|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 23:17:15 GMT
No, you obviously don't get it. Nobody here justifies a question. They just ask the question. If you don't understand why epistemology is important, well, I guess that's you then. Especially after all the conspiracy theory nonsense and misinformation during COVID. My response to this is the same as before. I have no idea what epistemology is, but if we were discussing it, I would have no issue asking for clarity. Freon |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 23:28:05 GMT
My response to this is the same as before. I have no idea what epistemology is, but if we were discussing it, I would have no issue asking for clarity. Freon But we are not discussing epistemology, so while I now know it means, it is not the point of this discussion. And we now see the big difference between you and I. I would have asked, and you still have not. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT EPISTEMOLOGY MEANT. I announce to the world I did not know something, lol. Let me check now. Hmm, no broken bones. My breathing appears normal. Heartrate the same. So no ill effects at all, as far as I can tell. I SURVIVED ACKNLOWEDGING I DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING! Hallelujah! Just so I'm totally clear here, I'm mocking you. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 23:36:24 GMT
But we are not discussing epistemology, so while I now know it means, it is not the point of this discussion. And we now see the big difference between you and I. I would have asked, and you still have not. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT EPISTEMOLOGY MEANT. I announce to the world I did not know something, lol. Let me check now. Hmm, no broken bones. My breathing appears normal. Heartrate the same. So no ill effects at all, as far as I can tell. I SURVIVED ACKNLOWEDGING I DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING! Hallelujah! Just so I'm totally clear here, I'm mocking you. Freon The conversation shifted. And all of a sudden we were talking about epistemology. Even though I didn't mention the term. There was no intent to belittle you. Everyone knows something about epistemology, whether or not they know the term. Heck, you made epistemological claims. Nothing wrong with that. No need to get defensive. I wasn't casting any aspersions towards you for not knowing the term. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 23:43:20 GMT
But we are not discussing epistemology, so while I now know it means, it is not the point of this discussion. And we now see the big difference between you and I. I would have asked, and you still have not. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT EPISTEMOLOGY MEANT. I announce to the world I did not know something, lol. Let me check now. Hmm, no broken bones. My breathing appears normal. Heartrate the same. So no ill effects at all, as far as I can tell. I SURVIVED ACKNLOWEDGING I DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING! Hallelujah! Just so I'm totally clear here, I'm mocking you. Freon The conversation shifted. And all of a sudden we were talking about epistemology. Even though I didn't mention the term. There was no intent to belittle you. Everyone knows something about epistemology, whether or not they know the term. Heck, you made epistemological claims. Nothing wrong with that. No need to get defensive. I wasn't casting any aspersions towards you for not knowing the term. Once again, you are trying to derail this thread's topic. I'll ask the question one more time, and if you don't choose to answer, I will assume you have no clue what is going on. WHY is discussing AI souls important? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 23:54:12 GMT
The conversation shifted. And all of a sudden we were talking about epistemology. Even though I didn't mention the term. There was no intent to belittle you. Everyone knows something about epistemology, whether or not they know the term. Heck, you made epistemological claims. Nothing wrong with that. No need to get defensive. I wasn't casting any aspersions towards you for not knowing the term. Once again, you are trying to derail this thread's topic. I'll ask the question one more time, and if you don't choose to answer, I will assume you have no clue what is going on. WHY is discussing AI souls important? Freon That conversation was done. It moved on. You joined the new conversation. Now you seem to resent the shift. Why should I answer why your question is important? Why don't you answer it? |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 11, 2024 0:08:28 GMT
Once again, you are trying to derail this thread's topic. I'll ask the question one more time, and if you don't choose to answer, I will assume you have no clue what is going on. WHY is discussing AI souls important? Freon That conversation was done. It moved on. You joined the new conversation. Now you seem to resent the shift. Why should I answer why your question is important? Why don't you answer it? Perfect. Choice made. Conclusion accepted. Good day. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 13, 2024 21:04:00 GMT
I agree with everything you just wrote Excellent. So you now understand that there is no such thing as a "scientific definition of a proof", since proofs are part of math, not science. Glad we cleared that up. If you think he doesn't know a term, you should explain the term, rather than making up your own definitions. That will make confusion worse, and additionally it will look like you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 13, 2024 21:43:03 GMT
