/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13521901

680KiB, 1163x691, Gisin.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Hossengoblin BTFO!

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 13:19:09 2021 No.13521901 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13521915 >>13521968 >>13522432 >>13524093 >>13526710 >>13529198 >>13529573

Intuitionistic mathematics proves the existence of free will and the indeterminism of the future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT0XDSe0GyY

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Block Universe wrong.png, 680KiB, 1681x1261

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:24:28 No.13521912 Report

Quoted By:

Can't gibbon the Gisin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFsCenj3nb0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKXRTUUd7E

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Kr6Kr5H.gif, 2MiB, 300x277

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:26:31 No.13521915 Report

Quoted By: >>13521970

>>13521901
>first slide
>comic sans

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:32:38 No.13521926 Report

Quoted By: >>13521970

>another thread relating to unfalsifiable bullshit
we should 5150 these posters for infinite eternities even schizos are more rational

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:50:33 No.13521968 Report

Quoted By: >>13521977

>>13521901
not watching all of that gramps. i agree the entire argument about determinism and diffq is wrong but the point about neurons is still valid

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Intuitionistic stand-point.png, 1MiB, 1368x1030

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:51:12 No.13521970 Report

Quoted By:

>>13521926
>>13521915
Your hagfu has been exposed, watch and despair
>Professor Nicolas Gisin of Université de Genève. After a master in physics and a degree in mathematics, he received his Ph.D. degree in Physics from the University of Geneva in 1981 for his dissertation in quantum and statistical physics. The “Fondation Louis de Broglie” recognised this work with an award.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:52:55 No.13521977 Report

Quoted By: >>13522405

>>13521968
Determinism has no mathematical basis, the most fundamental grounding, the urgrund of maths, had been pulled from underneath it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO LEM btfo.png, 591KiB, 1261x946

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 13:55:25 No.13521985 Report

Quoted By:

Law of the excluded middle BTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 16:22:18 No.13522405 Report

Quoted By: >>13522411

>>13521977
math has no grounding either, it's all axioms. i think in the development of physics it was necessary to assume the axiom of determinism for motion. there you can derive determinism from basic mathematical axioms since an action that doesn't have a cause means work was created out of nothing so in isolated system total work in that system increased aka 1+0=2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 16:24:37 No.13522411 Report

Quoted By: >>13522425 >>13529848

>>13522405
>math has no grounding either, it's all axioms
Delusional schizo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 16:28:42 No.13522425 Report

Quoted By: >>13523383

>>13522411
prove 1+1=2, 2-1=1, 2*2=4, 6/2=3 without using circular reasoning

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 16:31:06 No.13522432 Report

Quoted By: >>13522440

>>13521901
>youtube link
idk why I expected the science board to link research papers more than popsci news blogs and fucking youtube video essays, but really y’all just don’t ever look at peer-reviewed research, do you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 16:35:58 No.13522440 Report

Quoted By:

>>13522432
Which published paper would you like to get a link to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Aug 2021 22:31:26 No.13523383 Report

Quoted By: >>13524904 >>13529406

>>13522425
1+1
=1+S0
=S(1+0)
=S1
=2

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Aug 2021 02:45:43 No.13524093 Report

Quoted By: >>13530508

>>13521901

Excuse me, Sabine (we know it's you), buy the optimal insult for you HoeIsAFeller *Muah*

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Aug 2021 09:48:36 No.13524904 Report

Quoted By: >>13524921

>>13523383
>proving addition by addition
circular reasoning

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Aug 2021 09:58:53 No.13524921 Report

Quoted By: >>13529027

>>13524904
There's no circular reasoning. Which line is confusing to you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Aug 2021 21:40:36 No.13526683 Report

Quoted By:

Sabine is peak Dunning-Kruger.
Determinism doesn't kill free will, at the very least read the Wikipedia page on free will before making a reddit tier smug video.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Aug 2021 21:50:52 No.13526710 Report

Quoted By:

>>13521901
autism

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 16 Aug 2021 21:55:13 No.13526718 Report

Quoted By:

Time for episode 7801 of "I ask the schizo what their definition of free will is and they respond 'It doesn't need to be defined/I know it when I see it'"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 15:38:50 No.13529027 Report

Quoted By: >>13529106

>>13524921
let me rephrase it. you can't prove basic arithmetic operations without using basic arithmetic operations. you can prove they are consistent

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 15:58:33 No.13529106 Report

Quoted By: >>13529300

>>13529027
Well obviously if I'm proving something about arithmetic I have to talk about arithmetic. Do you expect me to prove 2+2=4 without ever mentioning 2,4,+ and only talking about clouds? Lol

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Bildschirmfoto 2021-08-17 um 18. (...).png, 188KiB, 1450x1096

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 16:21:25 No.13529198 Report

Quoted By:

>>13521901
>Intuitionistic mathematics
Is he just rejecting LEM or does he go full Brouwer?
(As in demanding computable properties of infinite objects are always already determined by some initial segment of them)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Bildschirmfoto 2021-08-17 um 18. (...).png, 262KiB, 1056x1312

