"Purity" Discussion

[nogre]

philosophy goes far off to the left if this is a purity scale. philosophy gets dirty everywhere.

[AstralRunner]

[mjkuhlman2000]

This comic is screaming reductionism. Just add Politics, Philosophy, and maybe Theology for the Theists out there and all the bases would be covered.

This is definitely one of my favorite comics, because I consider myself a material/scientific reductionist.

On a random note, how are math/physics dual majors able to sleep at night? How can you be entrenched in different fields that use opposing methods of reasoning? Inductive (sensory evidence) and Deductive (absolute proofs)?

[pliny]

Obviously the analogy mentioned in the Alt-Text is the opposite of the truth. The satisfaction from math is much moreso than that of Physics, and I'm sure most normal people would agree that the satisfaction from sex is much moreso than that of masturbation.

But math in and of itself isn't anything. It may provide the basis for all of whatever, but it has no reality until it is applied to something. I don't think the alt-text was referring to satisfaction, but rather to interaction, and the satisfaction from that.

And you could carry that analogy all the way back to sociology or whatever kind of science Physicists and Mathematicians are too snooty for.

I think that the step from math to physics is considerably different from there on.

Can you show me math in the world? No, you can show me numbers, and you can show me patterns, but you cannot show me how and why those numbers and patterns interact. That is up to physics, chemistry, etc.

Mathematics is a system of powerful beliefs based on a few simple and well-tested precepts. It is the most foundational, far-reaching, and logical religion on Earth.

[EdibleKarma]

Pfff. What's psychology but a bunch of men with lousy beards talking about sex?

[GodShapedBullet]

I guess I just don't really get the appeal of bashing other disciplines.

Unless secretly you regret your major choice and are living in denial, I don't see the point.

I mean it's not like some mathematician could figure out what's going wrong in someone's brain through the power of induction.

[Tirian]

Agreed that pure math is applied philosophy. But I wonder if philosophy isn't applied sociology.

[pliny]

Agreed that pure math is applied philosophy. But I wonder if philosophy isn't applied sociology.

Positive feedback loop? Wait, did somebody just-- OH SHI--

But really, I don't think so. If anything, I think sociology is applied philosophy in a way that skips all the middlemen, too.

[TheTankengine]

I am disappointed in the lack of engineer-love
I suppose if the meaning of "purity" in this sense is "theoretical purity", then it goes pretty well. But, engineering is at the peak of purity in the sense of the universe (you know, that place we exist in?). Pure mathematics is undeniably the basis for engineering, but math hasn't always reached the level of complexity needed to deal with reality. So we come up with empirical models and refine them until the math nerds can catch up to us

[AstralRunner]

On a random note, how are math/physics dual majors able to sleep at night? How can you be entrenched in different fields that use opposing methods of reasoning? Inductive (sensory evidence) and Deductive (absolute proofs)?

In my case, given that all but the most trivial systems cannot be both complete and consistent, I opt to be inconsistent when necessary.

Mathematics is a system of powerful beliefs based on a few simple and well-tested precepts.

Uh, no. It's based on axioms which are intuitive to us, but which could in principle be anything whatsoever. There are multiple axiomatic systems that are consistent with reality as far as we know, the most popular ones being ZF and ZFC.

[etho]

Dammit, it may be right on the money, but everyone still has value, dammit!

(Former bio major-turned-psych major)

Except sociologists.

I must side with the physicists with regard to the alt text. Which is not to say I don't recognize the value of mathematics. Or masturbation. It's just that physics, like sex, is all about things bumping together in the dark.

[Roun]

Going farther to the left, we have Economists, then Business majors, then Business Administration, then Philosophy, followed by writers and artists.

[GodShapedBullet]

Philosophy, in the love of knowledge, study of the world sense, is the purest science.

Philosophy, in the let's write research papers on time travel sense, borders on fan fiction.

[MysticTerminator]

wow.

this comic

it's ... so perfect

I have held exactly this for years

in fact:

<<<<<<3

no further comment

[pliny]

Mathematics is a system of powerful beliefs based on a few simple and well-tested precepts.

Uh, no. It's based on axioms which are intuitive to us, but which could in principle be anything whatsoever. There are multiple axiomatic systems that are consistent with reality as far as we know, the most popular ones being ZF and ZFC.

Axiom, according to the Oxford American Dictionary: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

It has an alternate math definition, too: a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

Now, this is just me, but my mind rejects basing such complex systems about things we consider to prove themselves.

