Isn't science just another spook?
Nationalism, religion are only spooks so why science should not be?
Do you only use theorems you have checked by yourself? Do you use the axiom of choice or not? Do you assume law of excluded middle?
Your result is true only within some context. Is it literally not "true". It is a result of some language game. No more true than some babbling of a 3 years old child, which accurately expresses toddler feelings.
Because science is not a dogma which nobody is forced to believe ? And the outcomes are entirely dependant of the objective results of repeated experiments ?
the smiling faces on your image remind me of demons laughing while torturing poor souls
>Isn't science just another spook?
Nothing is a spook unless you let it be.
Someone like Perelman seems to be severely spooked by his Russian perspective on pure math.
>Do you only use theorems you have checked by yourself?
Nobody does, unless you're doing the most basic pure logic. But that's irrelwvant here. Don't throw around a naive notion of truth.
>Do you use the axiom of choice or not? Do you assume law of excluded middle?
Hardly anybody on Veeky Forums does actually do nath where it matters. Maybe nobody here actually does (as opposed to: reads about) the functional analysis where it's actyally used.
I'm personally not a fan of all of ZFC but that has completely zero to do with the cteative nothing.
>No more true than some babbling of a 3 years old child, which accurately expresses toddler feelings.
No it seems much much more that you are or would liked to be spooked by science. You do hope for an objective truth.
How toddler Wittgenstein relates to truth of published math papers doesn't matter. Toddle sentences are not fur nor get you fame. They are not of utility.
did you do the experiments that verify evolution or does it just make sense to you
>experiments that verify evolution
How long do you have to wait?
>Someone like Perelman seems to be severely spooked by his Russian perspective on pure math.
I think it's rather the community which spooked him
>Nobody does, unless you're doing the most basic pure logic
Kinda true, I actually do it in logic, but in other fields of mathematics I just need to completely understand the result, without really re-building the whole track. It helps a lot to do this, because you then grasp the full power intended for the result.
>Hardly anybody on Veeky Forums does actually do nath where it matters. Maybe nobody here actually does (as opposed to: reads about) the functional analysis where it's actyally used.
I'm personally not a fan of all of ZFC but that has completely zero to do with the cteative nothing.
I'm not a huge fan of the foundation axiom (Though I'm not a non standard analysist). I think you're right when you say pretty much nobody on Veeky Forums use it (and I guess know how to use it). However, whenever you do algebra and analysis which involves more than just number (functional, topology, whatever man) you MUST use it, otherwise, you're kind of a constructivist (well a full fledged one if you do not use excluded middle) but most results in those fields use AC (algebra : mostly equivalent like existence of bases of EVERY ev, krull lemma; topology : compactness of cart' product whenever you extract a sequence verifying certain property you can't check finitely (though this is a weak AC : countable AC). Excluded middle is even below ZFC because an axiom of classical which is the unspoken logic you use. Without excluded middle, your theories are much much weaker and you use then intuitionistic logics. There are several hierarchy of logic and full embedding from one into another, that's why classical is prefered because complete and coherent
If I believe in things said to me how do I differ from a believer. It is true because the book said so. Only the aim is different.
But the again it may turn science becomes so oppressive as religion.
(cont)
I think I'm sharing your view on mathematics, as to science, I'm much more XXth century oriented : I hope for an objective truth, the results in those area allow us to have a better understanding, but even though mathematics is brutally efficient to describe the world, we cannot disprove the fact that maybe there is some scale limit for natural sciences beyond which we would be powerless before some "magical" event. In a way, OP is right :
> It is a result of some language game
To which I agree with him, mathematics do not prove anything other than truth about a language game.
However, it's not a rethoric one, it's rather a symbolic one which have stricter rules and can prove its self containment, coherence, and completude.
I forgot to mention
> Don't throw around a naive notion of truth.
you can litteraly build it, check Barendregt & al (lambda calculus with types), Cori & Lascar (mathematical logic) or N. Bourbaki (set theory, book I).
You can also search for syntactic logic papers, which are WELL done (hard to find thus no name for now as I'm not home) and prove everything down to substitution in a formula.
Evolution is mutation + survival of the fittest. Which we both have re-testable evidence for.
I'm not saying this is exactly how it happened for fact, I'm saying that this is what makes the most sense.
GB2 ass hat
>law of excluded middle
>law
fgt pls
>prove everything down to substitution in a formula
But let me be honest: most papers are "I-am-not-gonna-explain-this-shit, it-is-magic"-tier.
You know, being explicit is extremely dangerous.
>objective
>repeated
>not a dogma
>nobody is forced
all false
...
It's all a bit of a goof and a gaff
tell me about repeated experiment of evolution and the creation of the universe?
how do you prove law of physics are constant?
all is pulled-out-of-ass assumption and muh feelings
but then again, should science be against feelings, should it be pushed to self-loathing?
explain all of them or shut the fuck up you illiterate retard contrarian faggot bitch fuckface shitposter idiot
of cours most are, which really infuriated me, but the french logician/"foundation" school is quite tight assed which I love because you can really have a solid framework from which you derive everything.
I actually found the same problem in analysis as courses are intended to seem "intuitive", but in the french analysis school they cut on the intuition to build everything, and thus you appropriate the material more easily.
> tell me about repeated experiment of evolution and the creation of the universe?
I said evolution not creation of universe buttface.
