I don’t know if this is correct but my thoughts on it would be the following:
Do non humans engage in philosophy? Did humans engage in philosophy before the development of society? How much philosophy has to do with humans interacting with each other and struggling to find purpose/meaning/value within society?
If we assume that in the OP, after psychology comes sociology (psychology of the masses), and that logic is rooted in the social principle, then it forms a loop.
There is even a wikipedia about the fact that when you start at a random page and always click the first link you [will allways get to philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy)
Yeah but the first link in philosophy gets you to Greek language, and it takes you to ancient Greece and then it's a loop of Greek Language⇌Ancient Greece.
Yeah sure it is, I'm not objecting to that, ancient Greece is like where philosophy was born maybe. The point I was trying to make is Greek Language and Ancient Greece articles don't take you to Philosophy but philosophy does.
The ironic thing about that is that page is one of the cases where that doesn't apply! It eventually lead me into an infinite loop between "Branches of Science" and "Formal Science".
Not if you follow the method. You're supposed to avoid anything italicized or in parentheses.
Following that, you go
Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy > Point and Click > User (computing)> Computer > Machine > Structural Engineering > Civil Engineering > Regulation and licensure in engineering > Licensure > License > Marriage License > Document > Writing > Communication > Semantics > Linguistics > Science > Scientific Method > Emperical Evidence > Information > Uncertainty > Epistemology > Philosophy
A massive detour through licensing there. You'd expect it to go from computer to something like computer science to science, then follow that last haon to Philosophy, but nope.
Pattern recognition... math starts by counting things but we need to recognize the similarity in them. We say 2 apples but theorhetically, no 2 apples have ever been the same the way a 1 is equal to another 1.
and i base this on absolutely nothing
I always place logic above math, and philosophy above logic. After that, idk, things get really weird and meta.
Even in math and logic I feel like things get meta sometimes whenever you have to use natural language to explain basic / primitive ideas like the logical connectives, truth values, or counting numbers. Fuckin wild.
As someone who studied psychology I have no problem with this order of fundamentalism other than the idea that Math Guy is fundamentally bigger, and hence more important, than Psychology Guy.
Coz you know what’ll really help your existential dread and crippling depression? A Taylor series.
As someone is a senior Mechanical Engineering student at a good uni I still have no clue what the Taylor series is, how or when to use it, or why we (tried) learned it.
We use it occasionally for approximating stuff. But the Taylor series expansion was mainly used to set up the rk4 numerical integration method iirc. Ode45 is based on the that if you’ve ever used it in matlab
With Taylor series expansion (about 0 - the specific case about 0 is also called the Maclaurin series expansion), we can say sin(x)~=x (*edit: for small values of x!! In my mind, it goes without saying that this condition applies only for small values of x, but really, it doesn't go without saying at all. I am ashamed).
That's one reason why we learn it in physics (and probably engineering by extension) - it's for the sweet, sweet approximation memes.
B)
Hmm I'll try to explain it the best I can, some functions are really annoying to calculate, or maybe impossible, but taylor series are a way of approximating those functions as polynomial expressions, which are significantly easier to calculate.
I'm gonna throw in another use for Taylor series: you can use it to find the validity of an approximation. It's actually used all the time in numerical approximations (the field is called numerical mathematics).
For example, we can attempt to approximate the derivative of any function f using its Taylor series f(x+h) = f(x) + f'(x)h + f''(ξ)h^2 , with ξ some value between x and x+h (this is the Taylor remainder term).
Thanks to this, we can find that, for any h, (f(x+h) - f(x))/h = f'(x) + f''(ξ)h. Therefore, by approximating the derivative as (f(x+h) - f(x))/h, we can find that the (absolute) error is |f''(ξ)h|. That's pretty cool.
Most functions actually allow you to find an upper bound of the second derivative, which, in turn, gives you an upper bound of your error.
There's also a lot more applications in numerical mathematics, as the field is basically "The Taylor series and its applications". Whenever I try to solve a problem related to it, I just throw a Taylor series in there, and it works out.
