Ask somebody who thinks that everything scientifically makes sense, anything

>Where did life go so wrong for you?

If by wrong you mean lack of success and negative association in reference to the dominant culture in which I developed and our genetic programming, then I’d say around the age of 18.

>Was it wrong all along?

No.

>Should this become a thread to post attractive females?

Yes, most definitely.

She is very pretty.

It makes sense that science doesn't understand it, based on what we currently know about the brain.

We have not managed a complete neural mapping of the brain, as we are limited by current tech and data management techniques.

We’d need to analyse and store hundreds of quintillions of bytes worth information, based on current methods.

The tech and methods used are advancing every year, however; therefore, it is possible that we will achieve a complete neural mapping one day.

Once this has been achieved, we may then begin to hypothesis and experiment in order to try to understand how the organic structure of the brain results in consciousness.

It all makes perfect sense.

> it makes sense that it doesn't make sense
it makes sense to you that you're too retarded to make sense of it, it's completely different to the fact that the subject doesn't make sense to science and they can't understand how it works or why it exists.
You can't bullshit your way out of this one.

Why do people do stupid and illogical things?

Why do path integrals in Quantum Field Theory make sense?

>the fact that the subject doesn't make sense to science and they can't understand how it works

It makes sense that it doesn't currently make sense.

We do not know enough about the organic structure of the brain, in order to begin hypothesizing about how it produces consciousness.

>or why it exists

Ultimate, it exists to facilitate the replication of molecular structures.

A rudimentary understanding of evolution can tell you that, user.

Everything makes sense.

> It makes sense that it doesn't currently make sense.

It makes sense to you that you're too retarded to make sense of it, it's completely different to the fact that the subject doesn't make sense to science and they can't understand how it works or why it exists.

You keep ignoring the point that proves you wrong.

I'm cold.

Because humans evolved cognitive illusions and biases; some of these biases are similar to those displayed by other primates.

It's a fascinating area of study.

>Why do path integrals in Quantum Field Theory make sense?

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I'll attempt an answer:

As calculating a precise expression for the path integral of a system is seemingly impossible in most cases, we are resigned to employing perturbation theory based on the systems that we are able to solve.

Now, in order to calculate the path integral, the terms of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian that are not present in the solvable problem are extended in terms of Feynman diagrams.

This way, we are able to trade the seemingly impossible task of finding eigenstates for the ambiguous system in question, for the more achievable - yet complex- task of calculating Feynman diagrams to a certain degree of accuracy.

Would you like a blanket?

It's made of concept and is abstract in nature, but it might help you feel warmer via placebo.

>it's completely different to the fact that the subject doesn't make sense to science and they can't understand how it works or why it exists.

Yes; If I had experienced retarded mental development, that would not explain why science does not understand consciousness.

Luckily, I'm not making that claim.

I'm stating that it makes sense that we do not understand how the organic structure of the brain produces consciousness, because we do not currently have a complete understanding of the organic structure of the brain itself.

It makes perfect sense.

Thanks. Conceptually, I feel warmer already.

there isn't beyond within beyond.

>there isn't beyond within beyond

Pardon?

Yeah that's kind of what I meant. I was just under the vague impression that the spaces you integrate over were somehow "too big" for normal measure theory to work or something. Maybe i was just misinformed or misremembering.

>why do they do stupid things
>correlation and evolutionist pseudoscience
You are just a fraud.
Take your dumb pseudoscience to

Cognitive biases have been experimentally observed and verified.

Confirmation/disconfirmation bias involves negative and positive association limiting the degree to which logical analysis takes place.

We evolved; therefore our brains evolved; therefore our positive and negative association circuitry evolved; therefore particular biases related to said circuitry are resultant of evolution.

Maybe you need a virtual hug?

Or a conceptual blanket?

>in the past x happened
Can you prove what you said?

If by prove you mean state that something has a high probability of being true based on empirical evidence, then yes.

Emotions. And how to get a liver
>this kills the Autist.
>I am one too

OP, I'd like you to scientifically explain the precise causes of psychosis, neurotic obsession and narcissism.

>Checkmate, faggot.

FUCK I MEANT LOVER

neural interaction

next

ITT : Nothing is explained, OP don't get shit.

