|
Neither of you have to worry, school has made it so that neither field is that in depth.
In the "hard" sciences, it basically is pattern recognition. They give you ways to solve problems, then on tests they give you similar problems where you need to remember how to solve the general problem.
In "soft" sciences, it's memorize what they tell you.
|
On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A  A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization.
Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (;
|
On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (;
Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true?
I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean.
|
On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean.
I think it stems from the idea that you can change the axiomatic system and build completely different theorems, which are no more, or less, true than any other axiomatic system. However, most of the time such new axiomatizations are considerably less useful, because they don't help in understanding anything new (and most of the time are simply inconsistent).
I wouldn't call it subjective, though, because the axioms are not open to interpretation within the system. The only thing subjective there is whether they represent a physical system, but that's physics (or philosophy), not math.
|
On April 30 2016 21:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. I think it stems from the idea that you can change the axiomatic system and build completely different theorems, which are no more, or less, true than any other axiomatic system. However, most of the time such new axiomatizations are considerably less useful, because they don't help in understanding anything new (and most of the time are simply inconsistent). I wouldn't call it subjective, though, because the axioms are not open to interpretation within the system. The only thing subjective there is whether they represent a physical system, but that's physics (or philosophy), not math.
That's my perspective on it as well. There is truth in the consistency of mathematical theorems, systems, and proofs, if you're willing to accept the axioms. If the "Given" is true, then we can establish- with certainty- whether or not the next few steps logically follow based on definitions, identities, etc.
|
|
|
On April 30 2016 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 21:32 Acrofales wrote:On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. I think it stems from the idea that you can change the axiomatic system and build completely different theorems, which are no more, or less, true than any other axiomatic system. However, most of the time such new axiomatizations are considerably less useful, because they don't help in understanding anything new (and most of the time are simply inconsistent). I wouldn't call it subjective, though, because the axioms are not open to interpretation within the system. The only thing subjective there is whether they represent a physical system, but that's physics (or philosophy), not math. That's my perspective on it as well. There is truth in the consistency of mathematical theorems, systems, and proofs, if you're willing to accept the axioms. If the "Given" is true, then we can establish- with certainty- whether or not the next few steps logically follow based on definitions, identities, etc.
It's all obviously a discussion of what you put in the word truth, which I suggest we leave to the philosophers.
I think what the original comment actually meant, was that mathematics is independent of empirical measurements. Physics and other sciences (try to) describe and predict measurements, while maths don't bother with such things. So the word "true" was used in an empirical sense, as in something that can be verified or falsified ("true" or "false" I guess?) by measurements.
I can see how that use of the word makes sense, but I can also see how it can cause confusion. I think everyone agrees on the basic points though.
So well, let's try to not get stuck on terminology guys. 
|
On May 01 2016 00:00 JimmiC wrote:
If you get a vasectomy do you produce ghost loads (dry orgasms) or is it regular loads minus the sperms? Sorry for all the medical jargon.
Hmm should be regular loads minus spermatozoids, since the seminal vesicles are still functional?
|
On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean.
Mathematical laws, like all knowledge, are not natural nor true because they are only true relative to the system they exist in. If tomorrow everyone accepts that 2+2 =/= 4, or that 2+2 = 4 makes no sense, then it is not true anymore. When men will die, mathematics will die as well.
|
On May 01 2016 01:04 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 00:00 JimmiC wrote:
If you get a vasectomy do you produce ghost loads (dry orgasms) or is it regular loads minus the sperms? Sorry for all the medical jargon. Hmm should be regular loads minus spermatozoids, since the seminal vesicles are still functional?
This is true.
|
On May 01 2016 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Mathematical laws, like all knowledge, are not natural nor true because they are only true relative to the system they exist in. If tomorrow everyone accepts that 2+2 =/= 4, or that 2+2 = 4 makes no sense, then it is not true anymore. When men will die, mathematics will die as well.
You would have to redefine what 2 (or + or = or 4) means for that to be the case, because, while humans use numbers to help compute and represent entities and characteristics of this world, it still would be the case that two things plus two more things would total four things. It's not like the inherent properties of two pairs of items differed before or after we labeled them; it's just that we decided to use language to describe these things (or in this specific case, a math equation).