I agree with everything you just wrote Excellent. So you now understand that there is no such thing as a "scientific definition of a proof", since proofs are part of math, not science. Glad we cleared that up. If you think he doesn't know a term, you should explain the term, rather than making up your own definitions. That will make confusion worse, and additionally it will look like you don't know what you're talking about. There is no 'now understand'. A mathematical proof has a definition specific to the SCIENCE of mathematics. Are you saying math is NOT a science? Seriously? Because that is obtuse. As to explaining terms, it doesn't work. They just go out, find some random dictionary with a different definition, and no knowledge is conveyed. They almost NEVER vet their sources, so to them, they are all equal. Know your audience. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 13, 2024 22:59:23 GMT
Excellent. So you now understand that there is no such thing as a "scientific definition of a proof", since proofs are part of math, not science. Glad we cleared that up. If you think he doesn't know a term, you should explain the term, rather than making up your own definitions. That will make confusion worse, and additionally it will look like you don't know what you're talking about. There is no 'now understand'. A mathematical proof has a definition specific to the SCIENCE of mathematics. Are you saying math is NOT a science? Seriously? Because that is obtuse. As to explaining terms, it doesn't work. They just go out, find some random dictionary with a different definition, and no knowledge is conveyed. They almost NEVER vet their sources, so to them, they are all equal. Know your audience. Freon On the contrary, you rarely (if ever?) use dictionary definitions. You reject dictionary definitions for the sake of your own idiosyncratic definitions, some of which you even refuse to elucidate (e.g., your particular definition of "faith"...or...Faith?). Which is just weird. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Jan 14, 2024 23:56:18 GMT
There is no 'now understand'. A mathematical proof has a definition specific to the SCIENCE of mathematics. Are you saying math is NOT a science? Seriously? Because that is obtuse. As to explaining terms, it doesn't work. They just go out, find some random dictionary with a different definition, and no knowledge is conveyed. They almost NEVER vet their sources, so to them, they are all equal. Know your audience. Freon On the contrary, you rarely (if ever?) use dictionary definitions. You reject dictionary definitions for the sake of your own idiosyncratic definitions, some of which you even refuse to elucidate (e.g., your particular definition of "faith"...or...Faith?). Which is just weird. He doesn't even hold to the definitions he does provide. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 15, 2024 22:49:59 GMT
Excellent. So you now understand that there is no such thing as a "scientific definition of a proof", since proofs are part of math, not science. Glad we cleared that up. If you think he doesn't know a term, you should explain the term, rather than making up your own definitions. That will make confusion worse, and additionally it will look like you don't know what you're talking about. There is no 'now understand'. A mathematical proof has a definition specific to the SCIENCE of mathematics. Are you saying math is NOT a science? Seriously? Math is not a science. Science builds models of the operation of the physical universe. Math is an important part of those models, but that is not all math is. There are entire branches of math about things that cannot exist in our universe (at least, not as we currently understand it). For example, mathematicians can theorize about objects extending in infinitely many dimensions. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 15, 2024 23:55:26 GMT
There is no 'now understand'. A mathematical proof has a definition specific to the SCIENCE of mathematics. Are you saying math is NOT a science? Seriously? Math is not a science. Science builds models of the operation of the physical universe. Math is an important part of those models, but that is not all math is. There are entire branches of math about things that cannot exist in our universe (at least, not as we currently understand it). For example, mathematicians can theorize about objects extending in infinitely many dimensions. Polynomials are mathematical objects of infinite dimensions, yet we use them to calculate very real things all the time. In fact they are so omnipresent that without them there'd be no physical science at all. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 16, 2024 0:18:25 GMT
There is no 'now understand'. A mathematical proof has a definition specific to the SCIENCE of mathematics. Are you saying math is NOT a science? Seriously? Math is not a science. Science builds models of the operation of the physical universe. Math is an important part of those models, but that is not all math is. There are entire branches of math about things that cannot exist in our universe (at least, not as we currently understand it). For example, mathematicians can theorize about objects extending in infinitely many dimensions. Can you please explain to me then, why Math is considered a science by most universities. It is not a philosophy major, as it arguably could be, and which its foundations still are (Logic, for instance). It is a science major, as it should be. Here is a question for you. Are mathematical principles discovered, or invented? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 17, 2024 0:06:43 GMT
