Talk:435: Purity - Revision history

Skunkbucket: Added witty comment.

2025-09-04T19:17:21Z

Added witty comment.

SteveTheNoob at 20:58, 5 July 2025

2025-07-05T20:58:04Z

Lordpishky: /* Math vs. Logic */

2024-11-12T16:12:07Z

‎Math vs. Logic

172.70.114.25: /* Math vs. Logic */

2024-05-09T15:59:24Z

‎Math vs. Logic

172.70.162.20 at 21:44, 9 April 2024

2024-04-09T21:44:48Z

172.70.127.40 at 17:57, 9 April 2024

2024-04-09T17:57:43Z

42.book.addict at 18:16, 3 February 2024

2024-02-03T18:16:19Z

172.70.250.60: Math vs Logic

2023-10-23T21:22:10Z

Math vs Logic

Scci0927 at 02:29, 14 February 2022

2022-02-14T02:29:46Z

Scci0927 at 02:24, 14 February 2022

2022-02-14T02:24:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 4 September 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Could one argue that Mathematics is applied Philosophy? [[User:Nsimonetti\|NikoNarf]] ([[User talk:Nsimonetti\|talk]]) 15:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)		Could one argue that Mathematics is applied Philosophy? [[User:Nsimonetti\|NikoNarf]] ([[User talk:Nsimonetti\|talk]]) 15:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	Physex and Mathsturbation! [[User:Skunkbucket\|Skunkbucket]] ([[User talk:Skunkbucket\|talk]]) 19:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

	;Physics and mathematics		;Physics and mathematics

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 5 July 2025
Line 79:		Line 79:
	'course, you ''can't'' stop there was a recurring theme in GEB. Hmm. Can you go 2nd order and prove that metalogics cannot be proven self-consistent and therefore Gödel's proof is suspect... as well as the proof Gödel's proof is suspect is suspect?		'course, you ''can't'' stop there was a recurring theme in GEB. Hmm. Can you go 2nd order and prove that metalogics cannot be proven self-consistent and therefore Gödel's proof is suspect... as well as the proof Gödel's proof is suspect is suspect?
	[[User:Lordpishky\|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky\|talk]]) 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)		[[User:Lordpishky\|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky\|talk]]) 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	I could’ve sworn I’ve seen a version of this with philosophy even further to the right. Can anyone confirm? stevethenoob 20:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 12 November 2024
Line 74:		Line 74:

	I totally agree. Mathematics is just applied Logic. (Perhaps we can go one more step, to say that Logic is just applied Philosophy?) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.25\|172.70.114.25]] 15:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)		I totally agree. Mathematics is just applied Logic. (Perhaps we can go one more step, to say that Logic is just applied Philosophy?) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.25\|172.70.114.25]] 15:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	But you have to stop there. Per my comment `What about metalogics?': `LOOK! THERE ARE NO REAL MATHEMATICIANS WORKING ON THAT!' --St. Carl of Sagan (Yes, it was said in a [quite] raised voice).
		+
		+	'course, you ''can't'' stop there was a recurring theme in GEB. Hmm. Can you go 2nd order and prove that metalogics cannot be proven self-consistent and therefore Gödel's proof is suspect... as well as the proof Gödel's proof is suspect is suspect?
		+	[[User:Lordpishky\|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky\|talk]]) 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 9 May 2024
Line 72:		Line 72:
	==Math vs. Logic==		==Math vs. Logic==
	It should be mentioned that Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach sets logic as being even more pure than mathematics. All mathematical systems can be derived given basic logical precepts. That is how many mathematical/geometrical proofs are structured.		It should be mentioned that Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach sets logic as being even more pure than mathematics. All mathematical systems can be derived given basic logical precepts. That is how many mathematical/geometrical proofs are structured.
		+
		+	I totally agree. Mathematics is just applied Logic. (Perhaps we can go one more step, to say that Logic is just applied Philosophy?) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.25\|172.70.114.25]] 15:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 See Comte's hierarchy of the sciences from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages his law of three stages]: Mathematics; Astronomy; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Psychology; Sociology. --[[Special:Contributions/24.85.241.128|24.85.241.128]] 07:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
-Which is on top? Quantum Physics or Mathematics?
+Which is on top? Quantum Physics or Mathematics? {{unsigned ip|172.70.127.40|17:57, 9 April 2024}}
 In addition to Comte, Randall's tweaking P.W. Anderson's 1972 article "More Is Different." Anderson gives a similar list and then says "But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y*" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, 9 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	See Comte's hierarchy of the sciences from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages his law of three stages]: Mathematics; Astronomy; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Psychology; Sociology. --[[Special:Contributions/24.85.241.128\|24.85.241.128]] 07:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)		See Comte's hierarchy of the sciences from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages his law of three stages]: Mathematics; Astronomy; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Psychology; Sociology. --[[Special:Contributions/24.85.241.128\|24.85.241.128]] 07:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	Which is on top? Quantum Physics or Mathematics?