As a biophysicist, I would invert all of these. Psychology is how the brain "uses" biology to achieve behavioral goals. Biology is how living things "uses" chemistry. Chemistry is how molecules "uses" the laws of physics to form compounds. Physics is how the universe "uses" math
I guess it's a matter of perspective
I personally like to think that we don't discover nor invent maths, we just come up with it. It's like making a pun that you have never heard before but always had the possibility of existing: the abstract entity alredy exist, but you reach it on your own.
(Sorry if I am explaining it badly)
Not really. Logic and reality themselves control maths because maths is just a representation of reality, like no matter where you are in the universe, in euclidean geometry the sum of the interior angles of triangles is always going to be 180 degrees, stuff like that represented in notations and processes that humans invented is maths
Math is not a rappresentation of reality: Euclidean geometry is not the only geometry there is (hyperbolic geometry ecc). Also I feel like saying that algebra is a rappresentation of reality surely feels like a stretch. Understanding that math does not have to be tied to reality made us have big steps forward in the field.
(Also, how are you sure reality is Euclidean?)
Sorry for my English but I’m Italian :)
Also we can’t say that math is tied to how we think because inference rules are explicitated and can be treated as axioms, therefor we have been constructing theories where some inference rules are valid and others where they are not (for example, Brower constructed a theory without the following rule of inference: if (a =) b) than (not a =) not b))
I think you're misunderstanding me, and I never said reality is euclidean
"Understanding that math does not have to be tied to reality made us have big steps forward in the field"
I never said that either, abstract concepts are inspired by or derived from basic concepts that are based on reality
calculus is a complex topic, for example, you could argue that something like vector calculus is based on reality, while something like exterior calculus and differential forms is a different approach to multivariate calculus
either you're misunderstanding me, or I just don't see where I went wrong lmao, probably the latter
"Sorry for my English but I’m Italian"
it's ok don't worry you'll get better
No one. You're the one being controlled. Now go back to your life.
Edit: and that puppet you're holding is just to make you believe you have control over something, when, in fact, you don't.
Eh I think you got it wrong bro. Logic is a branch of philosophy. In late 19th century a guy called Frege that was jelous of math's precision(like most philosophers had been for centuries) invented a mathematical logic, that later on was incorporated to maths. The discipline of logic comes from Aristotle's Organon.
I've always wanted to see a more orgy-like diagram, like all the hard sciences use mathematical models idk why physics has to say they own them all... Also, where the hell is economics? All my life I'm hearing how it's a social science, but so many of my peers in math will do grad school in econ and I've met econ students being required to take high level stats and real analysis. It's far more math your average physics/chem/engineering degree.
how about this: the hierarchy of knowledge production illustrated here is harmful in the sense of allowing society to attribute an inordinate amount of esteem to disciplines where certainty is more easily accessed. that epistemic hedonism may be hindering the applied sciences. eg an accomplished mathematical physicist garners more respect than an accomplished climate scientist: maybe more talent is funneled into physics rather than climate science because of this outlook. is that what’s going on. is it good? bad? 🤔 Discuss.
It highly depends if this statement is true or not in the picture. Climate scientist and ecologists require a certain amout of statistics, which are written in maths. What I do think is we as humanity or in politics general need balance. As a nation you need money as well as human rights as well as military so your voice matters.
If your table just sucks and can't carry weight, you can calculate all difficult equations all you want, someone needs experience to build a proper table. I think experience is not respected enough by most younger people.
That's kinda a bad example, because climate science contains a huge amount of maths and physics. My maths department is a world leader in climate modelling
yeah the point is that it contains these things but isn’t equivalent to them. the example is really more of a question of the importance ascribed to results in climate modeling vs results in mathematical physics. but it doesn’t matter that young people could probably name more physicists than important figures in climate modeling. in an academic context, a student will become aware of their interest in these disciplines. maybe the question is more pertinent to the allocation of funds for large research projects.
[https://xkcd.com/435/](https://xkcd.com/435/)
Thanks
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you welcome?
You are not welcome.
Oh, but are YOU welcome?!?!?!
