Yeah, but what if it’s, like, all a big computer game, man?

(Statistical proofs exist that given how easy it’ll be to create multiple simmulations of reality (think how many computer games are being played right now on just one planet), it’s far more likely we’re in one of these than in actual reality. I say proofs exist. But do they?)

And does it actually matter? The steak is still delicious.

As I’ve said on another thread in the light of recent political events my grip on reality is now pretty shaky.

Vaguely closer to topic, not that I ve watched the video on my phone on the train, there is a semi serious point I guess that scientists aren’t science, science as it has bearing the world is not value free. And ‘objective’ facts about the world don’t tell us how we should live (misunderstandings of evolution being used to justify the slave trade.)

And does it actually matter? The steak is still delicious.

Yes indeed science is not everything and is much more important to some than it is to others. I’m one of the others.

BigDummy – Member
As a rule of thumb, if you take an idea that originates in post-modern humanities scholarship and add words like “decolonisation” to it, it does not become any more intuitively correct…

Of course if someone is using a post-modern idea they aren’t likely looking to be correct, right or find the truth.

Some people think it’s people like this that brought about Brexit and Trump. I duuno, but I do think without the internet they would just be an obscure bunch of unknown nutters, harmless, even curious. The real problem is the oxygen of publicity they are getting. See Farage etc ..

“One of the things I truly hate about the world today is how, to some people, intelligence is seen as a threat, or something to be scorned”

Mao felt like that in the 1950s. Getting rid of the intelligentsia and skilled people / experts resulted in millions of dead and starvation.

Also see Pol Pot and Kampuchea.

“Science must fall” – because of Newtonian gravity?

It’s an interesting one, if it’s intent is to pursue truth and knowledge without being blinded by established “facts.” However, if they’re planning on starting again with Science 2.0 they’re going to need a healthy supply of geniuses on hand. Given that one of their challenges is to work out how black magic works to control the weather, I suspect they may come up slightly short.

Top notch STW this. Someone posts a ‘look at the idiot’ thread and we end up having a fascinating little chat about philosophy.

It’s almost the antithesis of a typical thread, where someone starts a fascinating little chat about philosophy and we end up calling each other idiots.

It’s an interesting one, if it’s intent is to pursue truth and knowledge without being blinded by established “facts.”

It feels less like Einstein and Dirac temporarily setting Newtonian mechanics to one side in order to grasp a bigger picture, and more like building a big bonfire of science books because they’ve been written by whitey.

The post by 4130s0ul back on page one was illuminating I thought

The ScienceMustFall is part of this anti-white, anti-colonial Pan-African Nationalism, where people who are not very bright try to tell smarter people that anything western needs to be rejected and after “de- colonization” African ways needs to be the dominant driver.

I’m not sure what your point is here? Aren’t both of these examples of how things are revised when shown to be wrong, rather than of the flaws and close-mindedness of science?

No, they are examples of what people considered to be facts, known truths. but based on incomplete or incorrect models.

in reply to earlier, yes maths is not made of truths, it’s just a model which works most of the time

Yes indeed science is not everything and is much more important to some than it is to others. I’m one of the others.

Yet here you are.

No, they are examples of what people considered to be facts, known truths. but based on incomplete or incorrect models.

Isn’t the latter an example of denial and disinformation from those who actually knew better?

in reply to earlier, yes maths is not made of truths, it’s just a model which works most of the time

Maths is considered a Universal Language (and is used in attempts to find/contact aliens) precisely because it is “made of truths”.

(we’re not talking abstract maths with imaginary numbers and infinity here, we’re talking fundamental “2 is more than 1”)

Though that is also a language of truths. They might be more complex ones, but it doesn’t make them any more untrue than 2 being greater than 1. I see the suggestion up there that imaginary numbers are a construct, but they’re not really.

maths is not made of truths

Pie is true
1 + 1 does equal two russell and whitehead proved that irrefutably

However, in 1931, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them.

it can find truths pie is true for example

Pythagoras’s theorem is correct and true

the list is long but it is not infinite and it is not without limits

imaginary numbers are a construct, but they’re not really

shit name then 😉

pah, semantics

that is why we need humanities*

*I have a science degree

1 + 1 does equal two russell and whitehead proved that irrefutably

That and a bundle of other things can be proven and ‘true’ but only within their own system of ‘mathrmatics’ ( which is not without its axioms). But mathematics is only a model of the real world, it is not the real world in itself. There are many real world incidents in which one and one is not two and that model can and should not be applied

Even if you agree that colonialism was a very bad thing for Africa

It is quite difficult to argue that colonialism was a force for positive change with a positive impact.