>emotions

Please pick one or two emotions.

>how to get a lover

Are you male or female?

Where are you from?

This is not me (OP).

Let me switch over to my laptop for this one; I'm on my phone at the minute.

Maybe I'm just rational and I'm not willing to assume that my intuition or memories are 100% accurate.

Many things have been explained.

Nothing is explained.

I meant this type of conceptual blanket:

Nothing hasn't been explained.

It hasn't even been defined.

Great explanation.

I didn't need to make the switch in the end.

>precise causes of psychosis, neurotic obsession and narcissism.

The precise causes of psychosis, neurotic obsession and narcissism, including narcissistic personality disorder, are currently unknown.

This lack of understanding relates to this issue

We do not know enough about the brain at this point in time.

Thank you.

Why are there paradoxes in mathematics?
And isnt that a contradiction to your statement that everything in science makes sense?

Mathematics is symbolic logical reasoning.

Paradoxes in mathematics are produced by limitations in the formal logical reasoning capacity of human beings.

They are overcome when somebody proposes a novel - formally logical - approach.

Math is a tool used in science, but it is not science.

So you cannot repeat what it's speculated in the past.

>Math is a tool used in science, but it is not science.
The exact opposite is true, mathematics is the only "science" everything else applies mathematics to model reality to their needs.

Mathematics alone is a true representation of reality and part of nature itself.

Claiming that mathematics is not a true model of reality means to have no sense of reality itself.

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>everything else applies mathematics to model reality to their needs.

Thereafter, these models are tested via experimentation in order to confirm or negate their accuracy.

That's when math becomes science.

>Mathematics alone is a true representation of reality and part of nature itself.

If the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, then you'll be correct.

>Claiming that mathematics is not a true model of reality means to have no sense of reality itself.

It may be possible to create an accurate mathematical model of reality; however, the only way we'll be able to know that is accurate is by testing it.

Mathematical models and structures can be contemplated that may not exist in reality.

Nah, they were correct. You're wrong.

If it cannot be done, it doesn't imply we should accept that as science, sorry.

>So you cannot repeat what it's speculated in the past
>If it cannot be done, it doesn't imply we should accept that as science

user, I replied with a meme because your statement was unintelligible.

Please clearly state what it is you are trying to say.

Mathematic is nature itself they are inseparable at the heart of every science lies mathematics thats why it used everywhere.
No model by biologists,Physicists or engineers can be true to reality only mathematics can achieve that.

A purely mathematical description of reality is not testable it would be like checking a tree if it was really a tree or testing if objects which move really move.

Consider set theory as a basic example of how mathematics models reality.
On a very basic level set theory describes how we see the world.
For example car is a collection of its parts and although that is obviously true if we talk about a car we dont need to talk about everything which is a part of it.

>however, the only way we'll be able to know that is accurate is by testing it.
For a purely mathematical model this is simply not true. There is no need to test if a car is really a collections of its parts. And if we add two numbers together we dont have to check if this is true in reality.

I'm going to stop replying to you now.

OP, why am I in my head? Why do I perceive the senses of this particular body, out of all the bodies in the world? What exact part of my brain am "I"? What part of my brain would you have to remove before "I" was no longer privy to the thoughts and senses occupying it?

Am "I" an atom? Something bigger? Smaller?

your choice. But keep in mind that if you say
>everything scientifically makes sense
you can only argue on the basis of mathematics and if you are unable to explain why a mathematical paradox doesnt contradict you, your statement is simply false and if you can the paradox itself is proof that you are wrong.

Ok I'll reply one last time.

Mathematics is not science; it is symbolic logic, which comes under formal logical reasoning.

Now I'll stop replying.

So to conclude this you simply have no argument except saying that mathematics is no science which I have proven wrong already.

Which is just more evidence that you actually have no idea of science and therefore "things making sense" just means that you have no Idea what you are talking about.

>OP, why am I in my head?

Because that's where your brain is.

>Why do I perceive the senses of this particular body, out of all the bodies in the world?

Because that's where your brain is.

>What exact part of my brain am "I"?

We do not currently understand how the organic structure of the brain produces conscious experience.

See >What part of my brain would you have to remove before "I" was no longer privy to the thoughts and senses occupying it?