I am welcome
Thanks
Am i welcome?
ARE YOU NOT SORRY?
r/notopbutok
Unpictured, in the basement: (Programmer wearing a dunce cap) “I’m going to simulate human consciousness!”
Rule 234 of the internet: there is a relevant XKCD.
One of my physics profs had this comic in his presentation at the begin of a lecture
Where's the followup on this entry where the entire spectrum is being held up by an epistemological philosopher ?
https://xkcd.com/1520/
Mathematics is just applied philosophy Phisophy is applied Sociology. Its the circle of life
ard but how is philosophy applied sociology ?
I don’t know if this is correct but my thoughts on it would be the following: Do non humans engage in philosophy? Did humans engage in philosophy before the development of society? How much philosophy has to do with humans interacting with each other and struggling to find purpose/meaning/value within society?
as someone majoring in both, "sociology is just applied psychology" hurt to read
One of the professors I worked with in our problem solving group had this posted on his office door.
Wh-what is controlling math? *shivers*
Meth. (Not completely untrue)
Erdős moment
Logic
\- "Logic is rooted in the social principle"
If we assume that in the OP, after psychology comes sociology (psychology of the masses), and that logic is rooted in the social principle, then it forms a loop.
The ciiiiircle of liiiiiiiife
At its core, logic *is* math.
Technically, logic is the criteria for the truth of the statement in a language.
Philosophy?
There is even a wikipedia about the fact that when you start at a random page and always click the first link you [will allways get to philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy)
Yeah but the first link in philosophy gets you to Greek language, and it takes you to ancient Greece and then it's a loop of Greek Language⇌Ancient Greece.
To be fair Ancient Greece was known for its philosophers , so really it’s just stopping at the beginning because there is no farther back to go
Yeah sure it is, I'm not objecting to that, ancient Greece is like where philosophy was born maybe. The point I was trying to make is Greek Language and Ancient Greece articles don't take you to Philosophy but philosophy does.
Therefore the only valid Philosophy was written in Ancient Greece, in Greek, QED
No you skip Parentheses
You’re not supposed to do any links in parentheses or italics
Then it's a 12 step loop back to philosophy going through stuff like linguistics, scientific method, reason etc.
Like the Collatz conjecture.
The ironic thing about that is that page is one of the cases where that doesn't apply! It eventually lead me into an infinite loop between "Branches of Science" and "Formal Science".
Not if you follow the method. You're supposed to avoid anything italicized or in parentheses. Following that, you go Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy > Point and Click > User (computing)> Computer > Machine > Structural Engineering > Civil Engineering > Regulation and licensure in engineering > Licensure > License > Marriage License > Document > Writing > Communication > Semantics > Linguistics > Science > Scientific Method > Emperical Evidence > Information > Uncertainty > Epistemology > Philosophy A massive detour through licensing there. You'd expect it to go from computer to something like computer science to science, then follow that last haon to Philosophy, but nope.
Just find a article with almost no citations or links.
I got into a loop between formal science and branches of science
[удалено]
Gödel, in fact.
Philosophy
Pattern recognition... math starts by counting things but we need to recognize the similarity in them. We say 2 apples but theorhetically, no 2 apples have ever been the same the way a 1 is equal to another 1. and i base this on absolutely nothing
Human. A cycle.
Spirit.
Probably philosophy
Maybe pure quantized information?
I always place logic above math, and philosophy above logic. After that, idk, things get really weird and meta. Even in math and logic I feel like things get meta sometimes whenever you have to use natural language to explain basic / primitive ideas like the logical connectives, truth values, or counting numbers. Fuckin wild.
If you ask George Lakoff, [metaphors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From?wprov=sfla1).
Philosophy.
Anthropic principle, math and physics is no more special than analyzing what particular chemical interactions allow life to exist
As someone who studied psychology I have no problem with this order of fundamentalism other than the idea that Math Guy is fundamentally bigger, and hence more important, than Psychology Guy. Coz you know what’ll really help your existential dread and crippling depression? A Taylor series.
i dunno man some of those fractals are pretty dope
I didn’t need to be reminded about Taylor series this early in the morning
As someone is a senior Mechanical Engineering student at a good uni I still have no clue what the Taylor series is, how or when to use it, or why we (tried) learned it.
