this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
387 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

228 readers
78 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Calling a made up construct "the absolute truth" is hilarious

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The way I see it, axioms and notation are made up but everything that follows is absolute truth

[–] luciole 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I’d say if your axioms don’t hold you wouldn’t go far in your quest for truth.

[–] Malgas 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The thing that is absolute is a predicate of the form "if [axioms] then [theorems]".

And the fun thing about if statements is that they can be true even when the premise is false.

[–] luciole 2 points 1 month ago

Of course in boolean algebra "if [false] then p" is always true no matter "p", but it’s not telling us much.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's not a gotcha. It's basically just the definition of an axiom.

The test to know if anything is an absolute truth is if it is called an absolute truth. If it is called an absolute truth, then it isn't an absolute truth. If it isn't called an absolute truth, then it isn't an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist. If someone tells you something is an absolute truth, stop listening to them.

[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was about to say "incompleteness theorem"!

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's computer science alongside with Church/Turing. Maths could have tried to claim it but they doubled down on formalism so they don't deserve it.

That said though incompleteness follows from nothing but logical implication itself so it's more fundamental than physics (try to imagine a physics without cause and effect that doesn't get you cancelled because Boltzmann) and philosophy (find me a philosopher who wasn't asleep during their logic lectures).

[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I meant to say that the incompleteness theorem proves that math cannot be perfectly pure and fundamental. I don't exactly care which field claims it, because I don't like to encourage artificial boundaries between disciplines. It's nice to use information theory results in physics :)

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

The other way around: As long as you accept that cause and effect are a thing, you must accept that there are things that are, fundamentally, uncomputable. And as our universe very much does seem to have cause and effect that's a physical law, likewise is complexity theory. Differently put: God can't sort a list with fewer than O(n log n) comparisons.