ITT: We tell ourselves the truth that hurts us the most. It will apply to others

>You knew from a young age you weren't going to do anything big, yet you continue to struggle aimlessly in grad school trying to make someone of yourself. You try so hard to be smart because that's the only compliment anyone's ever given you. You'd probably be happier working a normal 9-5 office job right now.

>implying I implied that at all
I said that the randomness means that different situations will arise and wont be "pre determined". It would mean that we are able to be in a different situation than would be "determined"

all of my this... right in the feels...

>I said that the randomness means that different situations will arise and wont be "pre determined"
then you are completely missing the point of my first statement. "free will" can not possibly exist.

no one cares, you fucking 13 year olds... you're arguing semantics

Define free will.

bending physics to achieve a desired outcome with nothing but your mind

pretty much.

I have never considered myself particularly avant-garde.

Thats a very poorly defined and snobbish definition, I just thought it meant being able to have a situation that wasn't determined by natural order.

>a very poorly defined and snobbish definition
you were going to say that no matter what i posted

I think you're projecting.
If sarcasm falls this flat upon you in either in an attempt to be "sarcastic", or a shameful display of honesty then all I can really say is kill yourself.

>god is real and the createst scientists of our time will be damned to hell for not believing in him

Well considering God thinks faith is enough to damn some of the kindest and brightest mind on this earth I wouldn't be rooting for him even if he was real
Satan seems more chill anyways. All the liqor, food, and sex deamons I want

No sarcasm to be found. Perhaps you should stick to descriptors you have a sense of.

Sometimes I think about how cool it would be if Veeky Forums raided /x/. Just go in there and debunk every claim in every thread on all ten pages.

Then I realize that's the most autistic fantasy I've ever had.

>you do not wish to live out a life filled with mediocrity but you lack the desire, will, and courage to strive for greatness as you have no goals, dreams, and aspirations
>this should bother you but any emotion you were capable of once having has been reduced to irreversible apathy
>this truth does not actually hurt, offend, or surprise you in any way whatsoever
>this truth is just the only truth you find evident in yourself now and you will continue to live out your life as you live it now without anything ever changing

It's not apathy. Just rationality.

Greatness is out of your control. It requires the right genetics and/or upbringing. If you are a mediocre adult I don't think it's possible anymore to become great.

>Your field of work does not necessarily require a degree and can be learned on line with google and yet you continue to pursue a degree in said field out of fear of rejection and failure, incurring thousands of dollars in debt with no guarantee of being able to pay it off

delete this

If Christianity was actually true then Hell wouldn't even be controlled by Satan and it would be a place of unending torment of some kind in which you would probably have no fun or meaningful contact with anybody.

>I actually think more about religion than science

Choose one

So you either go to a place where no fun is allowed for all of eternity and you're treated as a slave with strict rules. Eternal boredom and only interacting with people who share your beliefs like some kind of sickening hugbox with no room for disagreement. Or you can go and be tortured for all of eternity feeling nothing but pain to the point of becoming numb. Could anyone tell me why anyone would want to live in such a universe?

I have a few.

All true for me.

My own contributions:

>When I look at university science nowadays all I can see is a litany of unimportant shit of no consequence with a tiny sprinkle of substantive projects that brighter people get to work on

>Going into science made me depressed because I ended up realizing that the academic journal system is shit, and that television and print media is still 100 times shittier.

>I view having a STEM-related occupation subconsciously as an entitlement and I would literally feel like fucking killing myself if I did a "low-IQ job".

>I pretend not to care about social things but in reality what keeps me drudging through this nightmare are thoughts in the back of my mind about people from my high school finding out that I didn't make it in the scientific world and what they would think of me. I also keep going because I was one of the "token smart people" in my grade and a few of the other "token smart people" are achieving advanced STEM degrees and my petty tendency for wanting to keep social standing amongst my former HS classmates is literally a motivator for what I do.

>For my entire graduate career thus far, I have not wanted to do one second of any of the work I have done. Whether it be classwork or research, pushing through the work is pure suffering.

>I fear that I will fail, fall into the underclass, and then die without having any children because I view my only possible social value as possibly making lucrative money from a STEM job; because I am not sexually attractive, genuinely kind, caring, helpful, or impressionable.

>I have fantasized about just quitting and blowing all of my remaining money on a fruitless road trip through the western US more than I have fantasized about making a scientific breakthrough during my time in college.

What makes you think that God would make it this way?

Obviously if you're "saved" in Christianity then the glory of God is going to feel like the best thing ever. There is no evidence in Christian eschatology that heaven is "eternal boredom".

There is also no evidence that the Christian formulation of hell involves the intensity of the pain, whether through psychological or physical means, decaying. The nature of the pain is debated but God, being all powerful, could just make sure it's "fresh all the time".

