>>16935316 Why isn't the fundamental theorem of calculus an ontological principle, with the dialectic of cumulative and instantaneous change present in every aspect of reality?
Given that modern physics began with calculus, and it is still essential for modern physics, would it be that surprising to find out that the heart of calculus describes the nature of reality itself?
>>16935324 Math cannot describe the endless subjective flavors of experience or "vibes" we experience, among other things.
Math is th study of precise relationships, but not all relationships are precise; the vast majority are not. Living relationships, for example. Every organism is situated within a vast web of interdependent relationships with nonliving and other living entities. Chaotic mutual influence and not linear cause and effect is the rule for the universe, not the exception. Math can describe such systems at best in part and probabilistically.
To imagine calculus ontologically requires thinking about it imprecisely, in terms of analogy.
>>16935327 >Math cannot describe the endless subjective flavors of experience or "vibes" we experience, among other things Of course it can. It’s just so finely tuned we’ll never be able to assess it. In some hypothetical existence where everything everywhere every-when existed all at once, there’d be mathematical odds to literally everything.
>>16935316 Scoence is a natural philosophy under which unobserved phenomena are extrapolated from observed phenomena. It is not the knowledge itself. It is not the way you aquire knowledge. It is absolutely not a collection of institutions. It is a world view through which one can attempt to understand the natural world "as it is."
At its core is the concept of uniformitarianism. That is "the fundamental nature of reality does not vary with space and time." If you do the same thing in two places at two different times, the same outcome will occur. Otherwise, there is something different about what you did.
>>16935316 >Einstein music analogy what the fuck is that supposed to mean? musical pleasure is based on a mixture of learned cultural schemata and evolutionary response to cycles of consonance and dissonance in auditory stimulus as an analogy for tension and release in other expressions of consciousness, such as storytelling or sex. There is nothing more objectively true about this for Mozart's music than Beethoven's. It's just a matter of personal preference
the rest of the shit you typed out was even dumber than that. go sit in a corner and think about your life
>>16935321 Math is still an abstraction. You need abstractions up until you reach hypothesis and experiment then all abstractions go out the window. Thats why math isnt physics
>>16935316 Nikols, is that you? Can you go back to crying on discord about not being a woman or something this whole smart thing isn't going well for you
>>16935316 Science is incredibly simple. Pretending it isn't is disrespectful. Not that science can't become overbearingly complex, it's just overbearingly simple at its most basest.
>>16935316 Science is about asking the right questions. Science isn’t about answers it’s about making hypotheticals and then testing them. It’s about rigorous testing of ideas and drawing conclusions from them. Science has its roots in describing the physical world around us.
>>16935324 The idea that math describes everything is a philosophical hypothesis. Personally as an amateur mathematician I don’t believe that maths can describe everything.
If there is something math can't describe, the problem is on the math side. We're missing something that can correctly model whatever it is. Because everything is mathematical in nature. Nothing apart from math exists.