Why would you throw the baby out with the bath water? Ditching human progress and knowledge isn’t going to make solving Africa’s problems any easier.

I agree. However… We have previous for having a western-centric view of the world. Whilst I don’t think a Pol Pot Year 0 type approach is a positive thing, trying to look around the edges of accepted wisdom is often worth a go. Historically it’s often how we made progress.

trying to look around the edges of accepted wisdom is often worth a go. Historically it’s often how we made progress.

Science does this, all the time.

Science does this, all the time.

That’s what I was trying to say!

Cool, I agree!

But mathematics is only a model of the real world, it is not the real world in itself.

It describes the real world. Labels things in the real world.

You could argue that philosophically “cat” is just a word and is only a label for a loose collection of atoms that our learned social constructs model as a independent being that likes to lick its own arse.

But honestly, by the time you are arguing that cats don’t really exist in the real world, it’s probably time to pass the blunt.

Ultimately any intelligent life out there (on the same physical dimensional plane as us) is not going to get to interstellar communication without first being able to tell if they have the same number of suns today as they had yesterday.

[quoteIt describes the real world. Labels things in the real World[\quote]

I’m talking about the extent to which mathematics is used to model and predict the real world. Not sure what you mean by mathematics as a label

Sure in abstraction, 1+1=2 and it seems to have been proven as so, probably due to some axiom, pretty much because that is how that system was defined . But that only becomes useful when you apply that system to something,like say apples. Then it tells you something about the real world (ignoring for the moment, the social construction of ‘apple’). In other cases this 1+1=2 model does not fit reality.

Not sure what you mean by mathematics as a label

I’m agreeing that, for example, 10 is just a label for a discrete quantity. That label is obviously a social construct rather than a truth (and we label it many other ways: “ten”, “dix”, X, A, 1010, 12, etc) but the physical quantity which it labels is a fundamental truth of our physical plane.

Which I think agrees with your post above too.

Sure in abstraction, 1+1=2 and it seems to have been proven as so, probably due to some axiom, pretty much because that is how that system was defined

Comprehension fail

It was proved true because it is true.

An axiomatic system cannot prove [all of]its axioms

For example euclidean geometry assumes parallel lines never touch. It cannot test this as the system is built on it.

They can in non euclidean space – ie the real world where space curves due to gravity.

The system has limits on what it can find. you seem to think it is limited in that it cannot find truths. you are wrong.
With respect its not a debatable point you can be confused or wrong if you like.

the physical quantity which it labels is a fundamental truth of our physical plane.

tis true 10 is more than 9 and less than 11. Its pretty easy to demonstrate it as real. Remove some fingers see if you have lost anything other than an “abstract quality/social construct ” of appendages 😉

tis true 10 is more than 9 and less than 11. Its pretty easy to demonstrate it as real. Remove some fingers see if you have lost anything other than an “abstract quality/social construct ” of appendages

Yes, in the scenario you described 10 is more than 9, so that model works for fingers. Does it work for rain drops? Put 9 raindrops in one glass, 10 in another. Which glass has more raindrops?

The system has limits on what it can find. you seem to think it is limited in that it cannot find truths. you are wrong.

it can find internal truths but not general truths

CharlieMungus – Member

Yes, in the scenario you described 10 is more than 9, so that model works for fingers. Does it work for rain drops? Put 9 raindrops in one glass, 10 in another. Which glass has more raindrops?

Neither has any raindrops.

Comprehension fail
It was proved true because it is true

😀

Neither has any raindrops.

You are not answering the question

How about if you add one raindrop to another raindrop how many raindrops do you have?

How about if you add one raindrop to another raindrop how many raindrops do you have?

I’ve lost track. If the answer is “one bigger raindrop, with the volume of 2 smaller raindrops, but millilitres of water might be an easier unit to describe the situation”, is maths racist?

🙂

Sure, If you use millimetres to describe the situation, then the model is appropriate. But as you correctly answered in the first place, 1 plus 1 gave you one.

Here is another question, What is an average?

CharlieMungus – Member

How about if you add one raindrop to another raindrop how many raindrops do you have?

If I add one raindrop to another? None.

I’m not sure what scenario you have, but that would still be a case where the 1+1=2 model does not fit

CharlieMungus – Member

I’m not sure what scenario you have, but that would still be a case where the 1+1=2 model does not fit

No it isn’t; it’s a case where you can’t add 1 to 1.

You can add one raindrop to another. It happens when they collide

No it isn’t; it’s a case where you can’t add 1 to 1.

That makes it look less like a universal truth