>tfw :Hume destroyed induction >Nietzsche destroyed reason

>>7663094
I'd rather have no answers than no questions

>>7663097
you're gay

>>7663098
And you're probably from straya

>>7663097
butthurt ?

File: phil.jpg (2MB, 2800x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2800x2100px

>Nietzsche destroyed reason
Choosing prose over logical consistency due to being angry as fuck is not "destroying reason".

tbhq I'm not sure Witty's second book does more than formalizing the now "obvious" probems with language - I had those issues before knowing about those theories and so I also don't think it was being destroyed at that point.

Gödel also gave us the completeness theorem for first-order logic. But in any case, if you think that affects science, then you're probably a realist plebeian.

>>7663094
To quote my HS physics teacher (rest in peace you glorious man)

"Science isn't about getting the right answer, its about getting the most right answer we can with the tools we have at the moment"

>>7663305
And Hume ? You avoided him, isn't it ?

>>7663316
Yes, science is a mere technical work.
A little bit like pottery.

Anyone who takes these philosophers very seriously is probably just retarded, except Gödel because he did actual mathematics.

>>7663328
On the other hand, you will never see a philosopher discarding what he just wrote, because even the most inane bullshit can be published in philosophy if it's sugar coated in the right way.

>>7663337
Do you even culture , bro ?

>>7663337
You stand on the shoulders of giants but believe yourself standing on your own ego. Rather precarious.

>>7663094
>Nietzsche destroyed reason

lol no

The person who came closest was Kant, and he used reason to do it.

hume didn't destroy the scientific method, he if anything strengthened it by making the empirical method clearer

>>7663355
No, he BTFO induction and causality

>>7663339
Science is the exact same way.

>>7663094
Wtf nobody destroyed induction, fuck off.

>>7663378
Then, come on, prove induction, faggot, while i sit and laugh at your stupidity.

>>7663367
Nope, that's why we don't study old theories that have been proven to be wrong like aether. This does not happen for philosophy.

>>7663458
>Physics is all of science
Apparently you don't know much about the average quality of medical literature.

>>7663478
Medicine is not science, they barely use maths FFS.

>>7663497
Clearly theoretical physicists are realer scientists than experimentalists. They use more math, after all.

Pure mathematicians are the realest, of course.

>>7663510
That is not my argument, I'm just saying that not using enough maths makes most of your claims very vulnerable to those kinds of problems. Look at chemists, they don't know much math compared to physicists or mathematicians (obviously) and they don't have any reproducibility crisis.

>>7663520
Medicine involves testing very small, and very specific components of a much grander system. A system that's variable between individuals, and even within the same individual. A system that has many intertwined feedback loops.

It's not so much an issue of controlling for variables, and reproducibility, as it is having access and deriving the implications and meaning of your results. For example. You want to study how tissues react to magnetic fields, specifically in the context of reactive oxygen species production and gene expression. So you might start with an in vitro model. You use some general rules of thumb and culture a relevant cell line. You derive a method of accurately measuring and quantifying your results... but now what? How do you do the same in vivo? You can't go cutting humans up, mice don't always indicate what you want to know, and it's not easy to see how an entire system responds to a few given pieces being changed. You might know how things work, but extrapolating those alone doesn't always yield the correct answer. Which is why study methodology is so important.

Medicine doesn't use much math because it's not relevant. You're dealing with things in a more high level, conceptual way. You just try to model a large and complex system accurately in physics. See how useful mathematics is.

>>7663497

Medicine is technology or applied science, like engineering. It doesn't use much math because you don't need it for those applications just like engineers don't need even "basic" math classes like real analysis and complex analysis. It makes lots of money though just like engineering. In the UK, medicine is an undergrad applied science degree like engineering.

You can also have a pretty interesting job in maths that makes lots of money too so it's not like applied science is the "SCIENCE + MORE" ultimate versatile degree which is the best way for the "non-genius" to have a good fulfilling job.

>>7663094

> I destroyed your moms pussy last night

>>7663386
Well it worked most of the time before.

Then how come it still werks?

File: image.jpg (41KB, 344x271px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 344x271px

>>7663094

hi, /lit/

>>7663337
godel did mathematics, therefore he isn't retarded when taking these philosophers very seriously.

makes sense i suppose

>>7663094
Your thread reminded me of the Münchhausen trilemma;
>If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:

>The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
>The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
>The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

Intriguingly these seem to correlate pretty well with what seem to be three principle ways a program/algorithm may play out:
The repeated loop which doesn't finish
The non-repeating program which never finishes
And the program which eventually finishes at some point.

>>7663458
i wouldn't hold science and philosophy on equal standards. science only cares about important and correct theories.

there's a bit of a historical aspect when studying philosophy. these arguments don't happen within a vacuum and the argument and its context is as important as the conclusion. its important to know what was "wrong" before a discussion begins.

>>7663941

The brain is a sense organ that sense itself, then directs what it can sense. The world is too big to sense directly, and we have to make up most of it.

All deconstruction leads to paradox: either inductive paradox (chicken and the egg), deductive paradox (Russel's paradox), or semantic paradox (liars paradox).
All construction from axioms leads to incompleteness.
But we can deconstruct to a bootstrap, and we can construct to a narrative.

The world is; your narrative of the world is not. To say otherwise is to simply equivocate existence. But you can never leave the narrative.This is the Pragmatic Paradox.

But this doesn't have to lead to Nihilism.
The Pragmatist simply state that the narrative process of objectification, and the use of narrative tools such as purpose, cause and effect, and statistical inference lead to a narrative that either reflects the world or it does not, and that reflection is codified by rating a narrative as "useful to believe".

Instinct doesn't always work. Emotion doesn't always work. Inference works best but is very quiet. Inference also is the one that is trained by the world in which we live, and needs constant updating depending on the application of the narrative.
If you simply use the narrative, and don't get so hung up on equivocating it with a world it will never completely describe, you can get by pretty well.

>>7663941

:3 Hello, gorgeous.

Have you considered that all decision making is fundamentally algorithmic? Think about how that must relate to neural architecture. Then consider the nature of artificial intelligence.

>>7663094
Someone want to explain incompleteness for a pleb?

I understand that it basically says an axiomatic system can't fully prove itself right?

Why is that though and how did Gödel come to this conclusion?

>>7663980
Incompleteness: That regardless of the axiomatic system, there are conclusions that cannot be reached from those axioms. Godels proof involves the specific example of Peano's arithmetic.