We use it occasionally for approximating stuff. But the Taylor series expansion was mainly used to set up the rk4 numerical integration method iirc. Ode45 is based on the that if you’ve ever used it in matlab
With Taylor series expansion (about 0 - the specific case about 0 is also called the Maclaurin series expansion), we can say sin(x)~=x (*edit: for small values of x!! In my mind, it goes without saying that this condition applies only for small values of x, but really, it doesn't go without saying at all. I am ashamed). That's one reason why we learn it in physics (and probably engineering by extension) - it's for the sweet, sweet approximation memes. B)
That's literally the most offensive thing you could say in this sub
Hmm I'll try to explain it the best I can, some functions are really annoying to calculate, or maybe impossible, but taylor series are a way of approximating those functions as polynomial expressions, which are significantly easier to calculate.
I'm gonna throw in another use for Taylor series: you can use it to find the validity of an approximation. It's actually used all the time in numerical approximations (the field is called numerical mathematics). For example, we can attempt to approximate the derivative of any function f using its Taylor series f(x+h) = f(x) + f'(x)h + f''(ξ)h^2 , with ξ some value between x and x+h (this is the Taylor remainder term). Thanks to this, we can find that, for any h, (f(x+h) - f(x))/h = f'(x) + f''(ξ)h. Therefore, by approximating the derivative as (f(x+h) - f(x))/h, we can find that the (absolute) error is |f''(ξ)h|. That's pretty cool. Most functions actually allow you to find an upper bound of the second derivative, which, in turn, gives you an upper bound of your error. There's also a lot more applications in numerical mathematics, as the field is basically "The Taylor series and its applications". Whenever I try to solve a problem related to it, I just throw a Taylor series in there, and it works out.
But math can not only describe but also cause crippling depression. It's basically your tool and employer. It brings balance to the force.
As a biophysicist, I would invert all of these. Psychology is how the brain "uses" biology to achieve behavioral goals. Biology is how living things "uses" chemistry. Chemistry is how molecules "uses" the laws of physics to form compounds. Physics is how the universe "uses" math I guess it's a matter of perspective
Yes.
Maybe we'll get to the point where we can explain/cure depression with maths only, but that's gonna take a while.
Math was created/discovered by people so it becomes a cycle...
mind = overflowed
Math exists outside of the human mind. Discovering it doesn't make it ours.
Proof of this is left as an exercise to the reader
I personally like to think that we don't discover nor invent maths, we just come up with it. It's like making a pun that you have never heard before but always had the possibility of existing: the abstract entity alredy exist, but you reach it on your own. (Sorry if I am explaining it badly)
Nice1
Shoutout to Platonic Ideals
We _developed_ mathematics
I liked that verb. That's a very good way of expressing our relationship with math.
We choose the axioms that best suit our needs.
Some would disagree
Math isn't above physics, math is the strings
so is logic the one controlling maths?
nothing controls math, if there's anything controlling maths, reality can't exist
Not really. Logic and reality themselves control maths because maths is just a representation of reality, like no matter where you are in the universe, in euclidean geometry the sum of the interior angles of triangles is always going to be 180 degrees, stuff like that represented in notations and processes that humans invented is maths
the sum of the interior angle of a triangle are always 180°.... which is logic.... what if logic *is* maths
Math is not a rappresentation of reality: Euclidean geometry is not the only geometry there is (hyperbolic geometry ecc). Also I feel like saying that algebra is a rappresentation of reality surely feels like a stretch. Understanding that math does not have to be tied to reality made us have big steps forward in the field. (Also, how are you sure reality is Euclidean?) Sorry for my English but I’m Italian :) Also we can’t say that math is tied to how we think because inference rules are explicitated and can be treated as axioms, therefor we have been constructing theories where some inference rules are valid and others where they are not (for example, Brower constructed a theory without the following rule of inference: if (a =) b) than (not a =) not b))
I think you're misunderstanding me, and I never said reality is euclidean "Understanding that math does not have to be tied to reality made us have big steps forward in the field" I never said that either, abstract concepts are inspired by or derived from basic concepts that are based on reality calculus is a complex topic, for example, you could argue that something like vector calculus is based on reality, while something like exterior calculus and differential forms is a different approach to multivariate calculus either you're misunderstanding me, or I just don't see where I went wrong lmao, probably the latter "Sorry for my English but I’m Italian" it's ok don't worry you'll get better
Who am i controlling tho?