You can't just arbitrarily vote and change a math equation... unless you're Indiana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
|
On May 01 2016 00:56 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 21:32 Acrofales wrote:On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. I think it stems from the idea that you can change the axiomatic system and build completely different theorems, which are no more, or less, true than any other axiomatic system. However, most of the time such new axiomatizations are considerably less useful, because they don't help in understanding anything new (and most of the time are simply inconsistent). I wouldn't call it subjective, though, because the axioms are not open to interpretation within the system. The only thing subjective there is whether they represent a physical system, but that's physics (or philosophy), not math. That's my perspective on it as well. There is truth in the consistency of mathematical theorems, systems, and proofs, if you're willing to accept the axioms. If the "Given" is true, then we can establish- with certainty- whether or not the next few steps logically follow based on definitions, identities, etc. It's all obviously a discussion of what you put in the word truth, which I suggest we leave to the philosophers. I think what the original comment actually meant, was that mathematics is independent of empirical measurements. Physics and other sciences (try to) describe and predict measurements, while maths don't bother with such things. So the word "true" was used in an empirical sense, as in something that can be verified or falsified ("true" or "false" I guess?) by measurements. I can see how that use of the word makes sense, but I can also see how it can cause confusion. I think everyone agrees on the basic points though. So well, let's try to not get stuck on terminology guys.
That's what I figured
|
On May 01 2016 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Mathematical laws, like all knowledge, are not natural nor true because they are only true relative to the system they exist in. If tomorrow everyone accepts that 2+2 =/= 4, or that 2+2 = 4 makes no sense, then it is not true anymore. When men will die, mathematics will die as well.
This is a pretty common misconception among people that don't understand how maths works. The fact of the matter is that 2 + 2 = 4 is shorthand that implies a lot of definitions. Natural Numbers are defined via the Peano Axioms. You then define addition based on those axioms, and you also need to define equality.
With all of these definitions, 2 + 2 = 4. No amount of human acceptance changes any of this. However, if you use a different set of numbers, a different definition of +, or a different equality relation, that result can easily change. For example, in F3, 2 + 2 = 1
People who do not understand maths tend to interpret this as meaning that all mathematics is subjective. What it really means is that we take shortcuts when writing stuff down and don't mention definitions which we assume everyone who reads what we write will already know are in place just to keep things workable. 2 + 2 will always be 4 under the set of definitions implied when writing that equation in the usual sense. 2 + 2 will always be 1 in the set of definitions used to form that equation in F3. Both of those are universally true, without any human interference, and can not be changed or created by humans, just discovered. They will still be equally true when there are no more humans, there just will not be anyone that knows about them.
|
Got a question regarding a non-deterministic finite automata. L is a binärie language with:
L = {00,01}*{0,1}
{00,01}* means any combination of 00/01 includign e (dont know the english term, something Stephen Cole Kleene is associated with).
I am unsure about the {0,1} part. Does this mean the alphabet is made of = and 1, or does it means the language contains all words that are in {00,01}* and have either a 0 or a 1 at the end?
|
On May 01 2016 20:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Mathematical laws, like all knowledge, are not natural nor true because they are only true relative to the system they exist in. If tomorrow everyone accepts that 2+2 =/= 4, or that 2+2 = 4 makes no sense, then it is not true anymore. When men will die, mathematics will die as well. This is a pretty common misconception among people that don't understand how maths works. The fact of the matter is that 2 + 2 = 4 is shorthand that implies a lot of definitions. Natural Numbers are defined via the Peano Axioms. You then define addition based on those axioms, and you also need to define equality. With all of these definitions, 2 + 2 = 4. No amount of human acceptance changes any of this. However, if you use a different set of numbers, a different definition of +, or a different equality relation, that result can easily change. For example, in F3, 2 + 2 = 1 People who do not understand maths tend to interpret this as meaning that all mathematics is subjective. What it really means is that we take shortcuts when writing stuff down and don't mention definitions which we assume everyone who reads what we write will already know are in place just to keep things workable. 2 + 2 will always be 4 under the set of definitions implied when writing that equation in the usual sense. 2 + 2 will always be 1 in the set of definitions used to form that equation in F3. Both of those are universally true, without any human interference, and can not be changed or created by humans, just discovered. They will still be equally true when there are no more humans, there just will not be anyone that knows about them.
that is a common misconception among people who assume that in every society, the language has/knows/evolved grammar recursion....