>>7663349
Not at all.
When standing on the shoulders of giants in mathematics one still needs to look down and have a quite good understanding of how previous Giants climbed up in order to stand up himself and make progress or solve serious problems.

For fluffy philosophy that isn't the case at all. I haven't ever spent years formally studying philosophy at university and it makes absolutely no difference in terms of utility to society ("b-b-but utility is a concept from philosophy" if you want, but it's a concept summarised and characterised perfectly by economics and already existing as a synonym to "usefulness", study of Locke or Hume totally unneeded).

Philosophy students are so desperate to be relevant lmao when the fact is that their university departments could be closed with scarecely any effect .

>>7663386
Assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen every time before tomorrow is useful and so we adopt such thinking for finding out about the universe and improving our circumstances using such empirical observations and derived inferences and interpolations from past experience.
Qed

Who else here adopt descartes' and sartre's philosophy into their lives?

Kierkegaard is cool, but christ he is depressing.

File: Ex-Machina-thumb-1024x1024.jpg (139KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x1024px

>>7663971
That's a fine hook if I've ever seen one.

?

>>7663862
P funny desu

>>7664010
I, and Hume, essentially agree with you, but it's not a proof.

I love you all still.

>>7663971
>gorgeous
Why, thank you :)

>Have you considered that all decision making is fundamentally algorithmic? Think about how that must relate to neural architecture. Then consider the nature of artificial intelligence.
Sure, who hasn't; it's an algorithm machine; algorithm machines should be capable of intelligence?

>>7663971
How does the mind quantify the needs and wants of a person?

>>7664015
;3c here's another hook for you, cute stuff

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/537041/ibm-shows-off-a-quantum-computing-chip/

>>7664065
>>7664060

All you need to give a human infant is a sufficiently large data stream and it'll start to write its own little sorting and compression algorithms to parse the data into useful/useless information. Learning to recognize shapes, learning to recognize faces, figuring out that they're distinct from the environment they observe, figuring out that the motions of the limbs they observe correspond to motor impulses...

The better question, sweethearts, is "what drives this process?" (I can give hints, if you like hints.)

>>7663988
OK I'm reading more about it and I think I'm understanding it better

No axiomatic system can be both consistent (no paradoxes) and complete (all statements can be proved true/false).

I still don't quite understand how he arrived at this conclusion though. Also does this mean for math in general then? Is it incomplete or inconsistent? How do we know?

>>7664084
I like hints.

I'm not really sure where this is going though -

File: image.jpg (956KB, 2089x2560px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 2089x2560px

>>7664125

Most, if not all of the body's chemical processes operate on the basis of the RATIO of one chemical to another (or several). An analogy can be made, here; your body is "driving" with a foot on the gas and a foot on the brakes at all times.

So what are an infant's most primary conflicting drives?
>the need to maintain homeostasis
>appetite, or, the need to consume

Broadly speaking you can generalize this as "the desire to grow" versus "the desire to stay the same", or, to make another analogy, "the desire for more data" versus "the desire to compile stored data"; "risk-taking" versus "risk aversion"; and so on.

It is the presence of BOTH impulses that drives a healthy human infant to do what we call, colloquially, "learning".

Now, consider possible improvements to AI research.

>>7664140
>Broadly speaking you can generalize this as "the desire to grow" versus "the desire to stay the same", or, to make another analogy, "the desire for more data" versus "the desire to compile stored data"; "risk-taking" versus "risk aversion"; and so on.
until you understand that your desires are not personal, pertinent and permanent, and get disenchanted with them.

File: 1439742488641.png (304KB, 1544x1240px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1544x1240px

>>7663980
>I understand that it basically says an axiomatic system can't fully prove itself right?

>>7663967
>>Instinct doesn't always work
instinct always work

it is your fantasies which often do not match the reality

if you want to do anything relevant, do the contrary of what you do: stop speaking in realist terms.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x281px

>>7664148

But anon... Existential despair is caused by recursion

Maybe you need to try a new algorithm for assessing your data matrices ;)

>>7664084
>http://www.technologyreview.com/news/537041/ibm-shows-off-a-quantum-computing-chip/
Damn I thought you were going to be cool.

Anyhow, the nervous system is basically a robust, decentralised, modular signal processing system shaped by evolution to be able to do some cool tricks. In a sense it's not terribly dissimilar to the internet. The internet is probably some kind of AI desu.

>>7664005

>For fluffy philosophy that isn't the case at all. I haven't ever spent years formally studying philosophy at university and it makes absolutely no difference in terms of utility to society
i do believe you when you say that philosophy has no value to yourself, but im not so sure ill extend the claim to say that it also has no value to society.

>("b-b-but utility is a concept from philosophy" if you want, but it's a concept summarised and characterised perfectly by economics and already existing as a synonym to "usefulness", study of Locke or Hume totally unneeded).

so even any original thought from philosophy has no value at all?

>>7663094
Why Science (Natural Philosophy) is Bullshit

Yes, in a section or three we'll get around to religion, and show how religion, especially organized religion, is philosophical Bullshit however useful or useless you might perceive of it to be from a socio-memetic or ethical point of view. However if I did religion right now I'd be accused of being a Godless Scientistic, and since I'm actually a Godful Scientist I figured I might as well smash my own dolly before smashing anybody else's.

So just what is this ``Science'' thing of which I'm about to speak? I'm so glad you asked.

Science should properly be called by its true name - Natural Philosophy. It is founded on the very simple idea that if you want to know how Nature works, to find the deepest possible answers to all of those Big Questions, the best way to proceed is to ask it. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

The asking and answering of questions in science has been reduced to a ritual. Although Real Science is, in fact, not always or even usually done in strict accord with it13.15, the key step, the step of deciding what one is permitted to conclude, is known as the Scientific Method.

Nearly all students in the West are exposed to the Scientific Method in the form of questions on various quizzes and exams that ask silly things like ``what are the steps of the Scientific Method'' as if it is a recipe for knowledge like a recipe for chocolate cake13.16. In a nutshell, the Scientific Method is all about formulating propositions (hypotheses), doing empirical experiments to test them on the basis of data, and then formulating conclusions drawn from the data by the process of statistical inference that might support the hypothesis, contradict the hypothesis, fail to resolve the hypothesis one way or another, lead to new hypotheses (and a new round of funding). They key terms here are hypothesis, data, inference, conclusion liberally interspersed with funding, publication, and paperwork.

