If one wants to reach his brain potential(I know how cliche it sounds) is studying only math and philosophy the best thing to do? And I'm not saying that you should forget about stuff like Arts, I think they are important too(especially music and literature) but your main focus should be on Philosophy and Math
Philosophy and Math
Parker Miller
Other urls found in this thread:
Jayden Gray
physics too
Carter Morris
I thought about that too but is it as pure as the subjects above?
Jayden Myers
only brainlets "focus" and "specialize" in subjects
Andrew Barnes
>>>((("""philosophy""")))
Bentley Garcia
Physics is just math with less rigour
Landon Ramirez
Not you to judge who is a brainlet considering you have atrocious reading comprehension. The goal here is to take from them the most you can so you can use it everywhere.
Blake Butler
atrocious reading comprehension?
>but your main focus should be on Philosophy and Math
hmm...
Christian Cruz
>to reach his brain potential
Really gets your noggin joggin huh?
Aiden Moore
there's not much argument against understanding existence itself, so a thorough philosophical education is a must for having a good grasp on reality. however, mathematics are an artisan specialization. scientific results derived with mathematics can be understood without comprehending the mathematics involved in building the conclusion, it's not something you need to know in the same sense that you don't need to understand the ceramics industry to shit in a toilet. it's a tool used in science, but on it's own is pure abstraction and has nothing to do with reality. divisions, categorizations, metrics are all arbitrarily defined. philosophy is what deals with reality, science is a method of philosophy, mathematics are a tool of science.
that doesn't mean studying mathematics is "pointless". if you're interested in it, you might as well study it like anything else you're interested in, such as geology, birds, or the vietnam war. it's also useful as an artisan trade, similar to knowing how to operate a forklift or design software. it just isn't necessary knowledge for understanding reality itself any more than knowing how to use a microscope is a requirement for understanding microbiological data. you can let someone else do the work. focus on philosophy to understand logic and the various arguments of existence, as well as how science derives information and the results of scientific exploration. you don't have to reinvent the wheel to understand how it works.
Christopher Fisher
>mathematics are a tool
Henry Bailey
You focus on mathematics (with some computer science,mostly programming) first. Math is the language of the universe and being able to write decent programs helps you implement solutions for problems our slow brains can't solve on their own.
Now that you're not a brainlet anymore, you can do whatever you want really. Go specialize.
Owen Miller
Here in France studying maths/philo is a common thing to do, and it's what I'm doing. We have something called "double licence"; basically the major/minor system, except on paper neither is lesser than the other and it's as if you took both as majors. In reality, it usually means one if not both of the fields you studied in will be botched through, and will require extra work on your behalf to be mastered at the same level as someone who studied it properly. I was lucky: in my university, maths are not neglected and the professors are good, so I only have to do philosophy on my own.
My timetable does overlap with the pure math and applied math spergos every now and then, and when I interact with them, they all seem considerably more autistic than the guys in my class; this would be understandable if they were at least better at math than us (because they can focus on it and have more hours of classes in it, too), but that isn't even the case.
Gavin Garcia
>Math is the language of the universe
math is the language we use to describe things relative to other things in the universe. it is not inherent to it.
Austin Gonzalez
>scientific results derived with mathematics can be understood without comprehending the mathematics involved
I think you ment to say:
[math]\text{I dont need to know the precise implications in order to get the feeling of knowing whats going on}[/math]
Also: if you dont see the real life meaning of what a metricspace is then you didnt understand the subject.
the notion of distance is not an arbitrary notion.
Furthermore, to claim that mathematics is a tool for science says more about science than it does about mathematics.
science needs math.
math does NOT need science.
Yes math can be practices for the sheer joy of practicing math. but lets not forget that this makes math even more valuable. Because if people want to study math, they are willing to buy books about it. there are industries build around this.
You cant argue that nothing but science has value for understanding the world, while defining the world to be that which is described by science.
one might aswell argue that there is no point to trying to understand the world because our stay here is temporary and that the goal in life should be the improvement of Eudaimonia.
>YOU ARE JUST CHOOSING AN ARBITRARY GOAL AND THEN SAY EVERY OTHER GOAL IS INFERIOR TO IT> OR A TOOL TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOAL.
have you ever considered that there are also people who think science is nothing but a tool used to justify your decisions?
TOOL implies USED TO ACHIEVE GOAL
what the GOAL is, is CHOSEN ARBITRARILY.
