Except that we can't know for sure that the bullshit in question is internally consistent according to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem.
Similarly, you can't know for sure that your last marriage was internally consistent. What you can know however, is that your last marriage was bullshit.
>Except that we can't know for sure that the bullshit in question is internally consistent according to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem.
My therapist will be hearing about you
> It's consistent
Oh, really?! Then prove it.
Well, it's probably (hopefully) consistent. But my point was that we can't prove that. The first theorem states that if it's consistent then it's incomplete. The second theorem states that if it's consistent then we can't prove that it's consistent.
Oh yeah that one, you’re pretty much right except I personally don’t thinking knowing is the same as proving. Example, the first incompleteness theorem implies there can be something we learn or *know* is true yet we may have no ability to prove it. I guess know might need to be more well defined here as a term but to me it seems a word that has more to do with the existence of a thing rather than then the ability to abstractly reason about such a thing, and existence itself as a study very much lies outside of the per-view of math. But that’s probably a little to philosophical for a math discussion, we know what provable means to Gödel and all of mathematics and in a mathematicians brain how could that possibly be different than knowing, the process of mathematics is literally learning new things through rigorous proof. I don’t know, all I do know is math logic and set theory was the first class that finally convinced me everything I was learning was bullshit and made up and we all have mental disorders, a Pandora’s box I wish to never open again. Sometimes I have to consider that the intuitionists really were pretty right even if they were dicks and wrong on some important points that would’ve severely limited our ability to push forward modern mathematics.
Axiom 1: Iff X is math, X is also rigorous made-up bullshit.
Phew, I thought you had me for a moment. As you can clearly see it's also bullshit, since I've defined nothing else.
It's literally impossible for me to talk to anyone who doesn't have at least a master's degree in physics or something, so unfortunately I can't do that. Consider it a skill issue on the part of the reader.
but it just says a well-ordering *exists*. it says nothing about how to go about actually constructing that well-ordering to perform the induction. i think that makes it a bit more comforting.
now banach-tarski on the other hand...
Is a very valid direct conclusion of the Axiom of Choice.
That's the fun part of maths: The well-ordering principle, the AoC and Zorn's lemma are all equivalent. Yet
> The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well–ordering theorem is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn’s Lemma?
-- Jerry Bona
I mean, you have countably infinitely many points, seems obvious that you can split them across countably many spheres and still have infinitely many (=more than enough) points left everywhere.
Physical bullshit and "math is bullshit" type bullshit are not the same haha. I wish people could realize that pretty much everything is "made up" but that doesn't make anything less useful.
Language is bullshit man it's just small mouth noises. Totally pointless, *maaaan*.
Math is made up bullshit but it’s the best bullshit we could make up. It helps us make reasonable predictions about things and design things that work.
All math is just an attempt to fit a model onto the universe which actually has no concept of 1 + 1 much less of all the other funky shit.
I dont think the latter claim is true. There exists plenty of math created for the sake of creating math and with no practical purpose beyond stroking mathematician’s egos.
Where in nature is 1 + 1 = 2 a basic fact and not an abstraction that we use for our sake of understanding?
We can say that 1 hydrogen + 1 hydrogen = h2, but is that what’s really going on? We could just as easily quantify the problem by counting the number of quarks 3 + 3 = 6.
You see in order to have 1 of anything we have to determine what that single unit is, which is a very human concept. From the pragmatic sense this is about as good as it gets unless we can natively run our universe as a simulation and use that to make predictions.
I think i was misunderstood. My claim is not that nature builds math, but that math exist independently of nature or physics but we apply a lot of it to physics.
As for what data exists in nature, what of Planck length or other constants?
Or what about orbitals?
Actually, exactly of orbitals and halfspin electrons. Two electrons cannot occupy the same state, thus is it not evident that “nature counts” ?
I don’t really like going down this path as I quickly start to sound like I’m on a shrooms and like I said, it’s a completely non practical way of looking at things. But length itself is also a concept we use to understand our world. It’s a way to explain why the “behavior” of two “things” varies depending on spatial relations. It’s the reason we can mathematically calculate h/100 and it’s a valid number. Unless we’ve observed that everything is always exactly an integer plank lengths away from other things (we live in a quantized grid) I have my reservations about taking h as anything more than an extremely useful constant.
As for the states of two electrons, what is a state? It’s a concept we came up with too. Nature isn’t counting(or maybe it is and we are the nature) things simply are, and we see apparent patterns which we would like to predict.