>>7664180
:0 it's cool because it'll allow computers to function with the approximate amount of RAM a human brain uses, silly!

memory storage is hard drive, thoughts are all RAM, unconscious algorithm writing is RAM... only completed and reliable algorithms get stored in memory.

how many neurons do you think could cover a dime?

>>7664189
Here are the axioms of Natural Philosophy:

The Law of Causality. It is hard to formulate hypotheses about nature that answer questions like ``do chipmunks like popcorn'' without imagining that if they do or if they don't there must be some reason behind it. Reason and Cause are nearly synonymous in English, at least. Hmmmm. However, we make a number of assumptions about causality as well, such as:

That Causality is temporally ordered. Sure, some physics experiments relax this, but the vast bulk of all science presumes that effects follow causes temporally. We don't generally view the premature death of chipmunks due to heart attack as causing the consumption of large amounts of saturated-fat drenched movie theater popcorn, nor do they die of a heart attack because they will (would have?) eventually eat(en) it.

That Causality is describable by Natural Laws that are themselves effectively invariant over time. Note what an incredible act of intellectual hubris this is, and how precisely opposed it is to the notion of a whimsical God who routinely violates Natural Law with miracles of the second type (defined elsewhere in this book). It is, however, the basis for induction and inference.

That those Natural Laws are expressable in a language that is mathematical in nature and hence inherit all sorts of logical and mathematical baggage from set theory, geometry, the calculus, functional analysis, statistics, and more, that is far more precise than the clumsy expressions possible in English, Latin, or any other social/human language. Even quantum phenomena that are (as far as we can measure) stochastic (probabilistic instead of deterministic) have mathematically determined probabilities.

>>7664190
ps:
neurons in the cerebral cortex: 146,000 per square millimeter

>>7664191
These are the basis of The Law of Induction. That the future will be pretty much like the past. If I drop ninety-nine pennies and each one falls, we presume that a) the hundredth penny we drop will fall; and b) there is a reason that it will fall, and that reason will persist into the indefinite future and that mathematics will describe its action in some quantitative way. Note that the Law of Induction is the precise point where Science becomes Bullshit, as one cannot prove the law of induction by induction - just because things always have apparently behaved in the future like they did in the past doesn't prove that they will in the future. Proof isn't the right word. However, it is certainly reasonable to believe this as long as one recognizes that it is a belief.

Although it isn't quite a strict axiom, there is a distinct bias in favor of Natural Laws that are simple and elegant and beautiful. It isn't enough to just formulate any old hypothesis. Otherwise one can always formulate a Fairy Theory13.17. This may be a strictly anthropocentric requirement - we want the Laws of Nature to be things that we (as humans) can understand. At least in principle. Eventually. Maybe by some really bright humans, anyway, if not ourselves.

The Laws of Nature are consistent. This is not a trivial axiom, thanks to Gödel. Choosing consistency may well be expected to cost us completeness. This is especially possible in the realm of quantum theory, as quantum theory forces us to give up the classical notion of completeness as one of its axioms right from the beginning. Cliche' or not, there may well be things that Man was Not Meant to Know, at least all at the same time.

>>7664195
These look a lot like Descartes' axioms, but without all the ontological mumbo-jumbo and fleshed out with the ideas of induction as a viable means to knowledge. On the basis of these (and still more, this list is just the highlights and not exhaustive) axioms, scientists propose hypotheses leading to coherent, organized theories that are eventually validated by experiments13.18.

By now you should know the drill as well as I do. On the basis of what logic should we believe in Causality and all the rest? No fair answering something irrational such as ``because it works'' because ``working'' is something that is validated using induction, and the logical validity of empirical induction cannot be logically proven by induction. Besides, empirical induction can be (and often has been, historically) mistaken - it is not a razor sharp knife, merely sharp ``enough'' to carve out, over time, a consistent picture of the laws of nature as they are written by the Hand of God on the blank page of the Universe for all to read who have the wit to do so, no need of a prophet's license or an accompanying Holy Scripture.

File: nanomachines_son.jpg (42KB, 500x419px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x419px

>>7664163
who is this semen demon?

>>7664199
There is no logical reason to believe in Causality, Temporal Ordering, the validity of the Law of Induction. They are Bullshit, in the precise sense that we cannot prove them to be true, as they are things we have to assume so we can prove things to be (provisionally) true. I can certainly imagine them to be false, and some of them might even be false - there was a time when people wouldn't have admitted the possibility of probability, for example13.19 and the issue is still, really, unresolved. Well, in truth, I personally have a hard time actually imagining e.g. the Law of Causality to be false but can sort of manage it by thinking of apparently ordered states embedded in an infinity of random configurations - a sort of a monkey-typing-Shakespeare sort of acausal Universe. Not too ``likely''13.20, sure, and it has a hard time dealing with my self-awareness, but given infinity to work with lots of unlikely things are possible and the Universe itself is nearly infinitely ``unlikely'' to be the precise way that it nevertheless is...13.21

Yet they do seem to self-consistently work. We thus find ourselves in a philosophical mire. We can ignore the axioms above, sneering that they are not provable and only one possible set of axioms out of a practical infinity of possibilities and hence are unlikely to be correct. However, if they turn out to be correct, one prediction they make is that ignoring them will result in my almost immediate demise as I try to eat my laptop as if it is a sandwich (crunching up all those arsenic-bearing IC's like popcorn) or walk out into traffic imagining that right now it is possible that the cars are soft and fluffy and that I've grown so hard and massive that the cars will bounce right off. People in fact do these things (usually after ingesting large amounts of hallucinogens) and certainly appear to die or at least get very badly injured when they do.

>>7664201
When I've ignored the Laws of Science in the past (assuming that my memory is in fact real and the past I remember actually happened in some approximation) I've gotten really badly hurt myself and remember the pain. My brainstem remembers something of this pain and automatically compensates for my movement while I walk without falling down. Humans are apparently programmed to learn Laws of Nature - fire burns, falling hurts, disobeying parents causes bottom-swats - from pain and experience as anyone who has ever been a child or raised a child should well remember.

So for no good reason (if ``good'' is supposed to mean ``rational'') I choose to believe these unprovable axioms as my own Prime Axioms, Axioms with a capital A. Or perhaps for every good reason. Perhaps they are a statement that is true but unprovable, just like this book. Mind you, they aren't enough - I add a few more axioms that also seem to work, at least for me - but they are most of what is needed to provide me with what appears to be a basis for conditional knowledge of the Universe, which is as good as it gets.

>>7664149
logic is so fucking gay

>>7664190
Idk if human RAM is that great we get <1sec for sensory memory and <1m for short-term memory.
Shit's super volatile.