Math is not a science. Science builds models of the operation of the physical universe. Math is an important part of those models, but that is not all math is. There are entire branches of math about things that cannot exist in our universe (at least, not as we currently understand it). For example, mathematicians can theorize about objects extending in infinitely many dimensions. Polynomials are mathematical objects of infinite dimensions, yet we use them to calculate very real things all the time. In fact they are so omnipresent that without them there'd be no physical science at all. Polynomials have a defined number of dimensions. They are absolute not objects of infinite dimensions. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 17, 2024 0:14:01 GMT
Math is not a science. Science builds models of the operation of the physical universe. Math is an important part of those models, but that is not all math is. There are entire branches of math about things that cannot exist in our universe (at least, not as we currently understand it). For example, mathematicians can theorize about objects extending in infinitely many dimensions. Can you please explain to me then, why Math is considered a science by most universities. Most universities group math with the science and engineering departments, but that's because math majors tend to take a lot of science classes, and science & engineering majors take a lot of math. But once you get past the calculus sequence, the standard "pure" math major gets pretty far removed from the physical universe. Graduate math classes stray even further. Been argued for centuries with no conclusion. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 17, 2024 0:53:20 GMT
Can you please explain to me then, why Math is considered a science by most universities. Most universities group math with the science and engineering departments, but that's because math majors tend to take a lot of science classes, and science & engineering majors take a lot of math. But once you get past the calculus sequence, the standard "pure" math major gets pretty far removed from the physical universe. Graduate math classes stray even further. Been argued for centuries with no conclusion. I see math a bit differently than you. The foundation of all science is math. It is the language and structure that scientists use to describe the universe. And discovery in math uses the scientific method, which is the one requirement necessary to be called a science. And I asked YOU if mathematical principles are discovered or invented. I want to know what YOU think, not the thinking of others you've memorized. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 17, 2024 2:02:48 GMT
Polynomials are mathematical objects of infinite dimensions, yet we use them to calculate very real things all the time. In fact they are so omnipresent that without them there'd be no physical science at all. Polynomials have a defined number of dimensions. They are absolute not objects of infinite dimensions. How many dimensions has the space consisting of all polynomials with real coefficients? |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 17, 2024 23:10:53 GMT
Polynomials have a defined number of dimensions. They are absolute not objects of infinite dimensions. How many dimensions has the space consisting of all polynomials with real coefficients? Infinite. But that is a space, not a polynomial. The set of all mustards is not, itself, a mustard. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 17, 2024 23:25:27 GMT
How many dimensions has the space consisting of all polynomials with real coefficients? Infinite. But that is a space, not a polynomial. The set of all mustards is not, itself, a mustard. If you consider that zero is a number (you do, don't you?) then you must count the terms that have a zero coefficient in addition to the ones with a non-zero one. That means that all polynomials have the same number of dimensions, which is infinite. It's only for practical purposes that we only consider the non-zero coefficients. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Jan 17, 2024 23:40:06 GMT
The foundation of all science is math. It is the language and structure that scientists use to describe the universe. In physics, sure. But physics is just one part of science. Much of biology has not been described particularly thoroughly by math. Yet we wiped out smallpox, discovered antibiotics, and so on. The parts of math that apply to the physical universe do, but there are parts that do not. Trying to prove something like the Riemann Hypothesis does not involve collecting data and hypothesizing about it. It involves making extremely complicated logical arguments based on the axioms of math. Very, very different from science. Having read arguments from many sides, I suspect the question is wrong. I don't think mathematics is based on transcendent, independently-existing objects, like Platonic forms. On the other hand, no sane person argues that 5 is less than 3, and this understanding appears to be hard-wired into how human minds construct our experiences from the data of our senses. Edit for formatting |
|