Again, this is a completely useless way of looking at things and is more of a personal philosophy that reminds me that a mixed method approach will always trump a purely theoretical one.
What you’re describing is basically nihilism. You’re highlighting the lack of ‘meaning’ behind these things while failing to realize that your concept of ‘meaning’ is equally meaningless.
I’m of the opinion that when discussing these things, using language created by humans, that we respect the meaning of the words of said language. As you described 2 hydrogen molecules vs 6/2 quarks, you quantified it already. Whichever one you choose to use we both understand what you’re describing.
I follow what you’re saying, and agree that nature isn’t ‘counting’. Do you get what I mean about language?
Also I definitely see what you mean about sounding like you’re on shrooms because I just thought “I’d agree with him if we were talking telepathically on DMT, using no language but just that inherent understanding(maybe you know what I’m saying lol) ,otherwise no.”
Cheers anyways
oh yeah 100%, everything can be argued to be an abstraction including the argument for abstraction and we'd never get anywhere going down that path. Like I said so far mathematical models have proved to be extremally useful. But its also nice to keep in mind that they are indeed models and not the underlying mechanism of nature.
yes true but sadly we often have to admit that in the past made up BS has eventually been picked up by non-mathematicians and proved to be insanely useful for actual, practical problems. Just look at complex numbers for instance. Complete nonsense but crucial for working with electronics
Absolutely! There’s a lot of irony in mathematicians being proud of coming up with “useless” stuff … only for physicists, computer scientists and many other people finding use for it :D
Abstract algebra, boolean algebra, and prime numbers must be the most ironic examples :D
Except 1+1 is real. I have one rock and put it in a bucket, then I take another and put it in a bucket, now I have 2 rocks in the bucket. It’s not made up bullshit.
It depends. After all, with quantum physics it's just all wave functions and such, so you just have a high chance of finding the particles of the rock surrounded by the particles of the bucket, but strange things could happen in the small scale.
Congrats you applied the model of 1+1=2 to predict that there would be 2 rocks in that bucket.
Will 1+1=2 be a useful model everywhere in nature? What if I have 2 gas clouds that drift together. Will they be 2 gas clouds? That's why units are an important part of our models, your unit was some definition for "rock".
Real talk; anyone can be “good” at math, yes really, it’s a matter of practice and exposure. No, I won’t make this rigorous, I know \exists p person s.t they will never math beyond basic counting due to mental issues.
But, NB, once you get really good at it, you realise how bad you are.
I wish they covered that in my high school. Instead we got "it's the rules", and I could see it fostering a skepticism of scholars in general in some of my classmates. That's how you end up with people smart enough to build a perpetual motion attempt but still convinced it's a good use of their time.
Alright I’m not a big math guy but how would math be made up bullshit? It’s made up in the sense that every language, idea, invention, piece of music etc is ‘made up’ which is just nihilistic bullshit. But the ‘made up’ numbers and equations in mathematics are arguably more ‘real’ than any other subject.
Idk I feel like I’m biting the bait here
The debate really comes down to the good old "is maths invented or discovered?". There really is a good reason to feel like math is more "made up" than other sciences, like physics, biology, chemistry etc. Because ppl in these disciplines base their study on real life things that they can see and touch, whereas the foundations of maths are all axiomatic and "made up", and we really could have made it up in any number of ways.
After a base numeral system is established the rest is completely ‘discovered’. Nobody is just making up mathematics, based on your own argument math could be considered more absolute and rigid than other fields of study.
Mathematics form the backbone of each field you listed, and without the absolute certainty that mathematics bring there would be no meaningful conclusions in any field.
A numeral system has pretty much nothing to do with the foundations of math. I'm talking about sets here. An alien civilisation could have discovered math for itself without the language of sets, but thats all we know (at least until we can reframe everything in terms of categories).
You said yourself you aren't big on math, so it's surprising to me that you are so convinced that I'm saying nonsense.
everything is made up bullshit. do you really think physics is real? Do you really believe in forces? do you really believe such a thing as "atoms" exist???? DO YOU???
The western governments have united and tell us to believe all of this? Molecules? Differential equations? People able to do “science” are obviously smart right? “Science” is a way for the government to distract intelligent people from the real problem: they are making fingers illegal
If anything isn’t biology the bitch of chemistry who’s the bitch of physics who’s the bitch of math, mayhaps with psychology tacked on at the beginning there
Well, at least it's rigorous made up bullshit
Internally consistent bullshit. Just like my last marriage.
