Can math, logic and reason really explain everything?
Is it like learning the cheat codes for getting what you want in this society we've built?
Everything within the system of reality, probably
>>25986190
No, you also need the natural sciences, but math is the most fundamental science and shapes logic at its very core. Logic cannot be debated, it is cold and hard.
No, syntactic formal logics (first order logic, modal logic) are capable to capture various phenomena, and in particular we can use it to write down physical theories, but it's not even clear to what extend physics can be captures in such a language
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#ConAgaSciReaRes
>>25986208
All my problems stem from being bad at math.
I feel like if it came to you naturally, you'd have more time to solve greater problems and get ahead of everyone else.
No. They are themselves based on axioms that are unprovable. They can only hope to explain a system if their axioms are true but we dont know that.
>>25986208
actually, it can. There are logical fallacies and biases that stem from logic. Rational thinkers often make logical mistakes. There is often a moral discretion involved in making correct decisions. The right or wrong decision could both be entirely logical. This is open to debate. People are not computers.
>>25986208
>math is the most fundamental science
Math is not a science.
It's basically applied philosophy, which also is not a science.
>>25988207
I don't think that imaginary numbers and polynomials are applied philosophy
>>25988280
They all are based on the second most fundamental premise that you have to accept to conduct philosophy, identity. A is A.
even if they did, there's no assurance it could be understood by any human
>>25988207
of course its a science you fucking idiot?
how fucking shit stupid are you?
what the fuck is broken in your head?
>>25988647
How is mathematics a science?
What sort of scientific experiments do you conduct in mathematics?
It's pure reasoning based on axioms, just like philosophy.
>>25986190
The answer you are looking for begins with
>chaos theory
If you want to explain some real life stuff then there's just bounded rationality.
Do LSD and then you tell me
>>25986208
>Logic cannot be debated
http://www.amazon.com/Words-Power-Feminist-Reading-Thinking/dp/0415902002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453654503&sr=8-1&keywords=words+of+power+nye
>>25986190
>math
No, it's quite literally made up shit that adapts to what we need, it doesn't explain the fundamentals since it's not one of them.
>>25986241
Don't be an dumbshit. Math isnt easy for nearly everyone. The people you see/know that are good at math are good because they practice it, alot. Im still shit with strong induction proofs, but i keep practicing.
>>25986190
It can explain pretty much everything physical, which is a hell of a lot better than sandnigger religions
>>25988647
Confirmed retard.
I bet you think medicine and engineering are sciences too.
>>25989948
>It can explain pretty much everything physical
not everything
when you go deeper, as in string theory, our concepts of math and physics begin to break down or don't make sense. there are many things in the universe that cannot be explained yet
>>25990096
I know, but science and logic are a far better explanation than "[YHWH/Allah/Vishnu] dun it"
>>25989910
I would argue some people don't need to practice math to be good at it, namely autists or the like.
My job "requires" a lot of math, but I really don't know it. When I am doing math in my head, it's completely non-verbal and there's no way to translate it into written or spoken words. It's more just pathways firing inside my brain that instinctively know what they are doing while I just sit back and wait for the result. I'm actually better at finding patterns and relationships in numbers than my coworkers that do have training in math, but the catch is I'm an autist and they are not.
>>25990135
Of course.
Still, concepts like superposition are just beyond me. Basically, a subatomic particle can exist in 2 different locations at the same time.
>>25990267
QM is funky, but I can sort of wrap my head around it
M theory and branes and strings and compactified dimensions just fuck my shit up though
Not really. Plenty of everyday occurrences can't be decided by science without some arbitrary inductive choice.
What's the best flavor of ice cream?
Why should(n't) I have children?
What football team should I support?
Scientism is just another religion.
>>25989804
There's something really fucked up about feminism.
I'm beginning to believe it really is some psy-op to destroy human agency and turn us into cattle.
We've got a problem with time. It does not behave as we'd like or assume.
Math and science can describe time somewhat, but not explain it.
>>25990335
Science is a tool, not a belief system. Science can explain the processes and underlying causes of phenomena, not vague, untestable, and nebulous human abstractions
>>25990267
at a high level all super position really just means is that a particle doesn't exist in an exact place until it is observed
coupled with wave-particle duality, it's actually quite simple why superposition exists, ie: wave function collapse
>>25990413
and that's why it's a relatively weak tool for humans on its own.