File: nigel pepper cock.jpg (44KB, 588x575px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 588x575px

>>7663094
>tfw I destroyed ur mum

File: 1436944277940.png (791KB, 1896x9987px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1896x9987px

>>7663094
>>7663094
>>>tfw science will never answer your questions
science will never answer anything since both your questions and science are products of the intellect, both results from abstractions, therefore both will never be satisfying.

File: All That Shit By You.jpg (37KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 392x500px

>>7664189
>>7664191
>>7664195
>>7664199
>>7664201
>>7664204

>>7663316
Sounds like a physicist

>>7663967
>>7663941
I enjoyed these posts.

Is the existence of the universe itself proof that there is some complete system that can account for all phenomena? The fact that human endeavor completely fails to even find a theory capable of supporting such a system is depressing. Not only is the universe beyond our little minds, its beyond our collective concerted effort as well.

>Gödel destroyed completeness

who is Gentzen?

>>7663094
It'd be easy to dismiss you as a troll, but you probably believe these idiotic reductions

>>7664542
>who is Gentzen?
and what has he done ?

>>7664571
>It'd be easy to dismiss you as a troll, but you probably believe these idiotic reductions

OP here, are you trying to troll the troll ?

>>7664587
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen%27s_consistency_proof

>>7663094
>Wildberger destroyed the reals

>caring about all the logic bullshit
who's autistic enough to give a fuk about this

>>7665058
>Primitive recursive arithmetic

very few people believe in this

>>7663094
Literally everything is subjective and relative.

Well at least I still have my own Ego, that can be certain of! Time to read Stirnir.

>>7663328
Well, yes, I thought that was obvious. Otherwise, why would failure to understand it produce so many crackpots?

They didn't do shit. All they did was write a long ass opinion with no evidence.
Go back to your hugbox, /lit/.

>>7666057
Godel did not write a long opinion with no evidence but yea you could probably say that about the rest of them.

>>7666063
Only person I haven't read.

If I may ask, how does one destroy set theory?

>>7666078
Hammer.

>>7666057
"Evidence" is logical connection. Implying that the claims of Wittgenstein or Hume (who were supreme logicians) have no evidence backing their analysis, is tantamount to saying that math is correct by the sheer fact of its correctness (rather than that math has actual logico-rational roots from which we derive its correctness).

>>7666078
Op is referring to Russell's paradox which did destroy a version of set theory.

>>7666076
Godel provided a formal proof that, basically, any semiotic system which is consistent cannot be provable and vise versa.

>>7666078
Consider a set of all simple (non-recurring) sets.

>>7666088
Someone is butthurt. Math is correct because its verifiable, rather than just spewing opinions.
>>7666099
I see. Basically if you can prove it than its consistent or not.

>>7666119
>I see. Basically if you can prove it than its consistent or not.
IDK I'm parroting what I heard but it sounds legit.

>>7666119
I'm a pleb so maybe I'm not explaining it right but as I understand it he showed that no axiomatic system which trys to re create all of mathematics can ever be both complete (able to evaluate all problems true/false) and consistent (no paradoxes).

I'm only just starting to understand this stuff and the implications still aren't clear to me. I understand it has application to computation and AI and possibly to the evaluation of human intelligence.

File: godel[1].jpg (556KB, 1101x1589px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1101x1589px

>>7666132
>I understand it has application to computation and AI and possibly to the evaluation of human intelligence.
There a whole huge book about how the spectrum of consciousness is probably a measure of how many paradoxes a neural network is capable of dealing with.
It kinda falls apart when sentient orangutans are not as smart as chimps about half of which display sentience.

>>7666132
I'm a pleb as well. I know a lot what philosophers say can be true in science but its usually broken down to a pulp and the result is often foreign than its original argument. You are talking about the math world version of the unified theory. A lot mathematicians want to make math simpler than what it is today.

>>7664140
appetite/need to consume derive from homeostasis

what the brain does is approximate the upwards and downwards drift an action has on homeostasis e.g. eating a lot driving the need for an action to either make an adjustment downwards or wait till processes sort themselves out.

learning is just a byproduct of homeostasis in the brain. Cells in the brain live and therefore produce signals. Only enviromental changes which feed into the sensory machine which changes homeostasis in the brain generate an action. When a baby is born the homeostasis is changed it cries because thats probably the circuit that gets activated if there is no other programm in place. From then on its trial and error of behaviour and observation feeding into the homeostatic brain. Everytime an action increases homeostasis its more likely to occur. Now the brain is a complex machine and what makes neurons live in homeostasis is a more and more complex getting construct of behaviours which are a thing of culture.

how this relates to AI i dont know. Except that maybe AI research should use a continuum data stream for neural nets with different sensor inputs if one wants a human like AI.

Not the anon your responded to.

>>7663339
>>7663367

post theory, wait till someone offers rebuttal

>>7666143
Well it seems Gödel basically proved that one theory encompassing all of math is impossible but I think the deeper point is that he's saying math its self must be incomplete.

I mean math is derived from a set of axioms right?

Its weird to think about and I still feel I don't fully grasp the significance of it. This stuff is harder to understand imo than relativity.

Apparently the way he did this was by sort of re creating the liars paradox in math. He made a formula that says it is unsolvable by any system, kinda like "this statement is a lie", if its true then its false and if its false then its true.

File: 1439598074112.jpg (338KB, 1457x1725px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1457x1725px

>>7666088
>saying that math is correct by the sheer fact of its correctness
look what a rule of inference is, instead of remaining an undergrad.

Nietzche's not a scientist you twat.

much wow

I aM GOING to bed

>>7666528
stupid or bait ?

>>7666088
>roots from which we derive it's correctness

Godels theorem deals with this very idea. No it doesn't, or at least the roots are incomplete.

>>7666525
So what you're trying to say is that math is indefeasible, whereas logic is not? kek

>>7667099
Godel doesn't say math is correct because it's correct, because that's an endlessly fallacious loophole.

>>7667122
He said math is logic with all the bullshit cut out. That's why mathematicians broke away from philosophy.

>>7663316
'Rightness' doesn't even come into it desu lad

>>7666503
Just read an introductory book which covers first order logic. Gödel's theorems are actually pretty easy to understand once you see their proof.

>>7667210
What is the significance of his theory? I guess that's what I really want to know.

Like ok math is incomplete, or we can't make a series of axioms that completely expresses it, what does that mean? What does it effect? Anything?