This PhD is a waste of time. Your PI will never take your ideas seriously but will take all the credit when they get published. Your PI doesn't know any mathematical techniques used in the last 20 years, he just pretends to. He doesn't care about your thesis, he just wants to keep you around as cheap labor for setting up equipment and collecting data. You are shaving years off of your life working for what basically amounts to minimum wage. You would have been happier if you went to law school or med school. You are an idiot for not cashing in that 172 LSAT. One day, you will die.

what am i looking at here?

There is no point in living life as though it were a race to the finish line. Just get done and make the most of it.

SHUT UP. JUST SHUT UP!!!!! FUCK OFF!!!

>I just thought it meant being able to have a situation that wasn't determined by natural order
Nope. Just because it wasn't pre-determined doesn't mean you were able to exert any 'will' over it.

Hello me.

Well, fuck you.

Almost. With the difference i always thought i was going to do sth big, but turns out it is not happening no matter how hard i try.

>Or you can go and be tortured for all of eternity feeling nothing but pain to the point of becoming numb.
The point when suffering becomes so unbearable that your ego can't take it any more, and you realise that both the suffering and the ego are illusions, is where you become free. This is one thing Christians got wrong (^:

I wish I could tell you what it is like. To feel like you're truly working towards something good. To think that you will make a difference, not only in your own eyes but in the eyes of the world.

But the world isn't watching. It never is. Instead we're locked in damp basements working grueling hours on something which in all likelihood will be insignificant and ignored by our peers. Because that is the harsh reality that comes with doing science. For years you will feel like what you do makes no difference. The stress and the pressure slowly building up to a point where you feel like you just can't take it anymore, only to be taken away temporarily by some minor achievement like getting another degree, or a publication in that slightly higher up journal you've been hoping for.

But it always returns. That lingering sense of insignificance. The realization that everything you do, however brilliant it may seem to your close or even distant colleagues, is incomparable to things which have been done before you. Even if you make it you will feel like it was all just luck. That you happened to be in the right place at the right time. That that tenured position wasn't really right for you, but you got it anyway, for no apparent reason.

Years beyond, when you are widely regarded as an expert in your respective field you will still have that feeling. That you do not really know what you are doing. That it was all luck which brought you there. That you are an impostor, living the life of someone else.

But this isn't true. You will not be an impostor. What you have been working on, however minor the problem may seem, has relevance. Everyone before you likely felt the same way. You cannot become great by trying to be great, but by wanting to do something with such a conviction that you become great in the process. Remember this in your years to come. It will comfort you. I wish someone had told me.

Well, I hate how much I love mathematics and wants to change to EE because I hate academia and I don't want to be a professor. But at the same time I fear that even if I became an Engineer, I may miss all the passion of doing mathematics or even not getting a job and being poor my whole life. Fuck I hate this. I envy rich people because they can just waste their live studying for the enjoyment of studying, not because you are in a university/research team, and not care about not having money.

In 2016, the notion of a **theorem** is taken seriously in a few languages for deduction, what is called **deductive formal languages**.

Given a language formalizing what people think is the **deductive reasoning**, let us say the **classical logic**, what is a **(mathematical) theorem** ?

-The notion of **theorem** appears only after you choose a **theory** that you decide to express in your logic (for deduction).

-This theory is explicitly a bunch of **statements** which are called **axioms**.
the requirement to be a theory is that **some humans** must be able to tell whether a given statement is an axiom or not. (in 2016, nobody knows what **some humans** means)

-what is a theorem inside a theory expressed in some logic of deduction ?

BY DEFINITION of a theorem, given a theory expressed in some deductive logic, a **mathematical theorem** is the last statement of a **finite sequence of statements**, where EACH statement is **valid**, which means that each statement of this sequence is either:
-an axiom of the theory OR
-a statement got from the application, on a statement in the sequence, of the inference rules of the logic that **the human** has chosen

THERE IS NO OTHER DEFINITION OF A THEOREM IN 2016.

Now that everybody had their first look at the deductive formal logic, let's look at the Maxwell equations in classical mechanics or even the quantized version.