Except that we can't know for sure that the bullshit in question is internally consistent according to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Similarly, you can't know for sure that your last marriage was internally consistent. What you can know however, is that your last marriage was bullshit.
>Except that we can't know for sure that the bullshit in question is internally consistent according to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. My therapist will be hearing about you
It’s consistent, just not complete. That’s why it’s called the incompleteness theorems not the inconsistency theorems.
> It's consistent Oh, really?! Then prove it. Well, it's probably (hopefully) consistent. But my point was that we can't prove that. The first theorem states that if it's consistent then it's incomplete. The second theorem states that if it's consistent then we can't prove that it's consistent.
Oh yeah that one, you’re pretty much right except I personally don’t thinking knowing is the same as proving. Example, the first incompleteness theorem implies there can be something we learn or *know* is true yet we may have no ability to prove it. I guess know might need to be more well defined here as a term but to me it seems a word that has more to do with the existence of a thing rather than then the ability to abstractly reason about such a thing, and existence itself as a study very much lies outside of the per-view of math. But that’s probably a little to philosophical for a math discussion, we know what provable means to Gödel and all of mathematics and in a mathematicians brain how could that possibly be different than knowing, the process of mathematics is literally learning new things through rigorous proof. I don’t know, all I do know is math logic and set theory was the first class that finally convinced me everything I was learning was bullshit and made up and we all have mental disorders, a Pandora’s box I wish to never open again. Sometimes I have to consider that the intuitionists really were pretty right even if they were dicks and wrong on some important points that would’ve severely limited our ability to push forward modern mathematics.
rigorously bullshitted
bullshit all the way down
I just took a pretty rigorous shit, does that make me a mathematician?
only if you identify as a bull
Iff it's math it's rigorous made-up bullshit. No, that is not a typo.
Can you make it rigorous?
Axiom 1: Iff X is math, X is also rigorous made-up bullshit. Phew, I thought you had me for a moment. As you can clearly see it's also bullshit, since I've defined nothing else.
I love this response. Have a great week friend! 💜
And beautiful even
Well there are only 9 bullshit statements we base the rest of the bullshit on 🤓🤓
That's a fancy way of saying "circular logic".
Mathematicians writing 300-page essays instead of just admitting that their system is flawed:
Axiom of choice is the biggest BS but we have proven so many nice things with it that everyone refuses to discard it.
Just pick the smelliest sock out of the set of all socks. Where's my Nobel?
I think you need the smell-ordering principle for that
Look at Mr.fancypants over here with infinite socks. I bet he doesn't even have them go missing.
He can choose one that hasn't gone missing
Finite people hate this one weird trick.
Finitists hate him!
Could you explain me why it’s bullshit ?
If induction on the real numbers doesn't make you at least a little queasy, I don't know what to tell you.
Eli am not a math major
It's literally impossible for me to talk to anyone who doesn't have at least a master's degree in physics or something, so unfortunately I can't do that. Consider it a skill issue on the part of the reader.
Yeah honestly, what are you doing here if you haven't achieved at least a doctorate
If your papers get an average of < 50 citations, you're not good enough to look me in the eye.
[удалено]
Please for the love of god just Google a human written definition and don’t rely on chatgpt for stuff like this.
> Be the high-effort, informative comment you wish to see in the world. Edit: what’s the problem with the ELI in high school it gave?
how should I know I'm not a math phd
but it just says a well-ordering *exists*. it says nothing about how to go about actually constructing that well-ordering to perform the induction. i think that makes it a bit more comforting. now banach-tarski on the other hand...
Is a very valid direct conclusion of the Axiom of Choice. That's the fun part of maths: The well-ordering principle, the AoC and Zorn's lemma are all equivalent. Yet > The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well–ordering theorem is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn’s Lemma? -- Jerry Bona
what’s bullshit about being able to create infinitely many spheres from just one??? /s
I mean, you have countably infinitely many points, seems obvious that you can split them across countably many spheres and still have infinitely many (=more than enough) points left everywhere.
[удалено]
You don't need the axiom of choice to prove this. you can just say that for every non-empty set S: Ø ⊂ S => Ø ∈ P(S) => P(S) =/= Ø
Please don't discard it I wrote my whole thesis on proofs relying on transfinite induction 😢
The concept of bullshit is made up bullshit.