With physics its easy to see the application of different theories but with this abstract math I'm having a hard time.

I read that it has application to computers and AI but I don't really get why. If I had to guess I'd say its because it kind of calls into question the idea of creating a truly intelligent machine since its basically saying we could never give the machine a set of axioms to derive the principals of math completely.

Is that right or I'm way off and not understanding it?

>>7663980

basically this:
you can start with basically logic, and build up any formal system (of math) that you want. you can build simple systems, or more complex ones. The thing Godel is saying is that if you have a formal system of at least a certain strength (and it turns out the bar is quite low... systems that don't reach the bar can't really do much of anything), then he system necessarily will contain TRUE but UNPROVABLE theorems, hence it is called incomplete.

>>7667334
And what is the significance of having true but unprovable statements?

>>7665077
Im watching this guys videos and he says he doesnt believe in infinite sets, and neither should you.
Then...How do you have regular numbers, then? If there cant be an infinite set, the set of all numbers has to be finite doesnt it? And you cant do that.

>>7667373
numbers are not sets, unless you are von Neuman.

a number as not the same type as a set of numbers. if you do not type your thing, like you type an orange as an orange and not an apple, then you fall on the russel paradox

>>7667564
The Russell paradox is solved by typing things? That prevents the "set of all sets that don't contain themselves" problem?

>>7667369
the significance is the sterility of the fantasy of the rationalist to acquiring knowledge through your intellect whose purpose is to abstract things and manipulate them, in natural language or more formal ones.

if you wish to reach certainty, remain empiricist, tame your spirit and meditate

>>7667579
Now see that sounds like meta physics bullshit.

Is the idea just that we can't officially "prove" everything and will have to just settle for "knowing" some things to be true?

>>7667576
russell invented type theory, yes. but intuitionist type theory is cuter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#Origin_of_Russell.27s_theory_of_types

also, type theory by russel is seen as a breakthrough only by the (classical) rationalist who still fantasies about absolutes. any empiricist knows that you must type, contextualise your abstractions, you must say ''the number 2 AS an element of such set, instead of saying merely ''the number 2''], which then destroy them since people construct abstractions in believing to reach absolutes through them, since they believe that abstractions are knowledge and communicable knowledge and that abstractions have the power to change people opinion through the fantasy of objectivity...

type theory is a breakthrough for the rationalist, because it brings the rationalist closer to empiricism, even in the field of pure thoughts. [and the rationalist hates this]

>>7667601
>Is the idea just that we can't officially "prove" everything and will have to just settle for "knowing" some things to be true?
yes. but then you understand that mathematics nor logic does not tell you what logic to use to conduct mathematics. this is precisely because you do not know why do you logic and math beforehand.
what is the best logic ? what is the best math ? these questions do not make sense, until you determine what goals you seek to achieve through the use of logic and math. but then logic and math becomes tools and seem disconnected from any truth.
Let's recall that deductive logic is about the validity of derivation of statements, but so far, there are plenty of criterion for validity. so which one to use ?
truth is only one possible criterion for validity. and the logical truth is completely contrived; it formalizes what we think how truth behaves.


math and logic are analytical knowledge at best, man-made knowledge. to have faith in math is like having in the laws so that you sanctify them. Mathematics, logics, laws are conventions, unless you can show that they are not.

thus far, this is not the case. so you are led, if you wish to maintain maths as more than they are, to question the principle of induction à la Hume, to assert that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it rose yesterday and today. given the perpetual sterility of showing that math is beyond conventions, why should I believe that they are something else than that ?
if you believe in induction, you apply the induction to this sterility and conclude the sterility, just like you apply the induction to the sun rising each morning.

>>7667629
What about his second theorem which as I understand it anyhow deals with the notion of inconsistency.

Basically it seems like he's saying any logical system must be either a) incomplete (unable to evaluate all statements as being either true or false) or b) inconsistent and it seems to me inconsistency means it relies on another theory to prove its self so you run into like recursive loops.

Is he saying a system must recursive to be complete?

If nothing else this stuff has inspired me to learn more math. I've always been interested in physics but this pure math stuff is fascinating even if it is somewhat difficult to understand.

>>7663094
I can't imagine the level of BTFO to the mathematicians working on a complete system when Gödel showed his theorems.

>>7667314
I think the significance was/is mostly that it let people know it's not worth looking for a set of axioms that will do it all, because you'll never find one.
If you're familiar with the P=NP problem, think about it like that. If someone managed to prove P ≠ NP, we would know that it's not worth it to look for a more efficient solution to certain problems.

>>7667651
Its especially hilarious that he made his announcement right after Hilbert got done speaking about how "all mathematical problems are solvable". I can only imagine how butthurt everyone was. Gödel believed people were trying to poison him later in life, maybe they were, maybe it was other pissed off mathematicians.

>>7667663
So you don't think the idea that math is incomplete has any implications beyond that? Or do you feel he was just saying we cannot create a perfect set of axioms that reflect math but not necessarily that math itself is incomplete?

File: 1437223251335.jpg (68KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x720px

No, you're engaging in the exact same behavior Nietzsche proposes, only much less honestly. You're using your reason to impose a set of values over nihilism as an escape, to grant yourself a feeling of purpose and moral direction. You haven't been endowed with some form of higher mental faculty that enables you to escape your own mind, and so you're using your own human capabilities to do so. When your faith wears away, as it quite likely will (the crisis of faith is a very common crisis indeed), you'll be left just as much sinking in nihilism, only with even less capacity to regain a foothold since you believed your values to be objective and eternal.

>>7667678
>>7663094
many scientists today consider this question to be ''metaphysical''. This is the result of the detrimental divide between what is now philosophy [which splits into analytic supposedly close to science and continental/phenomenology which is posited to be far form science] and what is now physics [which splits into theoretical physics and experimental physics]
This is why the rationalism-realism is the default stance wherein the students leaving the university have faith. These students hardly question this faith until late in their careers, and, for the few who question their stances, generally, when they reconsider, it goes either into scepticism, or into pathetic chatting on fields such as philosophy and theology that they do not master at all, especially when they go in the entertainment industry in doing conferences, selling books and documentaries...
the same applies to biology thanks to the trendy mechanism [not theory] of the evolution. Many do not reflect on what they say and happily claim that, for instance, we are on earth to spread our genes.


Reminder that not a single scientist can prove that science gives truth, objectivity and access to reality. At best rationality gives you efficiency, in getting what you want. but then, the question is what do you want, and why do you want what do you want ?

the scientist does not even know what he is doing. without this questionning, without philosophy, the scientist is like a hammer salesman telling you that you hammers are great, and that you need one, that you buy a few hammers without even knowing why you buy them, and why you listen the salesman in the first place.

knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the most nihilist of all doctrines.

File: thj3F.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>7663094
Reason>Induction>Completeness>Language>Set Theory>Reason

HONESTLY OP I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS

>>7663386
Do I get to assume the well-ordering principle? It's equivalent.

>>7667678
To add to this Gödel also presented Einstein, on his 70th birthday, with his solutions to Einstein's own GR equations allowed for "closed time-like loops" thus enabling time travel.

Now known as the Godel Metric Einstein was so disturbed by these solutions he began to doubt the validity of his own theory.

Gödel was truly a master of jimmy rustleing.

>>7667874
>At best rationality gives you efficiency, in getting what you want. but then, the question is what do you want, and why do you want what do you want ?

The brain is a sense organ that senses itself, then tells itself what to sense. Then it sense itself sensing itself.

This is the structure that creates paradox. But it is that paradox that allows us to bootstrap the narrative.

Look into Pragmatism. It is a philosophy that allows you to accept the bootstrap of the Pragmatic Paradox: the world is; your narrative is not, but you can never corroborate the world without the narrative. It allows you to understand that logic comes from the feeling of inference that the world trained into you. It allows you to see purpose, and cause and effect, and statistical inference as just narrative tools to allow you to see more of the world than you can sense; to make up a story that reflects the world.

Pragmatism allows all of this by finding narratives "useful to be believed".

The brain is a sense organ that sense itself...
this is also a narrative, but one that digs out the patterns in the world, and leaves you with the confidence to choose what you find useful to be believed.

>>7667974
It seems to me, in my limited admittedly plebish understanding, that this is the essence of Gödel's theorems.

Logical systems we create are either incomplete or they involve bootstrap like situations.

Whether this is a reflection of the nature of logic itself or just our abilities I suppose remains debatable.

>>7667987

It's not plebish, but you must realize that a narrative created under one condition (in the case of Godel, Peano's arithmetic) doesn't necessarily transfer to another. The narrative either reflects the world or it does not.
Unfortunately, under the narrative of Pragmatism (that relies heavily on cognitive and behavioral psychology, not to mention evolution), to understand or corroborate anything means you have to cut new paths in the brain, and that takes time. The pathways that understand what you have figured out - that construction from axioms leaves holes, and deconstruction to axioms arrives at paradox - come naturally from a narrative model of a brain that senses itself, but to do so means a new pathway that connects these narratives into a, so called, meta-narrative take time to grow.

Those that choose to follow the rabbit all the way down the hole end up in a place where there is no metaphysics, only an indivisible, unknowable world that is always in flux and is indistinguishable from randomness until we apply the objectification and semantics of the narrative, and a narrative of world that does not exist until you choose to make it real by acting.
We sew the world together from senses and memory and logic and emotion and instinct into a narrative that disappears every night, and reappears when we awaken, but somehow the world is always there to reflect our narrative or not.

But you seem to be well on your way....

>>7667952
>"closed time-like loops" thus enabling time travel.
And crazy shit like self-causality.

>>7668018
I'm aware he used Peano arithmetic to make his proof but as I understand it the theorems actually apply to any and all axiomatic logical systems that attempt to recreate the principals of math, so basically if you're trying to make one set of axioms that stand on their own and from them you intend to derive all principals of math, you're not gonna be able to do it.

But yes your right that it wouldn't apply to other types of systems outside that but I think its just limited to Peanos arithmetic.

I guess the big thing I've recently realized it that these theorems pretty much confirm that our theories, at least our theories about math, are at best pragmatic (or useful) but we should never assume that they are if fact truthful.

I suppose you could argue that his theory means math itself is incomplete but I don't think that's what it means and from reading about the man I don't think that's what he believed. I think Gödel believed that there is truth and there is our version of truth and that's what he's showing. Or like you said there is the world and there is our narrative of the world, they're different things and our narrative is inherently flawed but being ever refined. We need to be careful not to mistake our narratives for the world though we should always let the world shape our narrative not try to shape the world to fit it.

>>7663349
How is it precarious when he's still standing on the shoulder of giants?
Chrckm8 pretentious philo fag

>>7668022
Yea it is crazy. It didn't make Einstein doubt himself for no reason.

His solutions are legit on paper but of course it remains to be seen if these things are possible in reality (probably not).

That said if GR says these things are possible but in reality they are not then something is wrong with GR. So either Gödel gave us a valid time travel formula of he pointed out a flaw with GR. Either way pretty based. He was a great man, shame he went and starved himself to death.

>>7663555
>medicine is a science
>you might know how shit works but irl shit doesn't work
>math is useless when modelling big shits in physics

So I guess the black hole supercomputer simulations in the 60s that defined the "golden age", even the cgi interstellar thingy, are pulled from the bottom of someone's ass with no math whatsoever. The fuck are you even saying man. Medicine is just pattern recognition. Being a non science field should not diminish the significance of that field generally, but you're just acting like a fucking baby trying to join some group you think is superior compared to you.

Next you're gonna be calling economics science, and literature science, and gender studies science because you like them.

>>7668055
>That said if GR says these things are possible but in reality they are not then something is wrong with GR.
From memory the caveat is that it only works in a different spacetime geometry to our universe. It could happen, just not here.

>>7668034

The only real differences between a Pragmatic's life and everyone else's is a sobriety when applying any narrative in a new situation, or an aversion to ideology or philosophy of any kind. Although that sounds paradoxical, you'll understand how a Pragmatist doesn't care.

Logic and math are circular: The narrative goes "we live in a world we can't see all at once; where the patterns we call objects and relationships don't seem to change. Big things don't fit in small things; some things have to happen before others...etc. This is Hume's doubt: the world has trained us to expect certain things and our logic is patterned after it."

But it is not just our logic; our purpose and our statistical inference are also trained by the world.

I don't find it useful to believe math exists or the narrative exists, or semantics exist because believing so equivocates existence. Does it have mass? Does it have energy? Does naming something differently over and over create mass and energy? And I spent a lot of time in mathematics undoing the training of my feeling of inference about big things not fitting inside of smaller things, which is why you cannot follow many proofs semantically or you mind will break - or like Einstein, you end up doubting your own theories. But in the end, I find things useful to be believed if the narrative - the model - shows me something in the world I couldn't see before.

When you drive a car, you become the car. Do you really become the car? No. The narrative of cognitive psychology says the brain is plastic - it can learn to make sense of any sense.

The narrative reflects something. And in that sense one understands why Pragmatism doesn't give a shit about knowledge for knowledge's sake. Not because it is not useful to do so, but because you put the cart before the horse if you thing the narrative creates the world, and is not just something you hold up to the world to see what is reflected.

>>7668067
We don't know yet if it would be possible or not to manipulate our spacetime to allow it.

GR says gravity manipulates space time therefore it says space time can be manipulated. What the limits of this are we don't know but at least on paper wormholes and warp drives are possible both of which would lead to closed-time like loops.

Einstein did not believe this stuff was really possible, he felt it was just a mathematical oddity and would be ruled out in time by future discoveries but keep in mind that that's also how he felt about solutions allowing for black holes. Also even if he's right and these things don't work and we do find out why they don't in the future that will still mean the GR formulas will need to be changed to reflect the new discovery and correctly rule out solutions involving closed time like loops.

So yea it is still the case that either that shit works or GR is missing something that should rule it out. If something isn't possible in reality it shouldn't be possible in your theory either, if its a good theory.

>>7668075
(cont)
When you use the narrative in this way, putting it in its place as just a picture of the world you hold up to the world to see if it is valid, you no longer need a concept of truth, or of patterns that are in the world, or even of a world that is knowable. You can equally look at the world as just a bunch of random stuff, or as a place that you can navigate by finding survival a useful thing to believe.

>>7668084
>>When you use the narrative in this way, putting it in its place as just a picture of the world you hold up to the world to see if it is valid,
nobody does this and your criterion of validity is so contrived that only a few people on earth agree with you. and still do not motivate your quest to see the world as you have not seen it before.

and everybody does maths semantically, only computers do them syntactically.

>>7663094


Typically, I am curious about the process of proving the hypotheses wrong. If I am not mistaken, no hypothesis can be proven correct, we can only prove hypothesis wrong.

The hypothesis that you refer to is its statistical definition. As someone else pointed out, any scientific statement is a hypothesis. When you reject the null-hypothesis you are accepting the alternative hypothesis. Now, what statistical tests cannot say is which of the infinite alternate hypotheses is actually true; in other words our alternative hypothesis is always general such as m ≠ µ. There are one-tailed tests that are more stringent than this and address the direction of the inequality (either m > µ or m < µ).
This is so for statistical tests because each of them can only test if a certain observation fits a given model. There are many popular models which are the basis of the common statistical tests. Note that if you intend to test if a certain observation follows Poisson process, then you are trying to validate an observation as a case of a certain model instead of the rejection based tests. However you should note that it is difficult to prove that a certain data follows a model because you need to verify each and every parameter. Two distributions are considered same only if all of their moments match. This is essential because there can be infinite functions that produce a certain shape (a function can be expressed as McLaurin series and if all moments are same the functions ought to be the same). Now what we regularly do is to determine if something that we observed is not just because of a random measurement error and that is why we aim to reject the null hypothesis which assumes that the data is an outcome of a Gaussian distribution model (You can see this answer in in Biology.SE for details).

>>7668232

I would say that you can validate a possibility instead of reject infinite possibilities if you know the underlying model and have enough data. This is how the prediction-validation-correction method works. In certain cases the model can be built using basic principles instead of inferring from the data. Finally, all models have assumptions and you need to be sure if your experiments satisfy these assumptions or not; if not you should revise the model.

Intuition or "gut feeling" is no alternative method

Intuition cannot be called a method because there is no set protocol for it. And there is no way to replicate it. Biologically speaking, intuitive guess is basically a case of applying multiple statistical tests (sub-consciously, we can say). Intuition works only when you have a good deal of prior information (sub-consciously or consciously).

File: 1419877360724.png (180KB, 458x533px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 458x533px

how does it make you feel that nobody can propose a scientific experiment which disprove solipsism, whereas solipsism is destroyed by empiricism ?

>>7664250
STM is <15sec actually.

>>7667874
>knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the most nihilist of all doctrines.
This is why some of the best discovery were made by men and women of faith. They were trying to find some hint that god exist. That question is still unsolved. Learning or reading for the sake of it is just like watching hours and hours of mindless television. You don't get nothing out of it. I'm glad someone else see this.

>>7663094

Highlight inconsistency or fallacies is not destroying.

Science (Sciences of Nature) - Quantitative before qualitative - How before why

Philosophy (Human Sciences) - Qualitative before quantitative - Why before how

Human Knowlodge = Quantitative + Qualitative (et viceversa) experiences.

>>7668235
Because solipsism isn't a theory.

>>7668235
Solipsism can't be tested. It's just an extreme representation, and logical consequence, of the bits of uncertainty any honest human being experiences every single day.

>solipsism is destroyed by empiricism
It's not.

Having difficulty with, or dislike for solipsism means someone is still a child inside.

>>7668325
Gödel actually wrote a proof on the existence of god.

He was very religious though he didn't go to church. He used to say religions are bad but religion is not.

>>7668841
He was spiritual. He hated organized religion. Basically he was a hippy.

>>7668841
Why were all great scientific innovators religious?

>>7669308
They believe with each discovery we get closer to god. This is why Jewish folk have the highest scientific achievements. They believe this is a way to talk to god.

>>7669377
Kind of beautiful tbqh.

File: 1345757876562.jpg (46KB, 555x794px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 555x794px

>>tfw :Hume destroyed induction
>>7663094
>>Nietzsche destroyed reason
>>Russell destroyed set theory
>>Wittgenstein destroyed language
>>Gödel destroyed completeness
And my penis destroyed your moms asshole

Checkmate faggot

>>7669435
Its something atheists don't understand. God isn't a person but an idea. This is what philosophy of religion teaches. Godel was correct about attending church. Its just some guy preaching what he thinks is right. Not the word of god. The big bang theory was formulated by a Catholic cardinal in the Vatican.

>>7663094

>Russell destroyed set theory

No he didn't.

>Godel destroyed completeness

This probably doesn't mean what you think it does.

>>7669494
I'm a de facto atheist but I still can grasp the beauty of the idea though.

Although when push comes to shove I'm probably more of an agnostic.

>>7663862
underrated

>>7669250
I wouldn't go that far. He was an avid reader of the bible and believed in a personal god not just an impersonal one like his friend Einstein.

I think you could basically call him a Christian, I don't think that would have offended him, I think he just practiced his own version of it.

>>7669377
Yes I do think he believed this. Einstein felt the same way. He used to say "I want to know God's thoughts, all the rest are details."

They believed the study of math/science brought them closer to god.

>>7663862
Best post on /sci/ in a long time.

>>7669650
Godel was a racidal and tried to read everything he could to find out if god is real. His entire life works reflect that. Einstein wasn't sure, but believed in something higher. So the study of math and science is just an extension of that idea. We are trying to find god, even if its the answer is that god does not exist.

>>7669683
E. believed in god as nature, like spinoza

File: 1443869428565.gif (39KB, 420x461px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 420x461px

>>7669377
>They believe with each discovery we get closer to god. This is why Jewish folk have the highest scientific achievements. They believe this is a way to talk to god.
while the sole effective manner remains practice through meditations

>posts pseudoscience on the science board
My only problem is that you haven't been banned yet.

>>7670206
That's stupid. The limit of mediation is your own being. There is no limit of discovery.

>>7670266
Godel at the very least is not pseudoscience.

>>7663094
Wait what?
So I can't prove my math shit with induction?

>all this approval of Godel because of a familiarity with his mathematics
>disproving Wittgenstein because they think he didn't ground his thought in maths
>not knowing that Witty was actually an engineer who created the design for helicopter engines which were used in WWII
>not knowing that Wittgenstein was one of the leading figureheads in creating a purely mathematical system of logic

Notable ideas of Wittgenstein, according to his Wikipedia (there are more, no doubt):

>Picture theory of language
>Truth functions
>States of affairs
>Logical necessity
>Meaning is use
>Language-games
>Private language argument
>Family resemblance
>Rule following
>Forms of life
>Wittgensteinian fideism
>Anti-realism
>Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics
>Ordinary language philosophy
>Ideal language analysis
>Meaning scepticism
>Memory scepticism
>Semantic externalism
>Quietism
>Critique of set theory

baka Senpai

>>7671270
Luddy Dubs doesn't get nearly enough credit desu.

>>7671270
>he was an engineer
There is your answer. /sci/ hates engineers.

>>7671270
Reading his wiki article now.

Goddamn this man had a full life.

>>7671626
his biography by ray monk is top tier

Neither Nietzsche not Kant destroyed reason

>>7663305
Why didn't you add jobs?

>>7663094
I guarantee the vast swath of replies to your post/readers on this board haven't read Wittgeintsein either. He was a student of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, famously publishing a very famous book in 1921 called the Tractatus that attempted to define the relation between logic and language, and a somewhat kantian initiative to delimit science and philosophy. It was infamously cryptic but extremely influential on a group known as the Vienna circle (particularly Waismann and Carnap). It set the agenda (for the most part) for anglo-american philosophy in the early half of the twentieth century, however some years later (after a famous colleague of his F. P. Ramsey raised concerns about the text) he repudiated the large brunt of his former views (or so he is interpreted to have, its a controversial issue) and adopted a more holistic and anti-systematic approach to language (its hard not to be reductive when explaining his work, most of it is extremely technical (and even the logical notation is decades old) but the few non-technical details people gobble up). He's responsible for dozens of innovation in logic and many persuasive arguments that help repudiate solipsistic/individual explanations of the origins of language with something now know as the PLA (private language argument). He published only the tractatus in his lifetime and most of his works are simply manuscripts he left or lectures he dictated to small groups of students. His philosophical work was entangled with a strange metaphilosophical stance (best elucidated in the "Philosophy" section of the big typescript which is available in the wiley blackwell version of the book (its massive) or a tidy little Hackett collection called the Philosophical Occasions) where (and I will be challenged on this probably) he propounds this weird theoretical quietism, holding that philosophy doesn't make "progress" per say but exposes misleading analogies or senseless questions/statements to be meaningless

>>7672112
Wittgenstein unfortunately once made the claim that philosophy in this sense was a "therapy" (which sadly caught on and become sloganistic) and it was very influential on Oxford thinkers at the time such as P F Strawson and J L Austin. The interest in his work (which is largely technical) mainly revolves around his biography (Ray Monk wrote a very famous one) because he was an exceedingly eccentric and focused man. with his, Wilfrid Sellar's, Quine's, and Austin's work, logical positivism and reductive empiricism were largely overthrown. VERY many philosophers study Wittgenstein's work and he has had a profound influence on most analytic anglo-american philosophers, HOWEVER almost none of them (save a few strange) hold his metaphilosophical stances on philosophical problems simply being "puzzles" that can be shown to be senseless or simply tautological. He did have a much more humbling effect on how they approach philosophy however. Very few if any make grand pronouncements about philosophy's abilities to grasp ultimate truths anymore.

Most of his work is essentially unapproachable without knowledge of the analytic tradition, he was a philosopher's philosopher (like Quine) and his work is not very well self contained. I'd recommend a few texts but if you're unfamiliar with him it more than likely means you're unfamiliar with his predecessors. Read his biography however, even without a knowledge of his work he's fucking fascinating. Stay away from anything P M S Hacker (Peter) has to say about his work.

>>7672115
Many would argue that was never philosophy's initiative from the start, and most interpretations of any philosopher's work that would have them grasping an "ultimate truth" are misguided. Demolishing Truth with a capital T has been on the agenda ever since the early days of the american pragmatists, in fact the philosophy of science has been hip to it for decades too, they talk about the USEFULNESS of theories rather than their truth. Richard Rorty is right up your alley, he's a more popular/accessible american philosopher with a very famous text called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". Usefulness in that context means the ability to generate new predictions that can be tested, not usefulness in terms of solving a problem. It's a measure of how well the model predicts nature, since knowing how nature "actually" works is extremely difficult.
We aren't going to step outside history and grasp some eternal universal law about the way things are any time soon.
Wittgenstein!

>>7672119
>>7672115
>>7672112
Yes we can read wikipedia.

File: 1430932877497.png (128KB, 1643x2831px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1643x2831px

>>7663094
reminder that mathematics, logic, science are human conventions, just as the legal rules.

File: stirner.gif (6KB, 240x273px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x273px

>Stirner destroyed everything (and then gave us nothing)

>>7672247
this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeTqkduBe8E

>>7663349
*tip*

>>7663097
You have it backwards. Philosophy is about asking questions. Science is about finding explanations.

File: well_spooked.jpg (70KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 803x688px

>>7672247

>>7672253
based

OOOGOOAGOO BOOOGGOAAG

File: 1448076070835.png (81KB, 1594x329px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1594x329px

>>7672867

>>7674219
Funny.