There are many parts that appear to result in the loss of conscious, i.e. the cerebellum or brain stem.

However, if regions like the cerebellum slowly erode the neuroplasticity of the brain may allow for significant rewiring to take place, therefore resulting in the functions of the cerebellum being assumed by other regions.

This has been observed in rare cases involving erosion via cerebrospinal fluid build up.

>Am "I" an atom? Something bigger? Smaller?

You are an organic robotic machine.

You are self-aware substructure of the universe.

You are stardust.

:^)

Chock full of cop outs

that is all OP has done.

Ok, it's becoming evident that I can't help but reply to you.

Science is the process of drawing up falsifiable hypotheses through the implementation of informal and formal logic, then testing the predictions made by these hypotheses via experimentation and the gathering of observational evidence.

Therefore, scientific hypotheses may involve formally logical mathematical models.

These models must be tested, in order to confirm or negate their accuracy.

For example, the inflation hypothesis is not considered to be an accurate description of the external reality simply because it relies on logically viable mathematical models.

We must test these models, in order to determine their accuracy.

In the case of the inflation hypothesis, physicists are attempting to do so via the detection of polarized radiation signals resulting from interactions with gravitational waves that began oscillating at the time of the cosmic microwave background formation.

The truth is that there are many things that we currently do not know.

That's not a cop out, it's just how it is.

Can/should identity be reduced to a state of equivalence?

For example, .999999... = 1, but they are very obviously not the same number.

Relativity states that an accelerated reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational field. But even though they are indistinguishable, are they identical?

And can science actually explain the mechanics of all forces in the universe if there exist some parts of nature that are fundamentally unobservable?

Again consider set theory. It is true model of reality and there is no way of test it that wouldnt be obvious from nature itself.

You dont need to test if a subset of a set is in reality a subset.

The difference between physics and mathematics is that physicist want a perfect model, true to reality and mathematicians already have that, on a way more elemental level.

>Can/should identity be reduced to a state of equivalence?
bitches don't know 'bout my homotopy type theory

Not OP, but by definition 0.9999... is exactly equal to 1 and are different expressions for the same number.

You can write 0.5 as 1/2 or as 2/4 but they are very obviously all the same.

>For example, .999999... = 1, but they are very obviously not the same number.

That is mathematics, which is formal - symbolic - logic, not science.

However, this >Relativity states that an accelerated reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational field. But even though they are indistinguishable, are they identical?

They are perceptually identical.

>And can science actually explain the mechanics of all forces in the universe if there exist some parts of nature that are fundamentally unobservable?

If a model that is able to explain the mechanics of the four forces is hypothesized and is thereafter verified by empirical evidence, then yes.

when someone doesn't realize that the function from the set of all possible decimal expansions to the set of real numbers isn't injective...

I find your use of the word "obviously" to be highly objectionable, since you're obviously wrong about that.

>set theory is a true model of reality

This statement is simply not true.

We use set theory as a tool to describe our perception of reality.

This clearly seems counterintuitive to you; therefore, I'll attempt to explain it as simply as possible.

You might think, for example, that you could run the following experiment:

>Take three faggots

>At the same time, have a friend add two more faggots

>Check that the result is five faggots

If there aren't five faggots, you've just falsified addition, right?

No.

What you would have falsified is a physical theory that apples behave in a particular way.

Here is another example for you:

>Suck a cock for three minutes

>At the same time, have a friend suck a cock for two minutes

>Check your watch. Ascertain whether five minutes have elapsed or not.

Oh shit, only three minutes have elapsed!

Don't worry, you haven't falsified mathematics.

What you've falsified is the physical theory that time adds up in the same way that apples do.

That's the difference between science and mathematics.

Science consists of taking the world, translating it into mathematics, and manipulating the math, and then translating it back.

When the science is right, the result matches the world, every single time.

Falsification is what happens when it doesn't.

The back-and-forth translation steps are science

yes, but suppose we discover that certain natural phenomena cannot be described by any material currently known by science.
Should we conclude that if any cause of this phenomena should exist, it would be caused by something that we can't detect, but can explain mathematically based on assumptions? Or should we assume that the mechanics of the 4 forces we already know about are wrong in some way?