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A KEK SOCKING ENGINEER DOESNT MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT IT!! FUCK YOU I LIKE MATH AND WILL PROBABLY GO FOR 300K STARTING WHILE YOU ARE SUCKING FAT DIKS ON A CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR FREE> REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Jayden Bennett
>implying mathematics is the syntax of mathematics.
Jace Lopez
>I don't need to know the precise implications
the implications are part of the results. you do not need to know how to use a sextant to understand how navigation works.
>the notion of distance is not an arbitrary notion.
any metric of distance is arbitrarily defined. any reason to record distance is arbitrary. you can only describe a thing relative to another thing using an artificial metric. that metric does not stem from the thing in itself.
>science needs math.
there are a multitude of experiments requiring no mathematical formula. you can apply mathematics to the experiment i.e. statistical analysis, but only arbitrarily, and statistical analysis is a subjective concept.
>math does NOT need science.
mathematics is only an end to itself without science. a cloud of abstract patterns.
>there are industries build around this.
I don't see how people buying stuff has anything to do with a mathematics education being required to understand the universe.
>You cant argue that nothing but science has value for understanding the world, while defining the world to be that which is described by science.
you don't need to understand mathematics to understand the world any more than you need to understand metallurgy to use a spoon. there is not a single scientific concept in the world that requires mathematical knowledge to be understood, only logic. that does not mean that math wasn't required to initially bring the concept into light, but once illuminated, it can be understood without the process.
you don't need to invent the wheel to understand how it works.
the rest of your post is a series of straw man and ad hom arguments. you might not have made this mistake had you studied philosophy and logic.
Camden Cooper
did you just claim that the universe is equivalent to mathematics? that's awfully religious of you.
Daniel Gray
Math is the set of all languages anyone can use to describe anything in a way that is logically consistent in itself.
If the universe can be described in a way that is logically consistent in itself, then there exists (at least) one subset in math, that can accurately describe the universe.
If there's something we can't solve with math yet, it just means we have to "create" a new subset of mathematics (see Shinichi Mochizuki's work on the abc conjecture).
Jayden Cox
yes. as I've said, math can be used to describe the universe, but is in no way the language of the universe. that is an unfalsifiable claim.
Jacob Ross
It's based on the premise, that the universe can be described in a logically consistent way and that premise is falsifiable by quantum physics for example.
Jaxon Adams
>is studying only
No. Stop. Rethink how you make your questions.
youtube.com
Jordan Phillips
the universe being able to be described in a logically consistent way =/= mathematics is inherent to the universe
Nathan Thompson
if you had a better understanding of mathematics you would understand that logic is formalized withing mathematics.
also if you had a better understanding of philosophy you would understand that your teleological argument assumes understanding the world to be the ultimate goal.
This goal is of course disputable.
>there is not a single scientific concept in the world that requires mathematical knowledge to be understood
False, basicly the entire field of physics and astronomy requires math to be understood.
>you don't need to understand mathematics to understand the world any more than you need to understand metallurgy to use a spoon
not needing metallurgy to use a spoon is more an argument against science.
[math]\text{You are stuck in your own dogmatism. And fail to accurately distinguish between logical conclusions and axiomatical assumptions.}[/math]
Julian Sanders
im just arguing that what we write down is not the topic itself, it is only a representation.
>pic related
actually coming up with new math is more than just symbolical manipulation.
Thomas Watson
Pure logic is an idol. Do you want to achieve pure logic without ability to put it to practice?
Also philosophy is not pure, it pursues the same objectives and would be science if scientific method could handle that problem domain. It's inherently practical. It mostly has good redpilling stuff and good for general education and important for science, but you can't get much from it in terms of logic. Math and IT have much more of it.
Juan Powell
>if you had a better understanding of mathematics you would understand that logic is formalized withing mathematics.
the opposite is true. I think you are confused because of how logic is categorized in an academic class catalogue. logic can be applied to things that is not math, such as language and phenomena, whereas all of math is subject to logic. this is some basic stuff, s m h. all of math is underneath the umbrella of logic, whereas not all of logic is underneath the umbrella of math, similar to how a rattlesnake is a reptile but not all reptiles are rattlesnakes.
>you would understand that your teleological argument assumes understanding the world to be the ultimate goal.
straw man. I never claimed this, I simply said that if that's what OP wants, this is what he should do.
