History and Moral Philosophy

Uh, I-I think it's possible with geometry...

Waah! Forgive me, nevermind! Uguu...

I'm having trouble finding the name, but it is questioned by some. But to keep the thread alive a common argument is about the "nothing faster than the speed of light" concept, because the speed of gravity is very clearly faster than the speed of light.

>the speed of gravity
Gravity is a pseudoforce caused by curved spacetime and hence the whole concept of speed doesnt really apply to it

Also the problem einstein was dealing with wasnt that matter doesnt travel faster than the speed of light but that light always travels the same speed no matter what frame of reference you measure it from. As in someone stationary will measure the same speed for a photon as someone moving at 90% of the speed of light in the direction of travel of said photon.

>curved spacetime
So you're saying that out of everything in the observed universe, gravity is some special thing that you have to apply different dimensions and planes of existence in order to explain it? You realize how odd this sounds when you start to think about it.

And every single explanation I've ever heard or read is that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. Are you saying that everyone else has it wrong? Even the other scientists with doctorates that are working in quantum mechanics?

>For example, the common statement "Violence never solves anything" I'm sure you've heard.
That shit honestly baffles me, people who say that are either historically illiterate or complete soygoys but probably both.
Using the word "civilized" as a synonym for peaceful and calm is another example of this retardation, when most civilizations were created and upheld by violence.

Exactly. That's the first example of philosophy being "proven" in the book and it's a damn good one.

Yes that is exactly what im saying, i know it sounds incredibly odd but is basically mainstream physics at this point. And also were not applying differemt dimemsions or plames of existence but recognising that space and time are just two ways of viewing four dimensional spacetime.

Nothing can TRAVEL faster than the speed of light because of time dilation, which is something that emerges from the way our brains split space and time into two seperate things neither on its own a correct representation of spacetime. You still have shit like quantum teleportation and quantum entanglememt that allows for things to go from place to place faster than light.

>mainstream physics
It used to be mainstream that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just because it's popular doens't mean it's right.

And how can NOTHING travel faster than light if gravity appears to act instantaneously? How can black holes trap the light in if gravity can't act faster than light?

Still searching for that name btw

RONALD HATCH!

Found the name.

duckduckgo.com/?q=ronald hatch relativity&t=hf&ia=web

Science in the past is wrong because it was proven wrong, the sciemce we have now is the science that hasnt been proven wrong. Obviously it could be proven wrong but that isnt an argument for rejecting it.

Gravity can act instamtaniously because its not a thing that has to travel. The gravity that objects experience is determined by the curvature of the spacetime they exist in. Imagine a big heavy ball on a trampoline, it makes a dip. A smaller ball falljng into this dip might seem to be attracted to the beigger one, but its actually only falling thanks to the curvature of the plane that it is on, not any actual interaction with the bigger ball.

>"Federal Service" which is just military service

It isn't. There's a ton of non-military options.

They explained that if a blind guy wanted to be a citizen, they'd give him a job counting caterpillars or something.

>rejecting it
I'm not nessacerally rejecting it, just questioning it and finding that it's founded a bad, un-testable science.

>trampoline
Yeah, I know this, but why does this make any sense? This is an un-observable phenomenon as of right now. The fact the theory has to relay on the "plane" of gravity is a matter of weakness when you compare it to nearly all other physics.

Even Carl Sagan admits we have no idea what gravity is or why it works, but instead of investigating it and trying to figure it out, they went the route of quantum mechanics and just took the theory of relativity for gospel.

Heinlein is what what happens when you mix fascism and civic nationalism.

Fair point, but it's all done in a military fashion. You have ranks and squads/platoons/etc. It's about putting others before yourself.

>wheresthelie.jpg
Yeah, civic nationalism is fucking gay. Still, can't blame a guy for buying the "we're all the same it's just skin color" line when we didn't have the genetic science like we do now.

The way I understand things, the morality of something can be proven if you first make the assumption of a handful of axioms, a mathematical reference frame which you will work in. If you suppose certain moral "operations" to exist, or certain implications to be true, you can then extrapolate an entirely mathematical field of morality, just like any other branch of mathematics. Mathematics isn't numbers, it's the formalization of logic and tools to work within an axiomatic framework to prove things within that framework, and only within that framework. In starship troopers, one of these axioms may be that sacrifice for the whole is morally correct, and from this any number of situations can be shown to be morally correct if they reduce down to one of the basic axioms of morality. The entire idea of proving philosophy mathematically is rooted in these axioms, which are taken to be entirely and unquestionably true to man, but to the skinnies and bugs may be false. If these axioms were defined well enough, under certain conditions you could do calculus on them and form a moral calculus, if need be.

but that's just the drunk ramblings of a mathfag

Its been tested a fucktonne m80 i dont know what youre on about

Actually remeber that whole gravitational waves thing that swept the popsci news like a year ago? That was us observing the gravitational field.

