/sci/ - Science & Math

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%27s_paradox

Sweaty, this has been deboonked by fact checkers.

AI is unironically closer to having consciousness than the average vaxxie.

Paradoxes are just illusions created by midwit pseud wordcels tripping over their own legs. Every paradox is quickly resolved when you apply high IQ to it and expose the faulty reasoning.

>>15582365
You're a retard who completely failed to understand the problem of induction. And this is why philosotards are unqualified to talk about epistemology. Leave it to the high IQ boys, kiddo.

>>15581018
Of course a larping midwit would prefer philosopher over science. Philosophy concerns itself with making trivial statements sound complicated. Meanwhile science tries to make complicated mechanisms more easily understandable. That's why philosophy will be replaced by ChatGPT but science won't.

>>15573600
>imagine getting filtered by the foreword of a freshman physics intro book
>imagine getting filtered by trivial words before reaching the first formula
LMAO, lowest IQ on /sci/ right now

>We don't use clean nuclear energy today because of a grossly mismanaged power plant failure in a backwards communist shithole country 40 years ago

Why is infinity such a brainlet and midwit filter?

>>15561232
>doesn't arrive in time at work
>always shows up in time to suck Chad's cock
This "time blindness" seems to be a highly selective disorder like ADHD which only affects those activities you're not interested in.

>can prove conjectures about quasi-crystalline Grothendieck homology of semi-elliptic (3,alpha)-braided categorifications of non-Gaussian hypersheaves
>can't calculate 267x973 in his head
You're not a mathematician. Simple as.

Every 10 year old had these "deep" thoughts about solipsism and overcame them eventually. If you're an adult and still bothered by such puerile nonsense you're intellectually deficient. Why do such immature morons feel entitled to shitting up the science and math board with their infantile non-science and non-math philosopseud crap?

>it's the year 2023 and philosotards still get caught in infantile word games and fail to understand basic epistemology

>>15543221
>Just like that, the hard problem no longer exists. The brain is accounted for. Mind is accounted for. The world is accounted for.
Where is it accounted for? You just dogmatically said "it just is, okay?" Your flawed idealism is just as anti-intellectual as Dennett's eliminativism. In fact they're trivially isomorphic. The only framework yielding ontological answers and epistemological insights is Cartesian dualism with quantum mechanics as its mechanism of interaction.

>all these eleutherophobic midwit replies
There is nothing more important than free will. A purely deterministic and probabilistic universe is literally impossible.

If my child had bad grades in school I'd stop loving it. I'd treat it like the inferior brainlet trash it is. Seriously, why should I as a father invest valuable resources into a child with low IQ?

The amateur still cares about truth and ethics.

For the same reason they pretend to be interested in sportsball. Like who the fuck genuinely cares about a bunch of idiots chasing a ball? It's a primitive monkey way of socializing for people who are too dumb to talk about intellectual stuff.

Why does the word "irregardless" trigger midwits so much?

Most of math is only based on a superficial intuitive understanding of logic. If you go deeper into the mathematical branch of formal logic you'll see it's full of paradoxes and incompleteness. Mathcucks can't even agree on a single flavor of logic. There are dozens of frameworks of type theory, dozens of non-standard versions of first order logic, higher order, many valued, categorical or poopoo peepee logic.

>superdeterminist rejects laws of physics
That's just the logical consiquence of this anti-scientific dogma. For a superdeterminist laws of physics don't exist. Things don't need to follow laws anymore, things just behave as they are determined. Pure magical thinking and a glorification of ignorance.

>xe doesn't excel equally in all areas of intelligence
Lel, pleb.

>>15517552
Congratulations, you rediscovered Newcomb's paradox, the halting problem of free will. Now replace the non-existing sky fairy with a universal Turing machine and you have a proof that free will is uncomputable. Keep seething, NPCs, my choice is free.

Low "emotional IQ" is a good thing because this test only measures how obediently you copy NPC behavior. Scoring low on that test means you have actual empathy and recognize the complexity of social situations.

>>15512992
>it's another episode of calculus kid overestimating his intellectual skills