>False, basicly the entire field of physics and astronomy requires math to be understood.
name a single concept that cannot be understood without mathematics. I've had this argument and played this game before, nobody has been able to bring anything into question, from relativity and time dilation to p-adic. these things only require logic to be understood, the mathematics behind them are arbitrarily defined.
>not needing metallurgy to use a spoon is more an argument against science.
it's an analogy. you do not need to be able to procure mathematics abilities to understand science the same that you do not need to be able to operate a printing press to read a book.
>you are stuck in your own dogmatism
explain how, so far you only seem to be able to say things that are wrong, make claims with no supporting argument or make fallacious arguments.
>and fail to accurately distinguish between conclusions and axiomatical assumptions
where have I done this? quote me. I think you are just saying things.
Easton Peterson
science and logic are both methods of philosophy.
Leo Green
Logic is outside of both philosophy and math.
Ethan Lee
Study cognitive science, it's focused on studying the way the human brain works and implementing it mostly in computer science. Cognitive science consists of psichology, philosophy, evolution, computer science and linguisticks. It's interesting af.
Aiden Richardson
that is a very ignorant thing to say, and literally(actually literally) no philosopher agrees with you. logical positivism isn't even remotely universally accepted in the field. logic was formulized in an attempt to demonstrate consistency and inconsistency as a tool for interpreting existence, which by very nature is philosophy, just like science.
Robert White
No you need systems thinking
Ecology is the best way to train that tbqhwmho
Ecology also has large overlaps with math and philosophy
Carter Hill
this is actually a good thing to mention. understanding dynamic situations with a multitude of variables is a much more complex area of thought than more static fields based around logical consistency.
Sebastian Torres
>I think you are confused because of how logic is categorized in an academic class catalogue
No I am not. the mathematical formalization of logic does not restric logic to be aplicable to math. It describes logic as a subject without any context in which it is used. so applicable to all subjects (including math, but also all others)
>straw man. I never claimed this, I simply said that if that's what OP wants, this is what he should do.
Indeed you didnt claim it explicitly and OP didnt claim it either. But there is an implicit assumption about the importance of science in your argument.
>name a single concept that cannot be understood without mathematics. I've had this argument and played this game before, nobody has been able to bring anything into question, from relativity and time dilation to p-adic. these things only require logic to be understood, the mathematics behind them are arbitrarily defined.
Special relativity becomes verry difficult to understand without math, you could write it out in plain words I suppose, like mathematicians did back in the old days, but symbolical mathematics establishes the same reasoning and does it in allot less ink. This is because the syntax is just an other language. I can write the same poem in russian and english, they look different but are identical.
>it's an analogy. you do not need to be able to procure mathematics abilities to understand science
If you dont understand statistics, you might get the impression you understand the results, but that is an superficial understanding. with statistics in particular, this easily leads to wrong conclusions. As statistics and probability can be extremely counter intuitive.
>you are stuck in your own dogmatism :explain how
You keep arguing that Mathematics has no inherent meaning because of its arbitrary notions. While not realizing the strenth of arbitrarity.
If something holds for some arbitrary case, then it holds for every case!
...cont...
Owen Perry
...
Levi Wilson
...cont...
See pic related,
It is a harvesting bifurcation diagram.
It depicts equilibrium solutions to an dynamical system (topic in math) which is used to describe the population of a species that is being hunted for food.
ofcourse we can philosophise about what the amount of hunting does to the population, but in order to know how much we can hunt, we need to quantify.
[math]\text{These systems are notoriously sensitive! slight changes in the harvesting rate might change the entire system from survival to extinction.\\ These changes are quantitative. and these quantities are not arbitrary, as the number of animals hunted has a real life meaning. }[/math]
This is a subject you might think you could understand without math, but you will not be able to accurately predict the outcome of your actions without math. And therefore, require math to fully understand the system.
Ethan Walker
Network science is where it gets into real detail
Joshua Myers
forgot pic
Lincoln Hall
you have now directly contradicted yourself. first you say:
>"logic is formalized within mathematics."
then:
>"logic is applicable to all subjects (including math, but also all others)"
how can I take you seriously when you cannot remain consistent?
>But there is an implicit assumption about the importance of science in your argument.
perhaps you hold an incorrect assumption based on subjectivity.
>Special relativity becomes verry difficult to understand without math
but it can be understood. you have contradicted yourself again. first you say that the entire field of physics and astronomy require math to be understood, now you say that these things can be described with "plain words". how can I take what you are saying seriously when you cannot remain consistent?