Carl sagans long dead m80, science has come a long way since.

The thing about the theory of relativity is that no one has ever come up with a good argument against it. Also the theory has been investigate din like a bazillion ways and comsistently proves rock solid.

pls write an essay for us non-mathfags

Mathematical economics is a simple example of this. The economists who use a mathematical approach to explain concepts typically use different variables for different ideas. I find frequently sometimes that the way in which the mathematical proof develops, and how and what variables are introduced cause me some problems every now and then.

Still though, there is actually an advantage to discussing concepts using mathematics.

Economics is easy to do this, because you deal with value and relationships of different numbers to each other. The free market is where it really gets complex. Read Jevons or Walras for some idea of that.

But mathematics for philosophy? Those are ancient, age-old ideas. Pythagoreanism was based on this very concept. Read Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus. He goes over the basic concepts which are analogous to things in real life or geometrical reasoning.

Very important.

>gravitational waves
Was it ever explained thoroughly tho? Was it waves of gravity increasing and decreasing or was it just the thing that makes gravity work increasing and decreasing.

As for proven rock solid, I've only just started looking into the questioning of it, so I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but I've read enough to doubt the validity of it. Especially given the individual who popularized it.

Einstein was infamous for stealing other's worth and claiming it his own to the point he would need to retreat to America because he was pissing off people in Europe so much. Not exactly the kind of individual I'd put much stock in.

You're not a 'mathfag'. There's no such thing.

There are either people who understand the benefits of mathematics in philosophy, linguistic, and logic, or the people that don't.

Those people have not read a single proof by Euclid. Not a word of Nicomachus either.

How deep are you right now?

One of the results of general relativity is that gravitational waves increase and decrease the distance between objects without either object accelerating. the way they measured them was setting up a laser splitter sending the light waves in perpendicular directions, so that when they came back they'd cancel destructively. If they didn't fully cancel eachother out, it was gravitational waves changing the distance and thus making the waves out of sync. by how much could be used to measure the strength of the waves. just recently we used the lab to spot a collision of two stars and told a telescope to take a look, which shortly afterwards saw the event described by the gravitational waves. if that isn't a practical demonstration of the existence of gravitational waves, I don't know what is

>the more complex or trendy a mathematical idea is, the more complex

See, this is where we might have a little argument if you were really idiotic. I am not of the personal opinion that set theory is THE ONLY WAY to think about mathematics. Perhaps you could take a Pythagorean approach. Perhaps you could read some of Euclid's arithmetical books. There is something to be said for wisdom in old literature.

Believe it or not, there is something even greater to be said for wisdom in old mathematical texts.

As for what I am doing mathematically right now, it is pic related. I read mathematical proofs. I am currently reading Apollonius.

I study math, therefore I am a mathfag. Kindly fuck off

Hey, I wasn't knocking you, I just was curious if that pic was related to you. Figured any mathfag would enjoy. Maybe I was wrong

Lol, then I'm a mathfag. Then like half the population on Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are mathfags!

The best conversations I've had about Euclid were on Veeky Forums

Eh, if you mean did I study math in college? No. I was always gifted in mathematics though. I like it a decent amount. And I grasp it. And believe it or not, that is enjoyable in and of itself. Many people can or do not grasp some of the things I read, and it does make me feel like I was kind of designed for this sort of thinking sometimes.

That being said, I enjoy reading a lot of philosophy too, and political philosophy at that. That goes well with economics.

I'm just an oddball :/. I do understand calculus though. And let me tell you: understanding calculus is unbelievably valuable in understanding concepts presented by mathematical economists.

Are you ethnically German? I hear they have an autism tuned for that kind of thing.

>mathematical economists
I do have to ask, do you think economics could ever become a science or is it too vulnerable to the emotional will of the consumers?

Adhering to a particular mathematician or style of proofs does not make someone a particularly good mathematician, and it does not constitute a valid reason for being such an elitist about math. I could not care less about what proofs you are reading at the moment. Being a mathfag is not casually studying a specific greek mathematician, because he was greek and you just have to start with the greeks. Being a mathfag is being able to appreciate the beauty of mathematics independent of the author of the proof, and in most cases not caring for who wrote the proof. It is an art with strict rules which does not care for your preference of author or proof style

Economics is by definition a science AND an art.. This is where thinkers like Leon Walras and Irving Fisher want it. Technically speaking you could get your B.S. in Economics OR your B.A. in Economics and I wouldn't be surprised.