>>25990413
It's applied to "vague, untestable, and nebulous human abstractions" every day though, which is part of the problem and a subset of OP's original question.
There are plenty of people who think science is the end-all be-all for attaining knowledge, when (like you pointed out) it is not.
>>25990524
weak at dealing with "moral" questions perhaps
philosophy is pretty based, as long as it's not that horrendous special pleading religious people use to "prove" God (which in and of itself as a word describing a concept is incredibly mercurial)
not really dude, im doing a phd in math and im still really autistic so i can't get what i want in this society we built
>>25990581
I've only seen "science" employed in this perverse manner by creationists and their ilk who make baseless assertions and try to redefine concepts and twist scientific principles to fit their narrative
>>25986190
I don't think so, the way I see it comparatively we're like bacteria trying to understand the universe. We've developed far but it's pretty unrealistic to think this one organism is capable of grasping everything
>>25990413
Of course science is a belief system. If you believe nothing, it's impossible to design an experiment. Similarly, after carrying out an experiment, what lessons should be drawn from it? The answer is "peer review," but what that does is expose your results to systematic rather than individual cognitive bias.
I feel like everyone in this thread at the very least needs to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
>>25986190
No, they can explain certain aspects of the physical universe, but they cannot explain everything.
As others have said in this thread, math and the various forms of logic are all based on axioms, that is things that are assumed to be true, but that cannot be necessarily proven true.
Lets take gravity for example. We know it exists. We experience it every day. It affects things on a large scale. We incorporate it into a fair amount of equations that explain other things and we have an idea about some of its properties. Despite all this, we still can't explain what it is with our current knowledge and understanding of math and the physical sciences, its just there. You can also look at stuff like dark matter/energy and the exact way particles work (quantum mechanics is a field that is trying to explain weird phenomena that occur with subatomic particles, but those in the field can't explain why those particles are there and what drives them to do what they do).
And now moving on to the metaphysical. We know that we exist yet we cannot determine what it means to exist or what existence even is. Philosophy, heavily based on logic, attempts to explain and provides various answers, all of which are logical, but we still do not know what existence is. Also, the various forms of formal logic can be used to prove or disprove things, but they can only do this in regards to certain things, but they cannot prove their own assumptions nor what it means to reason.
No actually, they literally mean shit. The most math, logic, and reason can get you is a well paid wagecuck job. The cheat codes to life are social skills.
>>25990849
Semantically, yes, science is a "belief system" in that it makes assertions. It is a framework and algorithm that makes generally reliable and dependable predictions about physical phenomenon and is structured in such a way that theories are only disproven. Cognitive bias is inextricable from any beliefs formulated by humans.
In reality, science and logic and reason and faith are all human abstractions that try to explain the origins and purpose of the universe.
>>25991078
Falsifiability is a dead meme, and Quine killed it. The trouble is, if you have some prediction and you run an experiment that falsifies it, is the prediction wrong because of the particular theory under scrutiny, because of the instruments or methodology or jittery hand, because of your scientific paradigm, or because of "confounds?" Where "confounds" are the creeping inadequacy of scientific methodology.
And what of predictions? They rely on the biggest scientific conceit of them all, that "all are things equal." Formulations of causation (which is what predictions are all about) either fall into "causation is a weird anthropic thing that we'll meme about for a while," or "causation is ceteris paribus." Science hews to the latter interpretation, which is why physics is okay sometimes and why economics is never okay, but it certainly blows a rather large hole in this "science will explain everything" belief.
>>25986190
No, not really anon, because behavior can be difficult to predict at the best of times because of how insanely many variables there are to account for, and unless you're privy to those variables you're fucked.
>>25991511
I never claimed that science is perfect. There are flaws in all schools of thought.
It is, however, a convenient way to explain things that aren't immediately apparent with some semblance of order
Logic can help you win arguments
No seriously. Even on the internet. Sometimes.
It can be a way to boost your self-esteem I guess
I think everything can be quantifie
But at some point the equations are going to get ridiculous
Like uncertainty, boltzmann brain, many others
