If you could have complete knowledge over one subject

[Broletariat]

What would it be and why?

If other, please state.

[AnonymousOne]

What would it be and why?

Physics. I know everything about how the universe works.

[Broletariat]

Physics. I know everything about how the universe works.

Man I'd go for Biology, gimme dat immortality >_>

[Susurrus]

Psychology, control and help people. (You are feeling very sleepy...when you wake up, you will no longer be a capitalist...)

[AnonymousOne]

Man I'd go for Biology, gimme dat immortality >_>

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

[Broletariat]

Psychology, control and help people. (You are feeling very sleepy...when you wake up, you will no longer be a capitalist...)

I don't think it actually works that way, you let us know once you have complete knowledge of it though :P

[Ose]

Cookery.

[OhYesIdid]

I voted psychology, although chemistry might be the most objectively useful one.

[Metacomet]

Geology.

It would certainly help make me a class A Geographer :D

[The Underdog]

I voted Physics. The ability to see the ties that bind. The analysis of the forces that govern all of the matter in the universe.

If Philosophy was an option, it would probably be the most popular.

[RichardAWilson]

I wish finance has been an option. =) Anyway, I voted Psychology.

[LegendZ]

I picked chemistry just because I'd be able to (hopefully) create new drugs to cure cancer/aids ect.

[Broletariat]

I voted Physics. The ability to see the ties that bind. The analysis of the forces that govern all of the matter in the universe.

If Philosophy was an option, it would probably be the most popular.

Philosophy is non-sense.

teehee~

[Quail]

I would say other - mathematics, because it interests me so much. But, I also find that learning about it is part of the fun, so I wouldn't want to suddenly know everything about it. Also, wouldn't a complete knowledge of physics require a pretty complete knowledge of maths?

[Broletariat]

I would say other - mathematics, because it interests me so much. But, I also find that learning about it is part of the fun, so I wouldn't want to suddenly know everything about it. Also, wouldn't a complete knowledge of physics require a pretty complete knowledge of maths?

I explicitly left mathematics out since it is entirely a human invention. It's not as difficult to learn everything about mathematics since we're the ones who make it up. Things like physics and biology though, we discover.

[Apoi_Viitor]

It's not as difficult to learn everything about mathematics since we're the ones who make it up.

What?

[AnonymousOne]

I explicitly left mathematics out since it is entirely a human invention. It's not as difficult to learn everything about mathematics since we're the ones who make it up.

As opposed to psychology, which is a hard science that we've discovered. :laugh:

[Broletariat]

As opposed to psychology, which is a hard science that we've discovered. :laugh:

Psychology (as I udnerstand it) is a study of the human brain. The human brain was not invented by us, math is.


What?
Math is pure human invention.

[AnonymousOne]

Psychology (as I udnerstand it) is a study of the human brain. The human brain was not invented by us, math is.

No, you're thinking more neuro-science/cognitive science.

[Weezer]

Dialectical Materialism. jkjk Physics.

[Broletariat]

No, you're thinking more neuro-science/cognitive science.

What's psychology then? >_>

[AnonymousOne]

What's psychology then? >_>

Study of behavior and mental processes.

[Broletariat]

Study of behavior and mental processes.

I'd still say that works as a science rather than something we invented.

We didn't invent our behaviour etc.

Every materialist knows that :)

[CommunityBeliever]

Math, because everything is mathematical, but physics is the next in teh purity scale so I will go for that.


Math is pure human invention.

All systems of understanding are human inventions. Do you think a rock understands physics?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I chose Psychology, because I've always been fascinated in learning why people feel, think, and do things. Too many years have this line of understanding been overrun with religious nonsense. Science is ready to take over completely! :thumbup:

[Apoi_Viitor]

Math is pure human invention.

Mathematical formulae don't "work" because humans decided they should, they work because they are logically valid.

[Rafiq]

You know, we need more threads like this. Good job, author, you get + 1 rep

[Broletariat]

Mathematical formulae don't "work" because humans decided they should, they work because they are logically valid.


Because logic has existed eternally and before humans right?

And yea, we pretty much define Math to be either correct or incorrect.


All systems of understanding are human inventions.

Certainly, but the things we attempt to understand are not human inventions. Trying to understand Mathematics is trying to understand a human invention.

[Broletariat]

You know, we need more threads like this. Good job, author, you get + 1 rep

And I shall rep you to try and show that those who rep me get rep back so that more people will rep me.

[CommunityBeliever]

Trying to understand Mathematics is trying to understand a human inventionThat is false. For example, an infinite number of prime numbers definitely exist.

The rules of logic upon which mathematics is based are a necessity for any operating intelligence not an arbitrary invention. See logicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism).

[Broletariat]

That is false. For example, an infinite number of prime numbers definitely exist.


Certainly an infinite number of prime numbers exist, just as an infinite number of numbers exist. But you misunderstand what "infinity" is within the realm of mathematics. Infinity is an intensional rule that constantly recurs. When we say there are "infinitely many even numbers," what we really mean is that we have a limitless technique for generating even numbers, namely 2n.