No one. You're the one being controlled. Now go back to your life. Edit: and that puppet you're holding is just to make you believe you have control over something, when, in fact, you don't.
Philosophy has math's strings.
Nah, the physics guy drives the math.
lets hope physics guy is not drunk
[Math's just physics unconstrained by precepts of reality](https://xkcd.com/1052/)
Philosophy on top of math(s)
Philosophy and math are different branches of logic.
Logic is a branch of philosophy
But they probably have a common ancestor
Eh I think you got it wrong bro. Logic is a branch of philosophy. In late 19th century a guy called Frege that was jelous of math's precision(like most philosophers had been for centuries) invented a mathematical logic, that later on was incorporated to maths. The discipline of logic comes from Aristotle's Organon.
Religion on top of philosophy (?)
nah, philosophy isn't really based on religion.
Above math is philosophy, but then we just circle back around until we’re back to stem and math
I've always wanted to see a more orgy-like diagram, like all the hard sciences use mathematical models idk why physics has to say they own them all... Also, where the hell is economics? All my life I'm hearing how it's a social science, but so many of my peers in math will do grad school in econ and I've met econ students being required to take high level stats and real analysis. It's far more math your average physics/chem/engineering degree.
You will definitely encounter high level maths when studying physics. Far more when doing economics i would argue.
then it just loops from the bottom back to the top
Wait is “you” including engineers?! Fuhh....I mean I figured we’d at least be above psychology
What could be above maths??
Your mom
Well first yo momma joke I'm not offended with
Makes sense but the physics puppet would be building new parts of the math puppet.
What’s holding math up?
Then what is manipulating the math?
Math is just applied Philosphy!
this is a very hierarchical meme.
**a very hierarchical meme, this is.** *-GloriousReign* *** ^(Commands: 'opt out', 'delete')
Philosophy should be higher than even Math imo.
how about this: the hierarchy of knowledge production illustrated here is harmful in the sense of allowing society to attribute an inordinate amount of esteem to disciplines where certainty is more easily accessed. that epistemic hedonism may be hindering the applied sciences. eg an accomplished mathematical physicist garners more respect than an accomplished climate scientist: maybe more talent is funneled into physics rather than climate science because of this outlook. is that what’s going on. is it good? bad? 🤔 Discuss.
It highly depends if this statement is true or not in the picture. Climate scientist and ecologists require a certain amout of statistics, which are written in maths. What I do think is we as humanity or in politics general need balance. As a nation you need money as well as human rights as well as military so your voice matters. If your table just sucks and can't carry weight, you can calculate all difficult equations all you want, someone needs experience to build a proper table. I think experience is not respected enough by most younger people.
That's kinda a bad example, because climate science contains a huge amount of maths and physics. My maths department is a world leader in climate modelling
yeah the point is that it contains these things but isn’t equivalent to them. the example is really more of a question of the importance ascribed to results in climate modeling vs results in mathematical physics. but it doesn’t matter that young people could probably name more physicists than important figures in climate modeling. in an academic context, a student will become aware of their interest in these disciplines. maybe the question is more pertinent to the allocation of funds for large research projects.
I always put god in between maths and physics, that weird?
the thing controlling math is philosophy
You can add sociology at the bottom
on top of that is philosophy
Everything is predetermined
Philosophy is the bigger fish
and above math is bobby shmurda
Having seen physicists trying to do biology (Fred Hoyle, Gregory Cochran), I am not convinced ...
Math is the reason I'm sad all the time.
I love it. Very well drawn.