I'm not arguing notation, I'm arguing ideals. .9999999... is a number that represents "the number less than 1 which is closest to 1", which linguistically is defined as not being 1. However, using the logical axioms of math will tell you that this number either does not exist, or is equal to 1. Quite simply, mathematics as a language is not advanced enough to describe the number.

Another case is 1-.999999...=0.00000...01 , which is a number which should mean "the closest you can possibly get to zero". But the closest you can get to zero would be zero, according to logic.

So whose fault is this?

What hes saying is that 0.999... is equal to one, but not the same as 1. Like how there is no practical purpose for using 0.999... in any sort of calculation. 0.999... has no applicable use

so ad insults is the best you can get to now? Even your straight denial was a better argument.

Set theory very obviously describes reality in a way no other science can.

You also have given no counter arguments except a demonstration that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I would be extremely surprised if you had even passed high school or even got any formal training in any scientific field.

>suppose we discover that certain natural phenomena cannot be described by any material currently known by science

We expand existing models or develop new ones and then test them.

That's how science works.

>I'm arguing ideals. .9999999... is a number that represents "the number less than 1 which is closest to 1"

No, that is mathematically false.
0.9999... is one expression for the Cauchy series with the limit 1 which by definition means that 0.9999... IS the number 1 there is no difference between the two except different symbols.
This is simply a result of the definition of the real numbers.

>Another case is 1-.999999...=0.00000...01 , which is a number which should mean "the closest you can possibly get to zero". But the closest you can get to zero would be zero, according to logic.

Again by definition the Cauchy series "0.00000...01" has the limit 0 therefore they are the same number. They do not simply have the same value they are the EXACT same.

>However, using the logical axioms of math will tell you that this number either does not exist, or is equal to 1.
No. Mathematical definitions tell you that 0.99999... is 1 exactly like 0.5 is 1/2

>Quite simply, mathematics as a language is not advanced enough to describe the number.
The exact opposite is true 0.9999... is completely well defined as a converging Cauchy series with the limit 1.

Nobody insulted you, user.

>Set theory very obviously describes reality in a way no other science can

Ok, I've already gone over this twice now but let's continue anyway.

The fact that set theory is used to describe reality does not mean that it is reality.

It is a tool used to describe our perception of reality.

It is used to draw up falsifiable mathematical models.

However, those models have to be tested in order for science to take place.

No. 1 and 0.999... are the exact same thing.

>However, those models have to be tested in order for science to take place.
How do you test something that is so obviously true like set theory?

>Quite simply, mathematics as a language is not advanced enough to describe the number.
No, it just means that real numbers don't contain infinitesimals. Look into hyperreals if you want that.

Set theory is a formally logical and symbolic representation of how humans perceive collections of objects.

It is a tool.

You cannot test it; it is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific.

Math is not science; math is formal - symbolic - logical reasoning.

>0.9999... is one expression for the Cauchy series with the limit 1 which by definition means that 0.9999... IS the number 1

No, 0.9999... is "the number closest to 1 which is not 1". I never said anything about Cauchy series or limits, only my idea of what my symbol represents.

In that sense, my idea of 0.9999... describes a completely different number than your idea of 0.9999..., simply on the basis that you have defined 0.9999... to be equal to 1.

If I allow 0.9999... = T, 1+T =/= 2, there is no finite decimal expansion for T. But it's still a number. And its approximate decimal expansion of T is 0.9999.... It is not 1, by definition.

Trying to test set theory is like creating a ruler and then trying to measure if an inch is actually an inch. It's not that you can't test it, you just don't because you will waste your time.

An inch is an abstract concept used by humans to describe the world around them.

You cannot test set theory, as set theory is not a scientific theory; it is a mathematical one.

It is a formalised and symbolically logical representation of how humans perceive the world.

>I never said anything about Cauchy series or limits
>I used real numbers but I never said anything about real numbers

you're retarded

Reminder that ancient Greeks thought they had numbers totally figured out just by drawing lines and shit.

>No, 0.9999... is "the number closest to 1 which is not 1"
BY DEFINITION IT IS NOT.
The real numbers are defined by the limits of converging Cauchy series. A number is a real number if and only if there exists a Cauchy series converging against it, in that case the number is equal to the Cauchy series.