>If you dont understand statistics
there is no way to interpret statistics without subjectivity unless the data is 100% consistent.
>You keep arguing that Mathematics has no inherent meaning
straw man, quote me saying this.
the chart requires nothing but logic to be understood. you do not need to understand mathematics to know the quantities that are in question. someone does, the same as someone needs to know how to operate a forklift or price stocks on a shelf for you to eventually get your top ramen. however, once the work has been done, and the logic demonstrated, you can understand the quantities involved without having done the mathematics yourself. obviously. this applies to the entire field.
on a side note, you cannot accurately predict the future unless you are a magical genie. you can only speculate. choose your words more carefully, I could accuse you of arguing pseudoscience if I wanted based on this.
understanding how the results came about is not in question, it's the results that are in question. you do not need to understand the process in order to be able to comprehend the results.
Angel Howard
>thread about philosophy and math
>ctrl+f badiou
>no results
Before, I wasn't sure of whether or not Veeky Forums was mostly brainlets.
Now I know.
Bentley Jones
>logic is applicable to all subjects (including math, but also all others)"
how can I take you seriously when you cannot remain consistent?
NO NO NO, you fail to understand my argument, The way that logic is formalized withing mathematics, is in such a way that it can be applied to any subject. all of them
The mathematical formalization of logic is universal.
>Special relativity becomes verry difficult to understand without math
again you fail to see the point. You could describe the equations with words. it has been done so for ages. but that still makes it mathematics. and therefore these fields require math to be understood.
>there is no way to interpret statistics without subjectivity unless the data is 100% consistent.
yes there is, statistics is a very rigorous mathematical study. you do not need data to be 100% consistent because thats not required. statistics proves that asymptotically, results converge to a true expectation. this in turn tells you in what range you can expect the outcome of experiments to lie. but without a full understanding of math you wont be able to benefit of these properties.
>straw man, quote me saying this.
"these things only require logic to be understood, the mathematics behind them are arbitrarily defined."
>implying arbitrary definitions are meaningless.
"any metric of distance is arbitrarily defined. any reason to record distance is arbitrary. you can only describe a thing relative to another thing using an artificial metric. that metric does not stem from the thing in itself."
>any metric is arbitrarily defined.
Not true. example: Manhattan cityblock metric.
a distance is just a measure, ofcoure i can choose any distance to have a length of one and then compare the other distances to it. but this is inevitable in every aspect of life.
One can not determine what good is, if we dont have a notion of evil. ( cartesian dualism).
Comparing is essential
Nathaniel Butler
>the chart requires nothing but logic to be understood
The chart requires math to be constructed,
Do you think its given like that?
animals come up to you and give you the chart?
Asher Sanders
lol what the fuck badiou is an irrelevant hack who contradicts himself
Blake Watson
>The mathematical formalization of logic is universal.
this is false. logical sequences in traditional spoken languages are not mathematical in nature whatsoever.
>You could describe the equations with words.
you could describe relationships with logic. no mathematics are required. you have yet to name a concept that cannot be comprehended without mathematics.
>you do not need data to be 100% consistent because thats not required.
if your data is inconsistent, and you think that the inconsistency is negligible enough to make a claim, that is your opinion. there is nothing objective about statistical analysis, from the amount of inconsistency allowed, to the amount of times an experiment should be ran. no true scientist thinks the scientific method produces truths.
>implying arbitrary definitions are meaningless.
no, that is your inaccurate opinion of what I am implying. mathematics can show static relationships, the metrics involved are arbitrarily defined. you rely on straw man arguments too much, though this doesn't surprise me because I don't think you've had a formal logic education given your understanding of it relative to mathematics.
>Not true. example: Manhattan cityblock metric.
manhattan city blocks are constructed in arbitrary premise.
>Comparing is essential
I never claimed it wasn't.
>The chart requires math to be constructed,
but does not require math to be understood. did you even read my post? I've been over this.
Parker Walker
Looks like someone's mad they can't illustrate their views on totality, historical events, the place of the working class in civil society, and critique structuralism with 200 pages of set theory.
Noah Williams
but I can. I just don't in a way that's unfalsifiable much of the time and occasionally contradictory in reasoning, and wouldn't because a couple of those things are warping and webbing social constructs and are irrelevant to my interests. he's got some serious realism vs relativism issues and is all over the place on the subject of truth.