Discussion Math Jokes

Nope

 

I do not have that.

There's an axiom which I accept.

I call it the Multiverse axiom:

 

Or more germane


spell it out

M.
A.
G.
I.
C.

 

I don't believe this though. Magic is just Science not yet discovered.


By the Multiverse Axiom, a world such as what you describe cannot feasibly exist; even Magic must follow laws.

 

Which is where you fail

Magic lies outside of logic, and the multiverse axiom is just as valid as magic, it's all unprovable BS

Magic, by it's very definition lies outside of reason and science, that's why it's in the realm of the praeternatural

And really dragon_god there's no need to hide, we all know it's you.

and hey, random bullshit quotes!

 

Point is?

Those don't change the fact that those "sufficiently advanced technologies" follow strictly well defined laws.

The Multiverse Axiom is an axiom; it is by definition unprovable — you either accept it or you don't — I choose to accept it.

Q.E.D

 

Hang on "Dragon God"

Imma going to have to slap a warning label on this

 

You can argue that Mathematics is a circular argument then, because the axioms of Mathematics are constructed such that the theorems are immediately derivable from them.

The most common example, is the principle of induction; it is either accepted as part of the axioms, or constructed such that it is immediately derivable from the axioms.

 

Lol, guy who doesn't understand magic neither technology.

 

Arthur C. Clarke?

 

No, you.

 

Well this is either an Ad hominem, or a non argument — irrelevant either way.

 

You're opinion is irrelevant.

 

Want a cracker?

The Multiverse theory is not an "Axiom" nor are Axioms necessarily unprovable or automatically true.

There are two (or three) different uses for the word axiom, the one most relevant to this thread is this

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

OR

As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), often shown in symbolic form, while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, "axiom", "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. As modern mathematics admits multiple,[citation needed] equally "true" systems of logic, precisely the same thing must be said for logical axioms - they both define and are specific to the particular system of logic that is being invoked.


The reason you fail so hard at well, everything. To the point that you tried to run away and hide behind a clone account.

Is that you fail to understand basic rhetoric and logic.

You simply roll in and state "this is a statement that i make"

My statement is true
Why is it true?
Because i said it.

Circular nonsense at best, deceptively moving the goalposts at best, mindlessly parroting the wisdom of others without bothering to actually understand either the words you parrot or their context.

Let's boil this down to a very simple point

If magic exists, the Multiverse Axiom cannot be true

If the rhetoric includes the existence of Magic as a talking point, then by definition as a preternatural effect it does not conform to the laws of physics or reality; ergo any counter argument based on physics or math are automatically invalid.

It's the classic stupidity of the "lesswrong" cult of personality.

Ridgidly defining the world into ever smaller portions solely to ignore the failings in ones argument is not less wrong, it's flat out not right.

So go on

Fight the basilisk in your fevered dreams of impotent ignorance. The world will keep spinning, and you will continue to stare in awe at the flickering shadows on the wall of your cave, while the rest of us enjoy the sun.

So again Dragon_god's clone Dupe2718

the basilisk waits with the grue in the shadows.

So enjoy the kool-aid

 

This is woefully untrue; my main account has been banned.

The Multiverse Theory is an axiom; I made it one. I never said axioms are automatically true. Axioms are necessarily unprovable. If it was provable, it wouldn't be an axiom. B + a = a + b

Prove it.

Theories are proved from other theories, or from axioms directly. Axioms aren't provable. They are necessarily unprovable.

The axioms of Mathematics are like the elementary particles of the standard model of physics.

Theories are anything from non elementary sub atomic particles like protons and neutrons, to atoms like an Hydrogen atom, to molecules like H2O, to amino acids, DNA, cells, tissues, organs, systems, etc.

Axioms aren't provable; this is part of the definition of the term axiom at least in the context of Mathematics.

Axioms also need not be self evident; some mathematicians reject the axiom of choice for example.

I never said the Multiverse Axiom is true.

I said

I accept the Multiverse axiom, you can reject it. I never said it is true. It is an axiom; it isn't provable.

I do none of this, not even circular arguments; I never said the Multiverse axiom is true.

Mathematics is not the laws of Physics. Logic, is not a property of this possible world, but a property of any possible world.

A logical truth is a truth that is true in all possible worlds.

The laws of Physics are possible truths.

I never said magic has to conform to the laws of Physics:

I said all Universes must be logically consistent. If Magic exists, it must be logically consistent and follow strictly defined laws — that is the only requirement I imposed on magic. I never mentioned the Laws of Physics.

You have raised no counter for why Magic is not bound by the Laws of Logic.

If you choose to reject the Multiverse Axiom, then do so.

Do not EVER say this again.

1. I am not associated with Lesswrong.
2. Lesswrong is not a cult.
3. Ad hominem is bad enough, but attacking an entire group is a whole new level of logical fallacy.

If you ever make a statement along these lines again, I will put you on permanent ignore.

I do not stoop to Ad hominem — which is your most common strategy for argument. I can — it is embarrassingly easy to do so, especially if you're substantially more informed on the topic of debate than your opponent — but I am better than that. I do not even demand the same courtesy from you that I grant you. However, if you make a statement along the same lines as what I just quoted, I shall never entertain debate with you again.

I'm honestly tired of your ad hominem anyways, but as the saying goes: "even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice in a day", nor am I one to fall prey to the fallacy fallacy.

 

Why were you banned? Perma Banned?

 

I'd tell you, but I don't fully understand the reasons myself (I don't think I should have been banned), and don't want to offend the mods anymore by misconstruing their words. You can ask Nom de Plume though.

Yeah, I was.

 

So you don't fully understand why you are banned, but of what you do understand you don't agree, so you made another account and came back to do the same things again?

Are you not worry that you are just going to be banned again if you don't engage with te community in a different way?

Welll... nvm... it's not that it matters, I am pretty sure escaping ban and then doing the same things is a serious offence... I mean if any mods read this I think you will probably be banned again...

Unless I remembered it wrong...

 

The mods know about this clone; I have their permission — sort of.