it's no longer than the tip of your thumb

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:48:20 UTC No. 16424510

>>16418588
I get super frustrated when I see youtube physics courses that dont introduce mathematical concepts. The professor just writes Bra-Kets onto the board: "We denote a Vektor this way".

No mention what a Vektor is. No mention of Riesz-Representation-Theorem that allows for this. No mention of what a Hilber-Space constitutes. How is anybody supposed to truly understand what is written on the board, without these concepts?

This gives people a false impression of knowing something about Quantum-Mechanics when in reality they cant even solve the electron in a potential well problem...

I myself am an absolut math-noob. But at least I know, that some explanations are empty and laquing. I try to be more involved with experimental physics, where this tends to be less important.

Or in other words: Shut up and calculate.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 09:14:26 UTC No. 16424532

>>16424510
fizzycists have no need for all that autism, we know what a vektorrr is, it's just a column of numbers dawg, im sure the infinite case works fine, or if it doesn't some gigasperg will hammer it out

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:40:56 UTC No. 16424804

>>16424510
Where are you from that writes "vector" as "Vektor?" I need to know where to petition for rubblization.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:41:42 UTC No. 16424808

>>16424532
*rows

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 11:29:39 UTC No. 16425127

>>16418877
can you give me a three as a gift? I don't mean a symbol for three, or three of something. I invite you to please give me a three

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:30:19 UTC No. 16429344

>>16418877
You sound like a Pythagorean lel

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:41:14 UTC No. 16429366

>>16424808
who cares
not me

B00T at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:48:04 UTC No. 16429383

The flavor of this story is that someone did something wrong with power for his/her own pleasure gain, and the people under him/her suffered. And that's basically what's going on, our system is flawed. No reason why not to change that now we've discovered so much

B00T at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:49:23 UTC No. 16429386

>>16429383
Because of happy people at the higher end of the system, some view is that it shouldn't change.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:01:14 UTC No. 16429415

test

B00T at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:02:09 UTC No. 16429421

>>16429386
Is it true that the image of the brain in someone's head is actually the center of a brain system. And the brain is actually external to the body?

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:03:50 UTC No. 16429431

Life is all about spending ten thousand years of super computer number crunching just to produce a simple equation that anyone could have stumbled on.

B00T at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:06:42 UTC No. 16429439

>>16429421
We understand very little about the brain apart from it's lobotomy and analysis of thoughts progressing. Perhaps the brain is more than it's organ/muscle in the head and actually has a lot external to the body.

Anonymous at Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:44:22 UTC No. 16429528

>>16418588
You are free to try to do physics without math, no one is stopping you. Many have tried and failed and you are welcome to be the next in line.

>math proficiency is part of how physicists establish a social hierarchy
t. philosophy major filtered by calculus

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:50:59 UTC No. 16430645

>>16429528
So if a fat guy hits a home run it doesn't count?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:20:51 UTC No. 16430676

>>16424532
based