-get up in the morning
-to deflect your fear of your suicide, before the vacuity of your existence and the failure of your choices to make you happy in finding a sustained relevancy of your puny life, choose to cling to some fantasy that doing physics is great because it connects you to the **secrets of the universe**
-look at what other people are doing
-see that they talk about a formalized result, which they call maxwell's equations, that they have got through **inductive reasoning**

-ask yourself ''how can I derive these equations in a valid way ?'' inside some mathematical theory
-choose to work with the inference rules and the syntactical rules of what is called the **classical logic of deduction**
-choose some axiomatization of the mathematical theory which is called **differential geometry**
-notice that your maxwell's equations [ME] are deduced, in a valid way, from some statements which are expressible in the theory of differential geometry in classical logic
like here physics.stackexchange.com/questions/119604/recovering-all-of-maxwells-equations-from-the-variational-principle
in a typical formalization that is here ncatlab.org/nlab/show/electromagnetic field
-look whether this new statements can be theorems of the theory of differential geometry in classical logic
-amongst the new statements, turn into axioms the few statements, for which you fail to provide a demonstration [typically, the existence of the lagrangian and the existence of the action of the U[1] group]
-because you choose the classical logic, you choose to take seriously the principle of explosion and contradiction, check whether these new axioms render inconsistent the theory of differential geometry in classical logic
--if the inconsistency appears, you failed and you pray very hard to find a new explanation of the events that you have chosen to explain [or publish your work as a ''negative result'']
--if there is no inconsistency, you have created a new theory, that you can call ''bare differential geometry in classical logic+ME'', but since it is only an extension of a famous theory, stick to the claim that you invented few new axioms which are consistent with the usual model of differential geometry in classical logic

-your next task is to find fruther deductions to turn the few new axioms [typically, the existence of the lagrangian and the existence of the action of the U[1] group] into theorems; for this, you will likely need a new mathematical theory, possible even a new formalization of the deductive reasoning.

Why all these confusions by undergraduates and by the graduate above ?
Because nobody on earth has a clue on what physics is about and because none of these people have learned formal logic, because very few mathematicians learn logics and very few physicians learn mathematicians and logics.
** what does ''to explain'' means in 2016 ? **

In 2016, this question relates to the meme questions
-''is it possible to do physics without mathematics?''
-''is it possible to do physics without logics?''
-''is it possible to do mathematics without logics?''

A few people seek a deductive framework precisely because they cling to their fantasy of **necessity, truth, objectivity, reality, universality, universal agreement** once they live a little and notice that theey are miserable.
A few people think that deductions of statements are less personal than **personal opinions**, because the inferences rules are claimed, by their proponents, as **obvious**, or, even better, **necessary**.

To explain **an event** means, in 2016, to:
-formalize this event into some formal statement, first in a natural language
-get a FINITE stream of **deductions**, where the last statement of this stream is your choice of formalization of this event
-invent some deductive logic, which means **invent** some **inference rules** (and syntactical rules), for which the deductions in the aforementioned stream are **valid**
-formalize further your new deductive logic in formal deductive logic
-publish your results
-pray that somebody will look at them

-pray that people who will look at them will not laugh at you, to the point that you pray that people who pay you will continue to pay you
--if a few people adhere to your ''explanation'', enjoy being praised for your ''explanation of the event''
--if people do not adhere to your deductions, claim that this lack of acknowledgement does not matter since, after all, what you did is valid logically and therefore is not a waste of time (and not a waste of money for whoever chooses to pay you)
-get other theorems from your deductive framework
-try to get some strangers to ''validate inductively your mathematical theorems'' through the empty concept of **empirical proof**
-pray again that your deductions are again ''verified empirically''

a few people choose to have faith in the **scientific-mathematical realism**, like here where, still in 2016, they choose to conflate the various formalizations of events with the events themselves, which means that they choose to see as identical the **stream of events** and the various statements inside each of their favourite various deductive models. So for instance, with ME, they say that there is indeed some electric field floating in RL space, interacting with electronic fields, or electrons (it depends on what model you choose to explain the events), in what people call antennas and so on.

...

>you will NEVER have enough funds/time/connections to test your theory in a lab

I like how the last character in the Japanese word represents a hanging man.

I really don't give a shit about anything at all and only pursue advanced education and research positions because I want to become negligibly senescent and continue existing only for my personal brand of hedonism.

> I'll die and there's nothing I can do to change that
> it's gonna be at about 80 tops, not even gonna live a century or anything

>half the reason I went to grad school is because all I know is that I like biology and didn't want to work a 9-5
>everything I attempt to write here is scribbled out by my PI to the point its not even mine anymore
>PI is probably disappointed that I'm not as far along as his last masters student was
>I'm really lonely because my job has no interaction 99 percent of the time just writing and coding and working in a greenhouse
>probably should have just gotten a job

>I think the /x/ meme is kind of funny

good shit, keep it up senpai

>Playing the spergy-kid-who-doesn't-realise-his-own-limitations card to sound intelligent
Wew

the most scary thought of all

>the educated sect of my family has completely ostracized me and I will never be part of their social circle

hurts man but it's all my own doing

plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

different user, doesn't matter what your point was, you don't know what sarcasm is