>In that sense, my idea of 0.9999... describes a completely different number than your idea of 0.9999...
Yes and by definition what you think about the number is mathematically wrong.

>you have defined 0.9999... to be equal to 1.
I have defined every converging Cauchy series to be equal to its limit.

>If I allow 0.9999... = T, 1+T =/= 2, there is no finite decimal expansion for T.
There is it is called 2 there is absolutely no difference between 0.9999... and 1 they are the same and if you say they are different you are quite simply wrong.

>And its approximate decimal expansion of T is 0.9999.... It is not 1, by definition.
Again if you say something is a number then purely by definition it is equal to every Cauchy series converging against it.
You cant say (real) number without meaning a Cauchy series converging.

And they accurately predicted the circumference of the earth with it. What the Greeks achieved with just lines and sticks is remarkable.

ITT: Everybody misunderstands science and argues about mathematics.

>Everybody misunderstands science and argues about mathematics.
Implying there is a difference

That doesn't help.

>Implying there is a difference

One is a method for determining wether models correspond to reality.

The other is symbolic logical reasoning.

idiot.

>An inch is an abstract concept used by humans to describe the world around them
So is mathematics

I own a dog.
My dog looks nothing like this dog.
But we both know what a dog is. We also know there are different breeds of dogs, defined by different forms, and described differently by our language. In some languages, there are no words for certain breeds.

So I told you "T isn't 1, but is equal to 0.99999...". If you report back to me that T isn't 1 because ".9999... is 1 according to my formal system of logic, which is merely a symbolic system to describe ideas which obey the conventions that I arbitrarily set up to describe things which obey my formal system of logic's rules", then you are categorically wrong. You are wrong because I described a number which does not exist in your language.

It's the difference between a rough fuck and lovemaking. You'll never know the difference, though, because you always cum in 3 seconds.

>if you say something is a number then purely by definition it is equal to every Cauchy series converging against it.
You cant say (real) number without meaning a Cauchy series converging.

I would like you to reread my posts and note that I did not say "real number".

I posit that you are wrong because T is not what you are referring to as a "real number". It's something else, and apparently you don't know what it is.

>So is mathematics

Yes, yes it is.

what does 0.999999... mean in your made up language then? of course if you make up another language then it might not be equal to 1

the question is whether the real number 0.999... is equal to the real number 1, and yes they are, they're equivalent cauchy sequences

>I posit that you are wrong because T is not what you are referring to as a "real number". It's something else, and apparently you don't know what it is.
You have 2 possible options: Either you accept the way all real and complex numbers are defined, that means if you write 0.9999... you inevitably mean the number 1 OR you begin your post by defining your own number system first.

NO ONE knows what you mean when you write 0.9999... and mean it in a way that is not how it is traditionally defined or commonly known.

Go ahead please tell me how you build up your own personal number system I am genuinely interested. But unless you state it first I cant possibly know what you mean.

Are you a scientist? Do you know the philosophical term used of what you've said?

Can we know everything? Why are there limits in the universe (e.g. the speed of light)?

Holy shit KEK, I forgot, from where was this?

A+B=C and A = C-B, same as your math
Except in mine you're allowed to specifically define a number as being different from another one. This distinction does not exist if you define a number as a general case of a series that asymptotically approaches a number. It would be impossible to define the separation of two objects in a coordinate space as separated by the shortest possible distance.

I could have posted this sooner if Veeky Forums X wasn't shitting itself.

>you're allowed to specifically define a number as being different from another one
this contradicts the "same as your math" part. you can't define the real numbers like this.
the system you're defining fails to have one these properties (impossible to know which because, again, you haven't bothered to define shit) :

> Is a field
> Is totally ordered
> Every bounded subset has a least upper bound

you have explained nothing.
What is a number? How it is defined? How are your operations (+,-,*,/) defined? When exactly are 2 numbers equal? Is it a field? Do you have a norm/a metric or something similar?

What part of "it has a decimal expansion of .999999... and is not 1" did you not understand?

Is this concept impossible for you? That you can have two distinct objects which are very close together, but still distinct? As in not identical? As in different? As in numerically having a difference? As in you subtract 1 from the other and the result is not zero?

brainlets