Just saying. I mean, honestly the point is that when it becomes descriptive, it is inherently a science based on how objective we find it to be. When it starts to propose certain policies or solutions, it becomes prescriptive.

The problem becomes when people's mentality seeps into the descriptions, or the eventual remedy is embedded in the way the economy is described. Then you can obviously see a bit of bias in economic modeling. Walras is very unbiased, an impartial observer. And his bit on bimetallism is absolutely hellishly complex but interesting as fuck as well.

The point is: it's just how people work. When they formulate systems of analysis or ideas these ideas when it comes to economics are going to have a certain way to describe things, and then a certain way to remedy things. The cold, mathematical economics of Walras, I finds leaves out the psychological component by saying that the individual raretes for a single individual among his many goods he consumes/has are exactly proportional ceteris paribus to the different exchangeable values of the goods themselves. Meanwhile it seems Carl Menger recognizes this psychological component when he says that one commodity matched against another commodity could have a higher value in terms of said commodity in comparison with a second individual.

It seems up to who you read. I am very happy to examine both sides of the economic spectrum, because there is much to see. I will say this: it seems to me that the Keynes/Mises split is less congenial. In other words, it is impossible to conciliate their views. This is why you hear so much bickering between the two ideas on here. It entirely comes down to how they view production cycles. Ideological differences like this are bad

>2018
>Taking seriously the edgy-tier political-social concepts of a literal fucking POG.

...

>and in most cases not caring for who wrote the proof
Unfortunately this is just not true.

There are ways to prove things well and prove things bad. There are always debates in mathematics, just a quick trip over to Veeky Forums would tell you this. The debates have to do with notation, terms, the way you describe things.

Everything under the sun sometimes. The point is: describing and understanding proofs is just half of the battle, the philosophy of how or why they are done in the first place is the most important part.

You telling me that reading a Greek mathematicians proofs does not make me a ''''''mathfag''''''' is fucking retarded. You would be laughed out of a fucking room with people who have actually read Apollonius. Just go home kid, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I want your thoughts on two concepts

>gold standard

>Hitler's labor backed currency

Might as well ask what's the philosophy of Star Wars, you piece of shit.

who wrote a proof is entirely independent of how well a proof is written, and to claim that who wrote a proof is the same as how well it is written is ridiculous, a third person ad hominem. Of course notations are debated, as some people work in fields where notation makes a world of difference, and so using the best one is key, while others work in fields where notation means very little, and so brevity is key. Reading greek mathematicians does not make you not a mathfag, but reading purely greek mathematicians and ignoring all of modernity does make you not a mathfag, it makes you an impostor, claiming to study math because you have studied mathematics during antiquity and nothing else

#TheEmpireDidNothingWrong

I think it's time we progress beyond metals and material objects defining wealth. Only kind of though. Of course, the things giving Bitcoin value are the significant productive costs associated with it, and the rarity of it, in addition to the psychology of the people, I should add. I don't want to fall into the error of the marginal economists who say that the value of anything is comprised solely of its rarity. The curve is based on rarity, of course, but there are a litany of things involved in determining the price of a good, including the predicted future value of a managed interest rate and so on and so forth. A state-sponsored algorithm is all I am suggested. This is what Leon Walras suggests somewhat in his discussion of Bimetallism, that it was ruled Bimetallism was inherently not possible because there were times when only one monetary standard would have a price, as opposed to both metals.

This of course, again, is in my opinion a bit hyperbolic. He is going away with the idea of market perfection into fairy tale land. But he has a point. There would be a mass bank rush in the case when gold's price in bullion under the supposed silver circulating in the economy (both of which are being matched against a third commodity for consistency of course) would rise above silver's price as circulating. Or when gold's price circulating would drop below silver's price in bullion in the opposite scenario.

This is only important because the amount of currency used in the actual exchange of goods gives the currency a lot of value. It's what led economists recently to undervalue Bitcoin at something stupid like $8. Again, just economists being a bit too exaggerated, but they had a point.

I am the above poster. Raretes are derivatives. Where do you draw the line? Integrals and derivatives are used extensively in economics. I guess knowing this doesn't make me a '''''mathfag'''''. Shut the fuck up, kid, you know nothing about how the world works.

youtube.com/watch?v=-Z0S0Z8lUTg

Do people not gather and pass down knowledge through stories? This has happened all throughout history. Just because it's knew and modern doesn't inherently mean it's worthless/pointless.

Now if you did want to discuss the philosophy of Star Wars, I'd suggest you start a new thread ;)