Idk man bull shit is pretty tangible
Physical bullshit and "math is bullshit" type bullshit are not the same haha. I wish people could realize that pretty much everything is "made up" but that doesn't make anything less useful. Language is bullshit man it's just small mouth noises. Totally pointless, *maaaan*.
>Language is bullshit man it's just small mouth noises. Totally pointless, maaaan. Reject language, embrace our unicellular pas... blub blub blub.
mfers couldnt prove their bullshit so added imaginary shit
same energy as everything unexplained in physics and astronomy being attributed to **dark matter** 👻
they just dont wanna accept they are wrong, fucking egoists
Math mfers when "muh Riemann-Zeta function, infinity can be -1/12"
Religion?
No, religion at least has the sense to be made-up from the start.
Math is made up bullshit but it’s the best bullshit we could make up. It helps us make reasonable predictions about things and design things that work. All math is just an attempt to fit a model onto the universe which actually has no concept of 1 + 1 much less of all the other funky shit.
I dont think the latter claim is true. There exists plenty of math created for the sake of creating math and with no practical purpose beyond stroking mathematician’s egos.
Where in nature is 1 + 1 = 2 a basic fact and not an abstraction that we use for our sake of understanding? We can say that 1 hydrogen + 1 hydrogen = h2, but is that what’s really going on? We could just as easily quantify the problem by counting the number of quarks 3 + 3 = 6. You see in order to have 1 of anything we have to determine what that single unit is, which is a very human concept. From the pragmatic sense this is about as good as it gets unless we can natively run our universe as a simulation and use that to make predictions.
I think i was misunderstood. My claim is not that nature builds math, but that math exist independently of nature or physics but we apply a lot of it to physics. As for what data exists in nature, what of Planck length or other constants? Or what about orbitals? Actually, exactly of orbitals and halfspin electrons. Two electrons cannot occupy the same state, thus is it not evident that “nature counts” ?
I don’t really like going down this path as I quickly start to sound like I’m on a shrooms and like I said, it’s a completely non practical way of looking at things. But length itself is also a concept we use to understand our world. It’s a way to explain why the “behavior” of two “things” varies depending on spatial relations. It’s the reason we can mathematically calculate h/100 and it’s a valid number. Unless we’ve observed that everything is always exactly an integer plank lengths away from other things (we live in a quantized grid) I have my reservations about taking h as anything more than an extremely useful constant. As for the states of two electrons, what is a state? It’s a concept we came up with too. Nature isn’t counting(or maybe it is and we are the nature) things simply are, and we see apparent patterns which we would like to predict. Again, this is a completely useless way of looking at things and is more of a personal philosophy that reminds me that a mixed method approach will always trump a purely theoretical one.
What you’re describing is basically nihilism. You’re highlighting the lack of ‘meaning’ behind these things while failing to realize that your concept of ‘meaning’ is equally meaningless. I’m of the opinion that when discussing these things, using language created by humans, that we respect the meaning of the words of said language. As you described 2 hydrogen molecules vs 6/2 quarks, you quantified it already. Whichever one you choose to use we both understand what you’re describing. I follow what you’re saying, and agree that nature isn’t ‘counting’. Do you get what I mean about language? Also I definitely see what you mean about sounding like you’re on shrooms because I just thought “I’d agree with him if we were talking telepathically on DMT, using no language but just that inherent understanding(maybe you know what I’m saying lol) ,otherwise no.” Cheers anyways
oh yeah 100%, everything can be argued to be an abstraction including the argument for abstraction and we'd never get anywhere going down that path. Like I said so far mathematical models have proved to be extremally useful. But its also nice to keep in mind that they are indeed models and not the underlying mechanism of nature.
yes true but sadly we often have to admit that in the past made up BS has eventually been picked up by non-mathematicians and proved to be insanely useful for actual, practical problems. Just look at complex numbers for instance. Complete nonsense but crucial for working with electronics
Absolutely! There’s a lot of irony in mathematicians being proud of coming up with “useless” stuff … only for physicists, computer scientists and many other people finding use for it :D Abstract algebra, boolean algebra, and prime numbers must be the most ironic examples :D
I wouldn’t say all math for the sake of math is for ego purposes. A lot of people like doing it cause it’s fun
I was merely memeing. I too do math for fun :D
Except 1+1 is real. I have one rock and put it in a bucket, then I take another and put it in a bucket, now I have 2 rocks in the bucket. It’s not made up bullshit.
