Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature...

no he is wrong

Nietzche was too focused on the big picture, as many philosophers are.
They only care bout world view.
They have little to know skill in micro.
Its all just data to be summarized into some macro.
Nietzsche was a shut in and never left his country.
If he had travelled to see certain rock formations, crystalls etc...
He would have made sure to edit that line out of the gay science.
Or tried to burn every copy he could get a hold of.

>Nietzsche was a shut in and never left his country.
holy shit and you say other people have microknowledge

and crystals STILL don't have straight lines! Go down far enough and everything turns into fuzzy fields of forces, atoms vibrating, electrons popping in and out of existence, and so on and so on.

What the fuck is this thing supposed to be?

im sure theres some level/segment of these things that are indeed straight lines, or straight portions of lines.

No.
Math evolved from practical applications for dividing land, counting cattle and collecting taxes.

一項民意幾度從內省的分離

Attached: 164536-3-800x421.jpg (800x421, 55K)

No. Theories are *approximations* of reality.

Gooks back to

There can't even be a mathematical line in reality, because you need a point, and there are no points in reality either, atoms have a fuzzy volume. You have to place the point, and you're then dealing in abstractions. And don't they tell us even space is curved, so even our mathematical line between two imaginary points would be imperceptibly bent and crooked?

The basis of all math and all abstraction is the concept of equivalence. Remove equivalence, and all of math will crumble to dust.

But equivalence doesn't exist in nature - there are no two completely equal dollar bills, human beings, even molecules, atoms and any other subparticles - they all exist in a different time and place. The basis of equivalence is turning a blind eye to the differences and only take some properties of an object in account.

So, without imprecision of the human perception, there is no equivalence, and thus no mathematics.

Attached: animegirlcrying01.png (1280x1079, 1.01M)

You don't need abstract geometric constructs for science when the abstract stochastic constructs we developed works just as well.

Considering that mathematics is not based in or in tandem with reality but instead can be utilized to describe reality, he's entirely wrong. Nietzsche and most philosophers were idiots.

>But equivalence doesn't exist in nature
What about Boson particles mathfag?

>Boson particles
Explain to me how two Boson particles can be one and the same.

He said come into existence, not be used.

They can occupy the same quantum state space, thus have precisely equivalent properties.

What makes them stop having precisely equivalent properties?

Then how do you know there are two of them and not one? I never studied physics so I'm asking out of curiosity.

Quantum field interactions.
Energy measurements.

Then they are not the one and the same. If they were one and the same, they would have the same quantum field interactions and energy measurements. They are clearly different particles.

check

mate

>they would have the same quantum field interactions
They do. It is perfectly indistinguisable which particle interacts.
> and energy measurements.
They do. Nigger do you know what quantum state means?

Motherfucker we aren't done yet.

SWEET SWEET PORCO DIO TATATATATA
HOMMY ALLYBAMMY LALALA
SWEET SWEET PORCODIO

platonic forms are a philosophically incoherent concept

idiot, clearly early mathematicians knew that circles were only approximated in nature

>there are people today who still read philosophy
Why? Do you gain anything worthwhile from it? I haven't.

Yes, it helps me to show those fuks at Veeky Forums why they're fucking retarded.

Yeah, anyone else really fr**king love science? It's epic for the win!

>Nietzsche

Attached: 1518641497717.jpg (300x300, 24K)

Nah, might have been less influence by retarded memes though. It was necessarily to run countries even 2 thousand years ago, it has only become more pertinent.

This, basically. I initially thought it was worth pursuing but I've realised it's almost all hollow trash. People throw it around though, as though it means something, so it's best to be familiar with to an extent.

>This, basically. I initially thought it was worth pursuing but I've realised it's almost all hollow trash. People throw it around though, as though it means something, so it's best to be familiar with to an extent.
Literally the only thing I got out of philosophy is knowing the names and ideas of people that pseudointellectuals often discuss. I didn't gain any real insight to myself or the world around me. In fact, science and math textbooks have been more transformative in my life.

I can't tell if this conversation is beneath me or above me

all significant activity in the universe takes place in a discrete fashion, not a vague one

and to suggest that numbers, the invention of the intellect, itself a singular and discrete reality, is somehow secondary to the degrees which exist in reality is harmful humility, it's better to observe the universe as a subset of the mind, rather than a container for it, because that's the way it ultimately works on a functional level

ie mathematics is more real than reality, it could never have been concealed

>what is calculus of variations
Nietzsche was a brainlet

>it's better to observe the universe as a subset of the mind, rather than a container for it
I disagree, it's better to realize that both are true, we can only observe and analyze the universe by having it as a subset of our minds, but at the same time our minds exist inside the universe.

>I can't tell if this conversation is beneath me or above me
>all significant activity in the universe takes place in a discrete fashion, not a vague one
Significantly above you.

This thread goes a long way towards proving Veeky Forums is full of teenage pseudo-intellectuals.

>hurr durr nietzsche is the coolest
>i learn science from people who have never studied it
>i trust brainlets to tell me how the universe works and how to live my life
>amor fati!

>all significant activity in the universe takes place in a discrete fashion, not a vague one
The conversation is above you. So far above you we're talking relativistic scale domains.

I have nothing against science-based Analytical Philosophy, but Continental Philosophy is worse than New Age mysticism. Back to /x/.

This.

samefaggin

Samefag.

I wouldn't say that considering Kant is a continental philosopher

Kant made a synthesis of the worst aspects of Brittish Empiricism and the worst aspects of the continental speculative metaphysics tradition of his time. His subjetivist doctrine influenced many openly anti-science ideologies like existentialism and phenomenology.

>le i fucking love science cultist post

Do mistake serious scientism (defended by many philosophers of science and epistemologists) with leftist SJW obscurantist ideologies.

The "i fucking love science" cult opposes scientism and the naturalist approach to the social sciences. They would also oppose all contemporary naturalist philosophy, if they knew it.

*do not

You bore me. It wouldn't matter if they were. People would just have to believe in them for the quote to be incorrect, which we know they did and do.

Yay! Sharding discord!

Philology professor in Basel at age 24
>never read Plato
kek

>Philosophy
>based on science
>ever
Retard

Attached: 1450547203461.jpg (400x386, 25K)

You are in the wrong board. You find more people thinking like you on /x/.

equivalence (modularity) occurs all throughout nature. other intelligent animals regard objects as discrete, some can even count. basic biological processes like RNA translation and sexual reproduction rely on modularity at many levels. there is ample evidence that equivalence is a real phenomenon.