[pliny]

Going farther to the left, we have Economists, then Business majors, then Business Administration, then Philosophy, followed by writers and artists.

Philosophy trumps maths.

We had to conceive of numbers before we could fiddle with them.

[TheTankengine]

Going farther to the left, we have Economists, then Business majors, then Business Administration, then Philosophy, followed by writers and artists.

This is definitely not accurate, especially for musicians. When it comes down to the heart of the matter, music is a half step down from pure math, simply because it is math combined with an exact physical movement.

[toysbfun]

Biology is only partly applied chemistry. The main part of it, evolution by natural selection, is not dependent on the physical nature of the replicators in question: it applies to any conceivable or inconceivable system of randomly varying replicators under non-random selective pressure. Indeed, genetic computer programs have been made which compete for CPU cycles, and the principles of evolution apply to life there just the same as to that arising on Earth.

A few months ago I read an article* that compared evolution to economics. I think the point of the article was that the selective pressures of both the market and evolution were the same thing. I wonder into what field some Universal Law of Selection would fit.

*I think it was in Discovery. Or Scientific ...something. It was a respectable "big name", not something like Crackpots Monthly

[dancuzz]

I was reminded of a quote from bigdeadplace.com: " Four out of five biologists regard psychologists as jibbering baboons, and you should too. If other scientists had their way, Psychology would not be considered a "science" at all, but would be ranked somewhere above Creationism and below Performance Art."

Also, I tend to think there should be an applied mathematician much closer to the physicist, with the pure mathematician further off. Though this of course would necessitate a disparaging reference to physics as "applied applied mathematics," which is just awkward and silly.

[kellsbells]

Going farther to the left, we have Economists, then Business majors, then Business Administration, then Philosophy, followed by writers and artists.

I don't know, I feel like writers and artists are a lot closer to Psychology than Business Administration. Business is about controlling people in a favorable way. Art (writing included) is about seeing how people think and making it real. But otherwise I thought this was hilarious, because math is pure in a delicious way.

(Says the girl choosing between neurobiology, creative writing, and physics as her major)

EDIT: I definitely agree with Thetankengine about music... and everything else.

[MysticTerminator]

well yeah, all things can be further subdivided, and there'll in fact be some overlap. for example, mathematical physicists are more awesome than applied mathematicians.

and interesting point on the philosophy. I usually think of it on approximately equal or slightly lower levels than maths, but the argument could be made for it to be higher on the awesome scale.

[pliny]

well yeah, all things can be further subdivided, and there'll in fact be some overlap. for example, mathematical physicists are more awesome than applied mathematicians.

and interesting point on the philosophy. I usually think of it on approximately equal or slightly lower levels than maths, but the argument could be made for it to be higher on the awesome scale.

Awesome=pure?

This thread calls for a formula for calculating awesome.

[AstralRunner]

Now, this is just me, but my mind rejects basing such complex systems about things we consider to prove themselves.

They don't prove themselves, though; they're taken for granted and then mathematicians work out what they would imply. We can't, for instance, actually prove that the axioms of modern mathematics are consistent. Indeed, it is impossible in principle to prove that they are consistent, if they actually are. If they did contain a proof of their own consistency, they would necessarily be inconsistent.

The only way in which the axioms of mathematics are self-evident is in human intuition, and like I said, even that has produced 2 different, mainstream sets of axioms.

[EdibleKarma]

A few months ago I read an article* that compared evolution to economics. I think the point of the article was that the selective pressures of both the market and evolution were the same thing. I wonder into what field some Universal Law of Selection would fit.

*I think it was in Discovery. Or Scientific ...something. It was a respectable "big name", not something like Crackpots Monthly

Sounds Michael Shermer-esque to me.

[MysticTerminator]

hm yes also I am a maths/physics major and deal with it for the most part by entirely ignoring experimental physics and treating theoretical physics as a branch of mathematics that just coincidentally happens to be interesting in its own right


yes, awesome = pure. pure mathematics = most awesome thing possible.

[mealone]

Clearly math>>> phyiscs. without math, physics would be t3h suxxzors. However. in the alt text, clearly what was meant was mathturbation.



that is all.

[fenrir_darkwolf]

Pfff. What's psychology but a bunch of men with lousy beards talking about sex?

Sounds hot.

[toysbfun]

I was reminded of a quote from bigdeadplace.com: " Four out of five biologists regard psychologists as jibbering baboons, and you should too. If other scientists had their way, Psychology would not be considered a "science" at all, but would be ranked somewhere above Creationism and below Performance Art."

