/phi/ - Philosophy

>>39
No, math's the kikery. Jews are smart enough not to waste their time with science.

>>39
Science is a way for people who trust eachother to communicate ideas, like writing

Obviously, faking a scientific paper is about as difficult as writing it for the government, because the system of trust relys entirly upon institutions they own

>>40
Math never asked for your input, nor your interest
The person you are realy mad at is your dad or something
Chill out and get over it

>>39
>>41
What the hell is "kekery"?

Technical, anon has a point. Yes, you need to trust, but you trust into a network of differet institutions and individuals with different agandas and aims.

The likelihood of a statistical error becomes smaller and smaller when you test a idea independent.

>>41
I'm not mad. I really like math as a matter of fact. It's still Jewish magic however(>>42 kikery).

It's a tool in the toolbox to interpret the world. People who that Mathematics is an objective truth are cute. Keep asking why why why and even the "hyper rational" man will end just jlsaying "just because it is, okay". No one is immune from beliefs. You have to have belief that A=A. Other than this you can't prove shit.

>>45
Objective truth can be called a tool in the toolbox just the same. In no way does what you said violate the reasonability of viewing math as objective truth.
There is no reason why A=A has to
be true in math. Instead one investigates the consequences of it being true and doesn't "believe" that A=A besides acknowledging that conventionally it is one of the formulae one investigates the consequences of.

>>46
If you assume utility=truth then just know that utility is your religion. A mathematical equation isn't more correct than a poem.

No one can solve the infinite chain of why why why why why...everyone can answer by making excuses.

>>45
>>46
>>47
The problem is: There is a difference between recognize that something is a objective truth and the ability to explain why.

I got you anon. The assumption of a given set of axioms seen to be arbitrary. Most likely, it is.
But at the moment you accapt the premisses, you can see that the theorems follows.

In my opinion, neither the theorems as such nor the axioms are objective truth but the inferencial relationsship between them, defined by logic.

I mean, that 1+1 equals 2 is a statement, everyone accapt as a given truth.
With the same regor, you can come to more weird inferences. Why should you doubt them?

>>48
Samefagg, add for clearity:
I mean apriori truths with objective truths.
In my opinion, certain statements about "laws of nature" are objective truths. But these truths are empirical and depend on observations.
It could be possible that one perfect rational individual is for some reason unablet to make the same observation and therefor, unware of some fact. The philosophers call this state "epistemic unluck".

For instance, in the far future there will be a time when the light of galaxies far away will not longer be able to reach us, because the Hubble expansion will become faster than the speed of light. At this time, a super intelligente observer would be unable to discover the truth largness of our universe. They would simply leak the information to come to this inference.

>>48
>>49
>Why should you doubt them?
Reason leads me to doubt. If inquiry means going all the way then way not go all the way?
It is our belief that sun is going to rise up in the morning. You can say how? I would say one can die. How humans look at the world isn't objective there are reptiles who view things in a funky way so why your version of viewing those things is any more valid than reptiles?

This infinite chain of why lead to extremely out there positions. You can arrive at epistemological nihilism. What if everything was created in the last second? Or Demon hypothesis that what if a demon is deceiving you right now to not view things totally differently? Are you some kind of brain in a vat? You can deny all of this by saying "I don't care" but why you don't care? "Just because".

I don't know. You just have to blindly accept 1+1=2, there's no means of proving it. Why water is H2O? "Just because"

There are limits to knowledge. I don't think that we'll ever be able to figure out truth. To know the truth you have to stand outside of limits. That's no human can do.

>>50
>Reason leads me to doubt.
Honestly, I never feel a serious doubt about this.

>It is our belief that sun is going to rise up in the morning.

As I said, its empirical.
Do you refered to Humes problem of induction?

>You can say how?
Yes, the earth rotates.
I've seen a Facoult pendulum in my early teens or late childyears once and I was explained how this works.


>How humans look at the world isn't objective there are reptiles who view things in a funky way so why your version of viewing those things is any more valid than reptiles?

I literary has wrote the same thing.
Yes, it's very possible that we are not able to collect all information necessary yet. Therfor, even our best hypothesis could be bold false. Nothing to discuss about.

>What if everything was created in the last second?
I could not refuse this possibility entirely but I remember I have lived a life under the assumption of permanence. Untill I got other informations, I would still continued this way.

>>51
>Honestly, I never feel a serious doubt about this.
Checkout Hume's critique of reason
>As I said, its empirical.
And empiricism is based on blind faith.

>but I remember I have lived a life under the assumption of permanence.
What if your memories were made in the last second?

There's another idea called pessimistic meta induction. It says just like fate of old scientific theories all your best theories of this time will also be thrown into trash after 1000 years or so. And there are theories so complex that it would require instrument the size of galaxy to tests them. That's another dead end.

>>52
To be honest, your opinion appear to me as that of a very young person who needs to make peace with some problems.

I got you about skepticism.
Still, I want to disagree about your nihilism.
Even if our currently best theories will go into trash in 1000. years, I would consider this as a great victory. It has always be my dream to be part of this victory.

>>45
Actually, all of reality is observation, and I observe that A = A, thus, it must be true
Truth is what we see, with our Eyes Minds or Hearts

>>53
>To be honest, your opinion appear to me as that of a very young person who needs to make peace with some problems.
I am 30 years old. I am just telling you about radical sckepicism, five modes of Agrippa and you're just making excuses and repeating passive agressive old shit like this.
>I would consider this as a great victory.
It's an endless process in cycles. There's no progress.

>>54
>Actually, all of reality is observation
why?

>Truth is what we see
Who is "we"? Push your eyes a little when you see a street lamp and you'll see that everything is floating like it's in water.

>>55
>why
I Am

The world is defined by its relation to Me
Like an island
If i cannot walk to a peice of land, it isn't on the island
The thing that defines the island is my walking because i define the island
If it weren't for me there would be no reason to distinguish rock from sea (real from unreal)

>lamp
I percive this vision to be an illusion, so an illusion is what is see
((>Eyes Minds or Hearts))

>Who is we
Those with souls
(of course each of us is individually defined but the pattern holds)

>>55
>I am 30 years old. I am just telling you about radical sckepicism, five modes of Agrippa and you're just making excuses and repeating passive agressive old shit like this.
I already have had read Sextus Empiricus as I was a teen, thanks.

1000 years ago, no one had access to a computer; many calculation were just impossible, a lot of information has been lost because of fire, book burining and so on.
Today, we're much more further.

As I said, in my opinion, our observation are depended of our point of view. While the inferences and/or conclusions are objective.
This is possible by mathematics.

If you take:
(1) All humans are mortal
(2) Socrates is a human
(3) Ergo is Socrates mortal.

This inference is objective true, even if the premisses would be false. The logical relation is what is true, we can be wrong about empirical data.

>>56
all of your "reasoning" crumbles with a simple "why"

just say you have blind bleief

>>57
>1000 years ago, no one had access to a computer;
they still had brains, very smart brains. scientists know that newtons law is wrong yet they still use it because it gives "results". computer start from assumptions, without those blind beleifs a computer can't do shit.

>(1) All humans are mortal
why?

nothing is without assumption. yuo can't prove shit. nothing is objective. maybe pick up outlines of skepticism once again.

>>58
I do not say that the premisses are right.
My point was that the inference as such are the thing we know for sure.

>>59
If you're not sure about premisses then you can you be sure about whatever it leads to?

>>60
Because logic and the way proofs work.
P1 A
P2 A -> B
This allows me to infere:
c B

Yes P1 is a presumption, maybe, empirical false. But if P1 would be the cause, the inference itself is valid.