Thread #16956724
File: 1686683641737698.jpg (111.9 KB)
111.9 KB JPG
Math is the only thing that is real.
Reality is just one giant 3D slide show that for whatever reason exhibit consistent geometric patterns from one slide to the next. Identifying and describing said reproducible geometric patterns in mathematical equations is what science does, and the only thing that is real. All these other page upon pages of..words, aka "theories", are literal monkey talks. So long as the equation checks out you can grab any schizo theories off /x/ this very moment and it will stick.
31 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 31 replies.>>
> Reality ... consistent ... reproducible ... science ...
Math isn't real at all. Reality has nothing to do with math. We've never understood reality through math, and we never will. All the physics you hear is pure approximation. None of it is valid at all scales and energies. It's all a fiction.
We've been spinning our wheels unable to make future progress modeling the world with math for decades. We have a grab-bag of theories that only work in certain scenarios, and you claim that "reality is math".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: ababs.png (192.5 KB)
192.5 KB PNG
>>16956851
Universal Adapters.
https://my.ece.utah.edu/~bodson/acscr/acscr.pdf
Right off the bat you have committed a fallacy. Something working does not necessarily mean it is true.
>>
File: Screenshot_20260412-113646_VLC.jpg (229.2 KB)
229.2 KB JPG
>>16956724
>Math is the only thing that is real.
Not when you find the "Crisis in the Foundation of Math" and find trailing off definition leading to exponensial components of alternative meanings.
>>16956844
>nb4 Cult of Passion
[snaps fingers, sunglasses fall down]
Psshh...Im currently listening about black body light and an error in the measurement of temperature...where Maths overtook Physics and lead astray the model. Something about "maps and terrain"?
[scoffs]
>>
>>16956898
The situation evolving around Robitaille is crazy. A whole bunch of low IQ conditioned midwits are throwing up half-assed objections based on what they are taught. It is a herd instinct. He makes so many testable claims and completely defeats Kirchoff's law. We know these people are low IQ because they don't even see that their entire system is already gone. They are up there on the 80th+ floor of the twin towers thinking there is a stairway to come down.
>>
>>16956901
>they don't even see that their entire system is already gone
They do, this is "survival instincts" kicking in and "defending its territory".
[rolls up newspaper, PAP!]
GO LAY DOWN, DAVE!
[snaps fingers at pillow on the floor]
>>
>>16956901
It also reminds me of the telomeres and Bret Weinstein...suddenly realizing that virtually all cancer medical trails are invalidated because the mice were abnormal.
This is happening across basically all fields in different ways. Genetics and by proxy Vaccines are now radically redefined, BioElectric/Magnetics supercedes it in axiomism. Maths too, thats why 2+2=5 came back, common core Maths (inverted thinking Maths, how I naturally do it but the world doesnt, and why they tried to roll it out, but I saw it for what it was immediately).
Im your friendly, neighborhood, 1+1=3 guy.
>>
>>16956897
>Something working does not necessarily mean it is true.
Nobody said anything about been true. We are talking about approximations.
The fact current models can be considered an APPROXIMATION means it is close to whatever is true, and is close enough to produce functional technology.
So whatever IS true, it's got something to do with known math, or else we'd still be in the stone ages.
>>
>>
>>
File: images (10).jpg (51.6 KB)
51.6 KB JPG
>>16956724
No math isn't real. Math is an abstraction humans made up. Using methods and techniques only humans understand. The universe isn't making any calculations. Reality isn't calculating anything.
Its just pure abstraction of patterns that repeat is why math works.
>>
>>16956724
All math is strictly counterfactual. That's why it must be axiomatic - it declares a non-existent alternate reality in which the rules are universal.
The von Neumann construction is explicitly ex falso, in that the empty set cannot exist in material reality, and from a falsehood anything follows.
This also explains the "unreasonable effectiveness" by making it obvious what it actually is: survivorship bias.
>>
File: 2025-06-13_12.28.04.jpg (52 KB)
52 KB JPG
>>16957626
https://youtu.be/D6Jed1QBAos
Recognize this page? I took this picture in Afghanistan a couple years ago. Im...so sorry you had to find out like this, but youre not Autistic. You have what is known as "Normieosis". A chronic and terminal affliction.
>>
>>16956923
This isn't what an approximation means. By mathematical equivalence, an arbitrary model can be designed up to any degree that matches your current model performance. The set of fundamental constants could effectively be anything.
True -> Approximately true is a nonsensical sidestep. You are just restating that it works to some degree. This doesn't make it any closer to truth.
>>
>>16957688
>degree in reproducible predictive accuracy isn't standard for approximation to truth
So then what is your standard for approximation to truth? If one model makes better predictions than another, surely that one is closer to truth compared to the other, even if it is still not the truth.
>>
>>16957700
No, making a correct prediction does not make something closer to truth. As stated before, whatever data your model is operating on can be directly reproduced by a arbitrary sentinel with ad hoc formulations. It generates the exact same predictions as your model, but it axioms can literally be anything which conforms to the mathematical underpinning. This is a defeater for predictive modeling proving its underlying premises to any degree. You must invoke a selector criteria which is distinct from the predictive model.
The more common idea of this is underdetermination of data. .
>>
>>16957737
>You must invoke a selector criteria which is distinct from the predictive model.
And how would you know this additional "selector criteria" will get you a model closer to the truth? Sounds like a fancy word for subjective preference.
Bottom line, if objective prediction is thrown out as the standard, then there is only subjective bias left.
>>
>>16957743
Incorrect. I will give you an example and you will maybe start to understand.
I posit the existence of the garfunklepositronium. Ultimately, G(x) = f(x)/π, but also f(x) = π
This can plug into every equation of your model. Is it true that the garfunklepositronium exists? Now, the further demonstration, all of those objections you are raising fall outside of my predictive model. These are an example of selection criteria. By a standard of predictions approximating truth, you must now admit not just garfunklepositronium, but the entire class of all G(x) | f(x). A multiverse of quackery bullshit. And you called this objective.
>>
>>16957748
There are two models, "A" vs "B". "A" is 30% better at predictions than "B".
Both of them are miles away from the actual truth. But if you have to pick which one is closer, what standard are you going to use? Because the only thing that is objective here is prediction power. Everything else is just subjective bias to one degrees or another.
Instead of addressing this, you are now going off about academics grifting flights of fancy onto their equations. Which to be fair is what OP was saying, but has nothing to do with what 's discussed right now.
>>
>>
>>16957769
>predictions doesn't matter, for anything
You do realize, the entirety of human existence, since the days of scribbling in caves and hunting mammoth, is about making correct predictions?
Having a good model to approximate reality is why you are alive, and continues to be alive, instead of winning a Darwin's Award.
If your predictions don't pan out, you are a failure on /sci/ and a fraud on /x/. It's the gold standard everywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>