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 16:22:33 No.13529201 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 16:53:27 No.13529300 Report

Quoted By: >>13529309

>>13529106
>Well obviously if I'm proving something about arithmetic I have to talk about arithmetic.
yeah but your argument can be reduced to 1+1=2 ? 1+1=2. that's the entire point. at the most fundamental level you need to have axioms

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 16:55:54 No.13529309 Report

Quoted By:

>>13529300
>yeah but your argument can be reduced to 1+1=2 ? 1+1=2
No. Read the argument again, brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 17:25:06 No.13529406 Report

Quoted By: >>13529448

>>13523383
>=1+S0
>=S(1+0)
Prove that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 17:40:27 No.13529448 Report

Quoted By: >>13529460 >>13529482

>>13529406
Follows from n+S(m)=S(n+m) by substituting 1 for n and 0 for m, while n+S(m)=S(n+m) together with n+0=n is the definition of addition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 17:43:55 No.13529460 Report

Quoted By: >>13529479

>>13529448
>is the definition of addition.
So you just made it up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 17:47:55 No.13529479 Report

Quoted By: >>13529848

>>13529460
Not me, Peano.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 17:48:17 No.13529482 Report

Quoted By: >>13529515

>>13529448
>n+S(m)=S(n+m)
you are assuming associative property without any proof. and yes there are areas of maths where this property doesn't apply
>n+0=n is the definition of addition.
prove it friendo, you are denying the need for axioms so you should prove that without using axioms and without ending in infinite regress

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 17:54:26 No.13529515 Report

Quoted By: >>13529530

>>13529482
>you are assuming associative property without any proof
I am not. Associative property states that n+(m+k)=(n+m)+k for all n,m,k. I did not use this anywhere in my proof. Although it's possible to prove this from the definitions.
>prove it friendo
What part of the "is the definition" is not clear to you? There's nothing to prove if I declare n+0 to be n by definition. I just make it clear that when I write n+0, to the people who don't already know what that means, that I mean n.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:01:00 No.13529530 Report

Quoted By: >>13529541

>>13529515
>"axioms are schizo"
>that part of the "is the definition" is not clear to you? There's nothing to prove if I declare n+0 to be n by definition. I just make it clear that when I write n+0, to the people who don't already know what that means, that I mean n.
holy fuck you are retarded. please don't talk maths again until you finish highschool

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:04:11 No.13529541 Report

Quoted By: >>13529848

>>13529530
Axioms are not definitions. They're convenient statements that you assume, or from a formalist perspective combinations of symbols you use as starting points in your formal proofs. You might be confusing the sense of axiom I just mentioned with things like axioms of group theory of field theory, where the axioms are indeed definitions of what it means for an object to be a group/field. These are very different senses of the word.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO monkey-memory.gif, 2MiB, 352x262

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:11:56 No.13529573 Report

Quoted By: >>13529663

>>13521901
Free will is an illusion. It ascribes far too much importance to consciousness, which as far as we can tell can be turned on and off with chemicals and electricity. Consciousness itself is just a really complex bunch of wetware programs that help humans survive. Cognition is not solely modeled on human intelligence.
>tl;Dr - 4d is 4d, stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:35:01 No.13529663 Report

Quoted By: >>13529690 >>13529702

>>13529573
>Consciousness itself is just a really complex bunch of wetware programs that help humans survive
>Consciousness
>help humans survive
[citation needed]

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:42:42 No.13529690 Report

Quoted By:

>>13529663
Everything that exists in human organisms must help them survive in one way or another. This is part of the dogma of evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:45:46 No.13529702 Report

Quoted By:

>>13529663
Humans have always been an intelligence/social complicity arms race. See literally any ancient massacre site.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 18:49:42 No.13529722 Report

Quoted By: >>13529815

I refuse to read whatever is posted in this shitholerino, but only idiots believe the universe is deterministic.
Sabine is.just another acolyte of that cult, of which notorious representatives are smolin and penrose. They refuse to acknowledge stochasticiry because of the smell, it's literally aesthetics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 19:10:01 No.13529815 Report

Quoted By:

>>13529722
Don't know about you personally. But I would think that most /sci bros would agree that if
someday they decide to invade a kindergarten to shoot and kill everyone, it would be a great
defense to have, to argue before the judge that everything that happens is predetermined, so
they cannot really be held accountable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 19:21:38 No.13529848 Report

Quoted By: >>13530117

>>13522411
>>13529479
>>13529541
You're a fucking pseud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 20:25:26 No.13530117 Report

Quoted By: >>13530838

>>13529848
>I have no argument
Take a seat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 20:27:34 No.13530127 Report

Quoted By:

>STEMcel phds are doomed to make Youtube videos instead of doing real work
wtf bros...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO c6b.png, 177KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 22:18:19 No.13530508 Report

Quoted By:

>>13524093
Based!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Aug 2021 23:52:48 No.13530838 Report

Quoted By:

>>13530117
Shut up, pseud.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches