Sock wrote:

Math and science can answer all your questions. Fuck all this philosophy and religion bouldercrap. And if you want people to take you serious, learn proper sentence structure, yo.

Math is fine.. science not so much.. science doesnt' rely solely on logic... they rely on what they percieve, and for all we know we could be in the matrix.. philosophy and math are fundamentally similar... they rely on logical ideas as opposed taking things just because one saw it...

As for the other posts... I've explained exactly the assumptions, whcih science supporsts, that i was operating on, and if true, then what i said was true....

essentially you have to contend that science is wrong about either 1. us being all matter or 2.) that the laws of physics dictates all that matter does..

You HAVE to deny one ofthose two claims... in order to beleive in free will.

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Math has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with science. How is that lost on you?

math has to do with logic and reasoning... as does philosophy, science has to do with observations, and basing the truth of things on the fact that you've seen it... not neccessarily based on logic.

And off their assumptions though.. sometimes they use reasoning. And sometimes math comes in, and says, hey physics people assuming you're right.. this is the formula for gravity.. this is the formula for calculating frequencies etc... you can use sine and cosine to reflect harmonic sequences.. blah blah blah... stuff like that.

But science is the weakest of the three.. between philosophy, math, and science.

Philosophy changes because humans constantly gain better, and new perspectives, as well as new understanding which changes things... Philosophy attemps to use reason to find out things about ourselves.. And if you look at the major philosophers there is agreement in parts but definitely large differences as well, in what route they took, in what perspective.. but ideally everything would merge as our perspectives and understanding grow.

A lot of philosophers find out certain things then try and apply it to everythign, and maybe it's wrong to apply it to everything but they ahve reasoned out a case for where it does work out...

the equivalent would be like pathagereus trying to apply A^2 + B ^2= C^2 for all triangles... he'd be wrong if he did that, but he was right in one respect namely in regards to right triangles.

And then other philosophers start off on different premises, imagine if some mathematician didn't beleive straight line's existed, so all his calculations were off curved lines he'd of never came to what pathogoreus did, and in fact woudl logically disagree with him based on the premise difference. He would agree with pathogoreus in the sense that if your premise was right, and there were straight lines then your conclusion is right.

so this is how the philosophical differnces immerge, and this is how differences can immerge in math.. Another thing is the more complex an idea is the more on the edge of reason it exists and the less clear we can see it at times, making us less sure and more prone to error this is also a way to explain differences in philosophy, and differences in say high-up math theory...

As for science... science just percieves the world and takes it for granted as to whether or not what they see is real or true... wherease math and philosophy don't do that.. they start on basic points, such as for philosophy they start with the certainty of their own existence, and then branch off from there...

with math they start of by supposing certain condition were true, like suppose there was a shape of three straight lines that hit interected at three points, call this shape a triangle, based on this: what can we say about the shape, well we can say it has 180 degrees, that there is symettry betwee angles of triangles that have all proportianal sides to other triangles, and tons of other stuff...

a scientist does this they: saying let's say for a fact that what we see is real, and let's say we record stuff acurately, and our eyes, and hearing, and understanding don't decieve us etc.. etc.. then this is what we note...

the difference being math just imagined a world then proved things about it, things that were true about it whether or not they proved it of course...

and philosophy attempts to start at the fundamentals and branch it's way up into the most complex of human reason, which is where you expect discrepency.

So truly because of sciences flaw of assuming what we see is real it holds the least weight... And that's why science can neither prove nor disprove anything..

but math and philosophy can...

Math is the same as philosophy.. in fact you can cnosider math a philosophy regarding the nature of numbers, functions, graphs, and shapes..

Also science also changes based on new equippment they get to show some past idea to be wrong...

and i'd like to note aristotle, socrates, some of the most brilliant founders of ideas in modern science, and inventors of many tools were also philosophers...

Edit: that's funny JEW : ) An excellent demonstration that correlation doesn't imply causation.


Edit2: To break it down.

Philosophy: Basis ideas off of undeniable fundamental premises such as existence of self and consciousness, and then from there tries to use reason and logic as a way to prove stuff about our nature. This can prove stuff about us.

Math: Randomly imagines a world, then says if this world were true then these things lists x, y, z.... would also are true. A world where triangles exists etc... A world where straight lines exist, arguing if they were truly straight they could only cross once etc... This can prove stuff about those objects they imagine.

Science: We're going to say that what we see is real, life isn't a dream blah blah blah.. we observe things write it down, note patterns, and then they also use mathematicians, and philosophers, who come in and say well if what you're saying is true then these things are also true which is where a lot of their formulas come from...

and also a lot of scietific theory like Artur Hawkings merely applies what we understand of things now, assumes their, true, then uses philosophical reasoning to determine what else must then be true about the universe if these things are true. And he is one of the, if not thee, smartest person in the world. And he's considered a scientist, yet predominately deals in theory with stuff we haven't touched yet, using philosophical reasoning, and logic. So it's important to note that science cannot prove nor disprove things only offer plausibility arguments assuming what we observe now is the case, and it's likely not, every field of science changes all the time, and in the future we'd likely not beleive anything close to what we beleive now in regards to the universe.

Murdar Machene wrote:

JonSnow wrote: Now if the laws of physics apply to matter, and you are only made of matter, then this implies that every single atom in your body and brain is controlled by the laws of physics, and if that's true there is no such thing as free will.. I stopped reading right there. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy and a pile of shit. You sir, are a moron. Please die

Why don't you explain. I KNOW for a FACT i'm right... i'm just interested in hearing your explanation.. I think you deny it becasue you fear it's true, not because of any legit reason.

Also i don't beleive it's true, because i deny both those premises.

Here's an example to finally PROVE I'm right..

If there exists mass, say an Atom.. and it is 10 meters off the ground, and the only force on it is gravity no one would disagree that one we can graph this atoms staright fall downard, two we can calculate it's exact velocity and force... and that the atom could have no choice in what happens. Why? because it's matter and the laws of physics dictate all of matter's actions....

The same would apply to us if all we were is matter, and physics controlled all of matter's actions.

Valdronius wrote:

JonSnow wrote: the equivalent would be like pathagereus trying to apply A^2 + B ^2= C^2 for all triangles... he'd be wrong if he did that, but he was right in one respect namely in regards to right triangles. The pythagorean theorem is a specific case of the Law of Cosines. Namely, c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2ab*cos(C). In a right triangle, cos(C) just happens to be 0.

Not sure why you posted that, but you're right, I'm a Math major btw. Maybe to demonstrate there is a formula that applies to all triangles... Well i'm not sure if pathogoreus knew the formula you posted, but he definitely found out that quality about right triangles.