One prediction that this makes in Pirahã follows from the suggestions of people who worked on number theory and the nature of number in human speech: that counting systems—numerical systems—are based on recursion, and that this recursion follows from recursion in the language. This predicts in turn that if a language lacked recursion, then that language would also lack a number system and a counting system. I've claimed for years that the Pirahã don't have numbers or accounting, and this has been verified in two recent sets of experiments, one of which was published in Sciencethree years ago by Peter Gordon, arguing that the Pirahã don't count, and then a new set of experiments which was just carried out in January by people from Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, which establishes pretty clearly that the Pirahã have no numbers, and, again, that they don't count at all.
Pirahãs are still studied but if all humans would be like them, there will be no math. 2+2 would never be discovered.
Edit: the conclusion would be: you don't discover the things which are universally true(as you put it). you first evolve the biology needed to understand said truths.
|
On May 01 2016 22:07 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 20:29 Simberto wrote:On May 01 2016 01:46 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 16:35 OtherWorld wrote:On April 30 2016 07:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 30 2016 04:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 30 2016 02:51 Uldridge wrote:I think it's widely accepted that physics, mathmatics, engineering and chemistry are the most difficult fields though.. On April 30 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2016 02:04 Uldridge wrote:
Shhh it's okay, just stop beating the dead horse now, it's already starting to bloat from all the decaying.
But uhmmmm why is it that sociology, biology, psychology, etc.. are not considered hard sciences when they're only just in their descriptive phase (and maybe now just entering their mathmatical phase)? 'cause of the implications. you can't handle them. all i need to control you is that hypothetical and your instinctive reaction to my stimuli and it's all linked by the fact that you need to act. and there's no dead horse; sneak peek ...male chimpanzees were likely to hunt when accompanied by other males. Males shared meat nonrandomly and reciprocally among themselves, and males exchanged meat for agonistic support. Although several factors are likely to affect chimpanzee hunting decisions and meat sharing, these results indicate that primary causes will not be found through invoking simple energetic or reproductive considerations.
2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour ... Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food.When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids. Edit: i mean, how would you feel if you'd discover(and shown proof) that humans(most of) can be and are trained like dogs to perform certain tasks, to hold certain believes and so on?. Sorry, but the only thing I tried to do was making a segway to a new topic. I don't even disagree with your views on biological role assignment per se. I don't really think that topics with answers to their questions is all that hard outside of memorization. That's actually the reason why it's so hard though; you can't just make up subjective, interpretive shit based on your feelings and get an A A good science or math class will force you to interpret and truly understand science and mathematics, rather than just letting you get away with rote memorization. Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true, we accept them as such (; Can you please elaborate on this? Why are mathematical laws not natural? Why are mathematical laws not true? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and one of the first things that come to mind is the fact that mathematics (and its cousin logic) is pretty much the only subject where you can actually establish absolute certainty, given certain axioms. Not just collecting empirical, scientific data to attempt and approach a level of understanding (truth) about the world, but actually *know*, for a fact, unequivocally, that certain mathematical theorems are true, based on given assumptions. Proofs are incredibly powerful tools in mathematics. But there are different definitions of "truth" I think, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Mathematical laws, like all knowledge, are not natural nor true because they are only true relative to the system they exist in. If tomorrow everyone accepts that 2+2 =/= 4, or that 2+2 = 4 makes no sense, then it is not true anymore. When men will die, mathematics will die as well. This is a pretty common misconception among people that don't understand how maths works. The fact of the matter is that 2 + 2 = 4 is shorthand that implies a lot of definitions. Natural Numbers are defined via the Peano Axioms. You then define addition based on those axioms, and you also need to define equality. With all of these definitions, 2 + 2 = 4. No amount of human acceptance changes any of this. However, if you use a different set of numbers, a different definition of +, or a different equality relation, that result can easily change. For example, in F3, 2 + 2 = 1 People who do not understand maths tend to interpret this as meaning that all mathematics is subjective. What it really means is that we take shortcuts when writing stuff down and don't mention definitions which we assume everyone who reads what we write will already know are in place just to keep things workable. 2 + 2 will always be 4 under the set of definitions implied when writing that equation in the usual sense. 2 + 2 will always be 1 in the set of definitions used to form that equation in F3. Both of those are universally true, without any human interference, and can not be changed or created by humans, just discovered. They will still be equally true when there are no more humans, there just will not be anyone that knows about them. that is a common misconception among people who assume that in every society, the language has/knows/evolved grammar recursion. Show nested quote +...
