User Controls
"Race is just a social construct"
-
2020-07-13 at 4 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 4:45 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:24 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:26 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS It is arguably a construct, but I don't know if I'd call it a social construct.
And really, its status as a construct is famously debateable - mathematical platonism vs intuitionism. 🤔
Really it's a social construct. For example Andrew Wile didn't even believe himself when he proved Fermat's last theorem: the nature of that truth was and is entirely social. -
2020-07-13 at 5:27 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:27 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Greek Style Mathematical rules are discovered and thoroughly investigated. They aren't invented and kept secret. They aren't made up and then declared beyond doubt, the way woke religious theory is.
Just saying.
There's only one way modern computers could work. No other.
This is wrong, no formal system can be complete and provably true within its rules, as demonstrated by Gödel's incompleteness theorem, including maths.
Just like you can set up the rules of chess and study different facts about it, maths is just a set of rules humans invented.Discovering those rules is among the greatest triumphs of western civilisation.
Literally invented by Eastern civilizations -
2020-07-13 at 5:30 PM UTCIs Network's universal law of gravitation something that can/should vary across cultures?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
Clue is the highlighted bit above. -
2020-07-13 at 5:31 PM UTCPI wasn't invented...the circumference of a circle is 3.14 times that of it's radius regardless of if humans are around to discover that fact or not.
-
2020-07-13 at 5:31 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:32 PM UTC...here comes the dumbass "I was just trolling anyway"
-
2020-07-13 at 5:34 PM UTCIt's just a clean description that was useful. Also you are simply confusing physics for pure maths.
https://vixra.org/abs/1901.0301It will show that there is a cross sectional limit, below which 1/r2 asymptotically changes to 1/r. When the cross section of a distant star falls below the cross section of a particle transmitting the gravitational force, such as a graviton, as viewed from a baryon, such as a proton, then the inverse square law is no longer valid.
-
2020-07-13 at 5:36 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:36 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE And maths is. Point?
Math is the language/symbolism we as humans use to understand and communicate the rule set. Again the rule set exists whether humans do or don't...
You seem to be getting hung up on the "name" rather than the rule set...the name is a human construct, the rule set isn't.
Math...as a set of rules exists regardless of humanity. -
2020-07-13 at 5:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson PI wasn't invented…the circumference of a circle is 3.14 times that of it's radius regardless of if humans are around to discover that fact or not.
You're only saying that because you want to impose your human constructs upon reality. In actuality there is nothing necessary about pi, for example it is easily proven pi=4 in taxicab geometry.
http://www.dmf.unicatt.it/~bibsoft/provatesi/siti/Taxicab%20Geometry%20Part%201.htm#:~:text=If%20we%20adopt%20the%20Euclidean,no%20more%20than%20two%20points. -
2020-07-13 at 5:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Math is the language/symbolism we as humans use to understand and communicate the rule set. Again the rule set exists whether humans do or don't…
No it doesn't. It's just a formal system, Gödel already proved that there's nothing inherently true about it. Just like chess is a formal system. The rules of chess were invented by humans, doesn't matter if it is still a mathematical structure in itself.You seem to be getting hung up on the "name" rather than the rule set…the name is a human construct, the rule set isn't.
Math…as a set of rules exists regardless of humanity.
No it has nothing to do with the name but that humans invented maths. It's just a descriptive language. Anything you can model in maths, you can model in the rules of any Turing complete board game.
It's just a language for modeling abstract relationships. The universe doesn't care what makes sense to you. -
2020-07-13 at 5:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE No it doesn't. It's just a formal system, Gödel already proved that there's nothing inherently true about it. Just like chess is a formal system. The rules of chess were invented by humans, doesn't matter if it is still a mathematical structure in itself.
No it has nothing to do with the name but that humans invented maths. It's just a descriptive language. Anything you can model in maths, you can model in the rules of any Turing complete board game.
It's just a language for modeling abstract relationships. The universe doesn't care what makes sense to you.
Again, the circumference of a circle would be 3.14 (Etc) regardless of if it was call PI or cake...and regardless of if humans were around to discover that or not...the rule set exists independently from hoomans. -
2020-07-13 at 5:47 PM UTCIt has nothing to do with the name, it is just a consequence of accepting the rules by declaration, just like no matter what the movement of the knight piece in chess will always have a ratio of one lateral square to two medial squares. Doesn't matter if you call it "knight" or "horse", it's just true within the system because it follows the rules of our declared system.