Cut psychology some slack. It's still a young science. Remember that a couple hundred years ago, internal medicine was little more than witchdoctoring.

[pliny]

Now, this is just me, but my mind rejects basing such complex systems about things we consider to prove themselves.

They don't prove themselves, though; they're taken for granted and then mathematicians work out what they would imply. We can't, for instance, actually prove that the axioms of modern mathematics are consistent. Indeed, it is impossible in principle to prove that they are consistent, if they actually are. If they did contain a proof of their own consistency, they would necessarily be inconsistent.

The only way in which the axioms of mathematics are self-evident is in human intuition, and like I said, even that has produced 2 different, mainstream sets of axioms.

So you accept (admit) that the maths are essentially unprovable, and there is no more reason to believe them than Scientology besides "intuition"?

[shadow_master]

As usual, positively brilliant.

[MysticTerminator]

the one problem with the argument that "without math, physics would be sux0rz" is that without physics, math would be pretty sux0rz too. pretty much all development in analysis was spurred on by a long time by physics, and differential geometry is just general relativity.

[pliny]

hm yes also I am a maths/physics major and deal with it for the most part by entirely ignoring experimental physics and treating theoretical physics as a branch of mathematics that just coincidentally happens to be interesting in its own right


yes, awesome = pure. pure mathematics = most awesome thing possible.

But pure mathematics would then have to be the purest thing possible, which I would argue it's not.

The purest thing possible? Nothing. The very lack of substance is entirely devoid of impurities; in fact, it is devoid of everything.

[Zohar]

I don't think engineering has much to do in this comic. It's not exactly a theoretical field. It certainly has its place, but I find difficulty placing it on that line. I think there are more than one dimensions in that diagram, with engineering adjacent to physics and, I suppose, CS somewhere between math and engineering.

Also, am I the only one who expected (upon seeing the title only), a wheat field on the left hand side and the field of rationals or something on the right hand side?

Plus, Feynman wins again! (with the title text )

[GodShapedBullet]

hm yes also I am a maths/physics major and deal with it for the most part by entirely ignoring experimental physics and treating theoretical physics as a branch of mathematics that just coincidentally happens to be interesting in its own right


yes, awesome = pure. pure mathematics = most awesome thing possible.

But pure mathematics would then have to be the purest thing possible, which I would argue it's not.

The purest thing possible? Nothing. The very lack of substance is entirely devoid of impurities; in fact, it is devoid of everything.

Yeah, the purest thing possible is being a lazy couch potato.

[MysticTerminator]

hm yes also I am a maths/physics major and deal with it for the most part by entirely ignoring experimental physics and treating theoretical physics as a branch of mathematics that just coincidentally happens to be interesting in its own right


yes, awesome = pure. pure mathematics = most awesome thing possible.

But pure mathematics would then have to be the purest thing possible, which I would argue it's not.

The purest thing possible? Nothing. The very lack of substance is entirely devoid of impurities; in fact, it is devoid of everything.

er...ok. how about the awesomest thing which one could become a prominent researcher in.

[EdibleKarma]

Sounds hot.

You wouldn't get more turned on by a bunch of men with good beards talking about hot, sweaty class conflict?

[aleflamedyud]

And us Computer Science majors stand off to the side wondering why the rest of you think you're so high and mighty when you can't even find the value of sin for an arbitrary angle.

[MysticTerminator]

And us Computer Science majors stand off to the side wondering why the rest of you think you're so high and mighty when you can't even find the value of sin for an arbitrary angle.

because we don't need to.

[pliny]

hm yes also I am a maths/physics major and deal with it for the most part by entirely ignoring experimental physics and treating theoretical physics as a branch of mathematics that just coincidentally happens to be interesting in its own right


yes, awesome = pure. pure mathematics = most awesome thing possible.

But pure mathematics would then have to be the purest thing possible, which I would argue it's not.

The purest thing possible? Nothing. The very lack of substance is entirely devoid of impurities; in fact, it is devoid of everything.

Yeah, the purest thing possible is being a lazy couch potato.

No, of course that's not what I mean; simply that if your greatest fear is impurity in your theories, construct no theories.

I have no problem with impurity, I think it makes things interesting.

Doing nothing would be boring.

[yarrrrrrrrrrrgh]

Maths is just applied CONTEMPLATION OF THE VOID.