One prediction that this makes in Pirahã follows from the suggestions of people who worked on number theory and the nature of number in human speech: that counting systems—numerical systems—are based on recursion, and that this recursion follows from recursion in the language. This predicts in turn that if a language lacked recursion, then that language would also lack a number system and a counting system. I've claimed for years that the Pirahã don't have numbers or accounting, and this has been verified in two recent sets of experiments, one of which was published in Sciencethree years ago by Peter Gordon, arguing that the Pirahã don't count, and then a new set of experiments which was just carried out in January by people from Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, which establishes pretty clearly that the Pirahã have no numbers, and, again, that they don't count at all. Pirahãs are still studied but if all humans would be like them, there will be no math. 2+2 would never be discovered.
That doesn't invalidate what "2+2=4" represents though, in the same way that not "discovering" oxygen doesn't mean it didn't exist until we found it. We just put the labels of "2", "+", and "oxygen" on the relevant parts so that we could have a conversation about them. Same goes for logical absolutes, etc. Our languages can still evolve and change, and eventually we might choose to use other symbols or words to represent certain things and ideas, but that doesn't change the truth value or existence of the underlying facts.
Having different representations of mathematical laws (or no representations of them whatsoever) doesn't make the laws untrue, which was the original statement put forth by OtherWorld.
|
i never said things don't exist. i said that i may count them or i may not and if no one was counting them, what would be the point of your post?; you'd still not have math.
your whole reply based on hindsight judgement is just wrong.
|
So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely.
Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions).
Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person
|
|
|
On May 01 2016 22:24 xM(Z wrote:
i never said things don't exist. i said that i may count them or i may not and if no one was counting them, what would be the point of your post?; you'd still not have math.
your whole reply based on hindsight judgement is just wrong.
We're talking about whether or not things can be true before they have actual/ different labels though. I see this conversation as being the same as logical absolutes vs. logic: logical absolutes still exist and are true independent of human logic (e.g., regardless of whether or not a human exists on this Earth to verify or label tautologies or the law of excluded middle, they're still true); the same goes for mathematical properties. For example, there are hundreds of proofs for the Pythagorean theorem, and we teach/ learn it more clearly by having working definitions and labels of things like "right triangle", "hypotenuse", "sum", and "squaring". But even if we hadn't discovered/ proved the Pythagorean theorem, or if we called these ideas something else (input generic term "widget" here), the equivalence would still hold true. It's not that meaningful to us if we don't put any language to it or try to understand it, but its truth value is independent of our verification process. Remember, OW's statement was "Mathematics are subjective and interpretative, because their laws are not natural nor true", where we're taking issue with the idea that mathematical laws are not true." Naming properties doesn't change their inherent identity; a rock's properties are clarified by labels but not created by labels, in the same way that a widget is still a widget and the representation of the Pythagorean theorem still exists without Pythagoras or the definition of a theorem.
On May 01 2016 22:28 JimmiC wrote:
This kind of sounds like a discussion on if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it does it really fall. I don't think those who feel one way will convinced of the other.
Well it certainly falls, but I believe the question is "does it make a sound"? And I believe the debate over that answer has to do with the semantics behind the definition of sound, which is probably similar to the conversation going on here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