You can literally experience the evolution on biological level where bacterias will mutate and change their cell walls to adapt to anti-biotics.
And survival of the fittest is also testable and provable in a closed environment with animals as well as bacterias.
> how do you prove law of physics are constant?
Because they don't randomly change ? And they've been the same since we discovered them ?
None of these are about muh feelings. This isn't social sciences, feminism studies, philosophy or humanity.
>Isn't science just another spook?
>spook
Sounds like an ill defined term that could mean whatever the author wishes it to mean.
>Your result is true only within some context.... It is a result of some language game
>Results from some axiomatic system are only true within that system.
No shit, you make it sound like this is both a revolutionary idea and a problem. But the result will always be true in some given system, there is nothing wrong with this.
how this all is related to the growth of entropy?
Law of physics do not change randomly but I can imagine a world in which light speed is getting slower and slower by a tiny amount.
No matter which offensive word you choose it is just an assumption.
Explain how the growth of entropy effects the speed of light, a constant theorized by Einstein and later on proved by modern scientists.
Please, I can't wait for your illiterate moronic explaination as well as your sources.
What is a spook?
But it's an assumption we can test. For example if we assume the speed of light is constant over large periods of time, then we can look at the line spectra of far off nebulae, and we see that if the speed of light has changed then it's less than one part in a billion over the past 7 billion years. So it's a pretty safe assumption.
Not long with microbes.
Have you even read any stirner?
Spook does not mean any idea that isn't your own.
You can imagine it because you know of no way to test the speed of light, I presume? Not really sure where you are going with this, I am not big on relativity at all buy if it would measurably slow down, that should be testable.
Increase of entropy can be demonstrated for closed systems with measurable entropy. The earth is not a closed system in that regard. Yet, there never has been an observation where entropy of a closed system decreased, which is how that inference about thermodynamics was made. Again, what is your point?
Where did you get this?
>no Veeky Forums
It's just a meme for middle-class white boys trying to sound like they're above it all
this renowned mathematician claims the Devil interferes with our measurement of the light speed
sources: Récoltes et semailles
We don't share the stance. I don't hope for objective truth. I not only find it absurd, I also find it boring
It's a term from Veeky Forums
A spook is a fixed idea, which you put above your own / your self.
You may own a dog, then you may leave the dog in front of your house. If you
(cont.)
I was citing Perelman as potentially spooked by pure mathematics.
He may be not make decissions and consider his best interest, but instead stick to some ideology.
PS I don't think Stirnerian egosim as descibed by him can be realized. But his notion of what he simply keeps calling "property" is a great tool
Anybody on Veeky Forums for whom science and math is the secondary endevour?
>Stirner is about being aware of all lingering spooks and put all behind yourself
>putting your ego above all else to avoid falling victim to negative thought patterns
Gee this sounds like a totally logical and rational plan that can't possibly go badly at all
Science itself isn't a spook, as it's just a method and the information it produces.
What is a spook, however, is the belief in the objective value of "truth" as an end goal to human use of science.
Spook in the meme way? Yes.
It's like Nietzche, except without a call for elitism. That would be, of course, a spook.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Despite the title of the English translation, Stirner never speaks of the ego himself. His conception of self is an empty one, similar to what Buddist meditation aspires to, and for him you body is just your property - one that you have a lot control over.
Stirner later descibes his ideal version of society, a "union of egoists" which are all concious of each others calculated ways.
Again, I think it's unpractical and als, people are not as concious as Stirner seems to hope.
I'm trying to work out a coherent view of the "Subject" (lets say in a sense Deluze etc.) and self, one that grants me a more pieceful life. I'm strugling with Change, Will and Duty. If anyone is interested in giving rants on fuzzy topics like that, I'd apprechiate it.
>body is just your property - one that you have a lot control over.
nobody has control over his body. buddhists surely notice this, since the whole program is to escape what is meant to decay, body included and even more importantly, the mind
What is with the hardon for Max Stirner? Is it some crossboarder meme?
I said "a lot" on purpose. You control your body yo a greater extent than you control your dog.
>A spook is a fixed idea, which you put above your own / your self.
Search Results
spook
spo͞ok/
informal
noun
noun: spook; plural noun: spooks
1.
a ghost.
2.
North American
a spy.
"a CIA spook"
3.
USoffensivedated
a contemptuous term for a black person.
verb
verb: spook; 3rd person present: spooks; past tense: spooked; past participle: spooked; gerund or present participle: spooking
1.
frighten; unnerve.
"they spooked a couple of grizzly bears"
(especially of an animal) take fright suddenly.
"he'll spook if we make any noise"
Origin: early 19th century: from Dutch, of unknown origin.
Is it common for modern people / philosophy enthusiasts to reach the concept of a spook independantly?
Because I decided to reevaluate myself in a Descartian "strip away all previous assumptions" kind of way and arrived at a concept very similar to Stirner's definition of Spook. (Before I'd heard of him, of course)
Is it common for modern people / philosophy enthusiasts to reach the concept of a spook independently?
Because I decided to reevaluate myself in a Descartian "strip away all previous assumptions" kind of way and arrived at a concept very similar to Stirner's definition of Spook. (Before I'd heard of him, of course)
One may always say it's "obvious" to some degree. Stirner writes as almost as an existentialist, though. The idea should be separated from the maybe related one of ideology
>No more true than some babbling of a 3 years old child, which accurately expresses toddler feelings.
This is an abhorrent argument, go kill urself