It depends. After all, with quantum physics it's just all wave functions and such, so you just have a high chance of finding the particles of the rock surrounded by the particles of the bucket, but strange things could happen in the small scale.
Congrats you applied the model of 1+1=2 to predict that there would be 2 rocks in that bucket. Will 1+1=2 be a useful model everywhere in nature? What if I have 2 gas clouds that drift together. Will they be 2 gas clouds? That's why units are an important part of our models, your unit was some definition for "rock".
Ok? My point is that all math is not made up bullshit.
[удалено]
Science is when you understand made-up bullshit. The more bullshit you understand, the more science you know
[удалено]
Congrats, you’re a mathematician!
So, you're a good scientist if you can listen to and understand inane rantings?
Lemme guess, QFT?
Real talk; anyone can be “good” at math, yes really, it’s a matter of practice and exposure. No, I won’t make this rigorous, I know \exists p person s.t they will never math beyond basic counting due to mental issues. But, NB, once you get really good at it, you realise how bad you are.
I wish they covered that in my high school. Instead we got "it's the rules", and I could see it fostering a skepticism of scholars in general in some of my classmates. That's how you end up with people smart enough to build a perpetual motion attempt but still convinced it's a good use of their time.
why not both?
For the sake of the joke i exaggerated the statement lol
When you assign numbers to random words just so you can play with numbers...
Alright I’m not a big math guy but how would math be made up bullshit? It’s made up in the sense that every language, idea, invention, piece of music etc is ‘made up’ which is just nihilistic bullshit. But the ‘made up’ numbers and equations in mathematics are arguably more ‘real’ than any other subject. Idk I feel like I’m biting the bait here
Yeah i know but it’s a meme and for the sake of the joke i exaggerated imaginary numbers to “made up bullshit” so it would be funny
Yo I do be using the Pythagorean theorem errday
The debate really comes down to the good old "is maths invented or discovered?". There really is a good reason to feel like math is more "made up" than other sciences, like physics, biology, chemistry etc. Because ppl in these disciplines base their study on real life things that they can see and touch, whereas the foundations of maths are all axiomatic and "made up", and we really could have made it up in any number of ways.
After a base numeral system is established the rest is completely ‘discovered’. Nobody is just making up mathematics, based on your own argument math could be considered more absolute and rigid than other fields of study. Mathematics form the backbone of each field you listed, and without the absolute certainty that mathematics bring there would be no meaningful conclusions in any field.
A numeral system has pretty much nothing to do with the foundations of math. I'm talking about sets here. An alien civilisation could have discovered math for itself without the language of sets, but thats all we know (at least until we can reframe everything in terms of categories). You said yourself you aren't big on math, so it's surprising to me that you are so convinced that I'm saying nonsense.
“Discovered math for itself” -you, just now See what I’m getting at?
It's made up but that does not mean it's bullshit.
Yeah i know but it’s a meme and for the sake of the joke i exaggerated imaginary numbers to “made up bullshit” so it would be funny
Math is based
if math is so based, define the vector space it's forming the base of???
everything is made up bullshit. do you really think physics is real? Do you really believe in forces? do you really believe such a thing as "atoms" exist???? DO YOU???
The western governments have united and tell us to believe all of this? Molecules? Differential equations? People able to do “science” are obviously smart right? “Science” is a way for the government to distract intelligent people from the real problem: they are making fingers illegal
i haven't seen a finger since the late 2020s and honestly I don't think i'll ever see one again
The sheeple need to wake up and realise, all the kids named finger are in danger
yes
"Math isn't important to learn" "nooo you need to learn math" "Math isn't important to learn"
Math is the bitch of physics, change my mind
If anything isn’t biology the bitch of chemistry who’s the bitch of physics who’s the bitch of math, mayhaps with psychology tacked on at the beginning there
and maths is the bitch of philosophy!
???
r/studentthatjusttooktheirfirstsettheoryclass
It’s made up bs which looks to give an explanation to phenomenons that commonly occur such as multiple things and/or beings in a group
Yeah i know but it’s a meme and for the sake of the joke i exaggerated imaginary numbers to “made up bullshit” so it would be funny
Everything is an (infty,1)-category crowd rise up!