	In addition to Comte, Randall's tweaking P.W. Anderson's 1972 article "More Is Different." Anderson gives a similar list and then says "But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y*" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202\|108.162.219.202]] 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)		In addition to Comte, Randall's tweaking P.W. Anderson's 1972 article "More Is Different." Anderson gives a similar list and then says "But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y*" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202\|108.162.219.202]] 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 3 February 2024
Line 61:		Line 61:

	First, the terminology: cold science is an observation described with math, that can give stable objective (meaning they could be potentially disproved by an experiment) predictions in a certain range of conditions. Philosophy is an interpretation of science. Math is purely artificial and doesn't require translation, it is pretty much the only abstract symbol system we have now that follows the principle of objectivity, and any solid generalization model requires abstraction by definition. A natural language can't do that because it's subjective, and it's philosophy that is about subjective terms, what do they mean and how do they relate to objectivity and perceived reality. Gather 5 quantum physicists and show them an equation - they will nod agreeably, but ask them to explain it - and they will fight eventually. Despite that, mobile phones work the same way in hands of any person, because that's an applied science, which is roughly equivalent to engineering + inventing. So in that terms the relationship between sciences can be seen as an example of what's called emergence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence], and this concept quite well exists inside any particular science, i.e. in physics thermodynamics is just a generalization of Newtonian mechanics for certain kind of systems (a temperature is a mean kinetic energy of comprising particles, and so on), and mechanics itself is one of generalizations of electrodynamics (things like friction and collision are electromagnetic by nature). The same applies to all other sciences - they just describe different systems of different scales, and most borders become very smeared nowadays, with things like molecular biology, quantum electrodynamics (which is essentially a whole new branch of math), chemical kinetics, ethology and many other continuously evolving cross-disciplinary branches of science. So there's no contradiction here, sciences are different in many aspects but yet they all are reflections of a global pattern, and thus should operate on the same conceptual field. And in this case the contextual field is maths itself. In the end even our subjective descriptions of reality could (and probably would) be represented as a set of math equations, because our brains are nothing more than big calculators, and our language is nothing more than a system of symbols, represented with geometrical shapes and sound waves, and the same ''mathematical'' patterns are repeated all over the different aspects of those. All is one, just like our universe itself. octaharon @ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.212\|141.101.77.212]] 09:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)		First, the terminology: cold science is an observation described with math, that can give stable objective (meaning they could be potentially disproved by an experiment) predictions in a certain range of conditions. Philosophy is an interpretation of science. Math is purely artificial and doesn't require translation, it is pretty much the only abstract symbol system we have now that follows the principle of objectivity, and any solid generalization model requires abstraction by definition. A natural language can't do that because it's subjective, and it's philosophy that is about subjective terms, what do they mean and how do they relate to objectivity and perceived reality. Gather 5 quantum physicists and show them an equation - they will nod agreeably, but ask them to explain it - and they will fight eventually. Despite that, mobile phones work the same way in hands of any person, because that's an applied science, which is roughly equivalent to engineering + inventing. So in that terms the relationship between sciences can be seen as an example of what's called emergence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence], and this concept quite well exists inside any particular science, i.e. in physics thermodynamics is just a generalization of Newtonian mechanics for certain kind of systems (a temperature is a mean kinetic energy of comprising particles, and so on), and mechanics itself is one of generalizations of electrodynamics (things like friction and collision are electromagnetic by nature). The same applies to all other sciences - they just describe different systems of different scales, and most borders become very smeared nowadays, with things like molecular biology, quantum electrodynamics (which is essentially a whole new branch of math), chemical kinetics, ethology and many other continuously evolving cross-disciplinary branches of science. So there's no contradiction here, sciences are different in many aspects but yet they all are reflections of a global pattern, and thus should operate on the same conceptual field. And in this case the contextual field is maths itself. In the end even our subjective descriptions of reality could (and probably would) be represented as a set of math equations, because our brains are nothing more than big calculators, and our language is nothing more than a system of symbols, represented with geometrical shapes and sound waves, and the same ''mathematical'' patterns are repeated all over the different aspects of those. All is one, just like our universe itself. octaharon @ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.212\|141.101.77.212]] 09:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
		+	:Sincerely, Summer Glau [[User:42.book.addict\|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

	[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)		[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 23 October 2023
Line 64:		Line 64:
	[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)		[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
	Logicians: hi.[[User:Scci0927\|Scci0927]] ([[User talk:Scci0927\|talk]]) 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)		Logicians: hi.[[User:Scci0927\|Scci0927]] ([[User talk:Scci0927\|talk]]) 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Math vs. Logic==
		+	It should be mentioned that Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach sets logic as being even more pure than mathematics. All mathematical systems can be derived given basic logical precepts. That is how many mathematical/geometrical proofs are structured.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 14 February 2022
Line 63:		Line 63:

	[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)		[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34\|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
		+	Logicians: hi.[[User:Scci0927\|Scci0927]] ([[User talk:Scci0927\|talk]]) 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 14 February 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:

	Some experts say the universe is a computer. Some other experts say all computers can be hacked. If both groups are right, then it follows that physics is one stack-overflow exploit away from being reduced to applied computer science. [[User:Promethean\|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean\|talk]]) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)		Some experts say the universe is a computer. Some other experts say all computers can be hacked. If both groups are right, then it follows that physics is one stack-overflow exploit away from being reduced to applied computer science. [[User:Promethean\|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean\|talk]]) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
		+	Logicians: hi.
		+