The rules of logic upon which mathematics is based are a necessity for any operating intelligence not an arbitrary invention. See logicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism).

So this logic existed before us will exist after us and always will forever and always? Sounds a lot like apriori dogmatism to me.

[∞]

Even if math was an option, I'd still pick physics. I'd still know a shit-ton of math.

[CommunityBeliever]

Certainly an infinite number of prime numbers exist, just as an infinite number of numbers exist.

So you understand that some mathematical properties exist independently of human minds.


But you misunderstand what "infinity" is within the realm of mathematics.

No I don't.


So this logic existed before us will exist after us and always will forever and always? Sounds a lot like apriori dogmatism to me.

Logic is a necessary basis of math, just as math is a basis of physics and all of the other studies (see the purity scale). You can't do without any one of them.

[∞]

So you understand that some mathematical properties exist independently of human minds.
No I don't.
Logic is a necessary basis of math, just as math is a basis of physics and all of the other studies (see the purity scale). You can't do without any one of them.

Our study of applied math (physics), unveils that the universe is governed by mathematical axioms. (With the exception of singularities we can't comprehend).
Just because there isn't a conscience mind to express math it still exists underneath the entire physicality of the universe.

[CommunityBeliever]

Just because there isn't a conscience mind to express math it still exists underneath the entire physicality of the universe.Precisely.

[CommunityBeliever]

( lim (n → ∞) π(n) ) = ∞

[Le Socialiste]

Psychology (as I udnerstand it) is a study of the human brain. The human brain was not invented by us, math is.


Math is pure human invention.

Psychology also "discovered" Gender Identity Disorder...:rolleyes:

I take issue with it because it fails to examine social factors when explaining human behavior. It mostly focuses on the indiviudal, instead of the individual in relation to his/her environment.

Edit - Oh, and I chose physics. Just seems interesting to me.

[Broletariat]

So you understand that some mathematical properties exist independently of human minds.

No actually, none do, and that's a load of metaphysical garbage to think that it does.

Please tell me what experiments need to be done in order to observe "infinity"




No I don't.

You clearly do, most people do don't worry.




Logic is a necessary basis of math, just as math is a basis of physics and all of the other studies (see the purity scale). You can't do without any one of them.

Certainly you can, One can easily understand the concept of evolution (biology) without knowing a lick of chemistry.

[Broletariat]

Our study of applied math (physics), unveils that the universe is governed by mathematical axioms. (With the exception of singularities we can't comprehend).
Just because there isn't a conscience mind to express math it still exists underneath the entire physicality of the universe.

This is literally the definition of metaphysics, enjoy your idealism.

[CommunityBeliever]

Certainly you can, One can easily understand the concept of evolution (biology) without knowing a lick of chemistry.

Certainly you could understand evolution in a rudimentary sense without chemistry, but I am not defending biology but rather the necessity of math and logic.


No actually, none do, and that's a load of metaphysical garbage to think that it does.

So in what sense do you think the infinite set of primes exists?

[Broletariat]

Certainly you could understand evolution in a rudimentary sense without chemistry, but I am not defending biology but rather the necessity of math and logic.

You said to refer to the chart about purity.

I'll still say that you can understand math without understanding logic, take me for example, I'm pretty knowledgable about math I suppose, but logic stumps the hell out of me.




So in what sense do you think the infinite set of primes exists?

An "infinite set" is a contradiction of terms. A set implies a complete extension, when infinity is in fact, a limitless intension. It is a meaningless expression. You can not have a "set of all the real numbers," If you show me what you think is a set of all the real numbers if, I'll just generate another one and show that you're wrong.

I think that an infinite amount of primes exist in the sense that, we can limitless generate prime numbers.

[Meridian]

Physics. I know everything about how the universe works.
If you had complete knowledge of physics you wouldn't know everything about how the universe 'works', you'd know everything of the theory they teach in physics classes.

[CommunityBeliever]

I'll still say that you can understand math without understanding logic, take me for example, I'm pretty knowledgable about math I suppose, but logic stumps the hell out of me.Do you know much set theory?


When we say there are "infinitely many even numbers," what we really mean is that we have a limitless technique for generating even numbers, namely 2n.So what you are saying is essentially you have a generating function on the natural numbers:

Even :: ℕ →ℕ₂
Even n = 2n

This is a generating function for the set ℕ₂ but it is not necessary to have a generating function to evaluate its cardinality.


I think that an infinite amount of primes exist in the sense that, we can limitless generate prime numbers. See above.


An "infinite set" is a contradiction of terms. A set implies a complete extension, when infinity is in fact, a limitless intension. It is a meaningless expression. You can not have a "set of all the real numbers," If you show me what you think is a set of all the real numbers if, I'll just generate another one and show that you're wrong.

You cannot have an infinite definition but you can have an infinite value:

{ n : (n ∈ ℕ) ∧ (d(n) = 2) }

[Broletariat]

Do you know much set theory?

I know it's a bunch of horseshit.




So what you are saying is essentially you have a generating function on the natural numbers:

Even :: ℕ →ℕ₂
Even(n) = 2n

This is a generating function for the set ℕ₂ but it is not necessary to have a generating function to evaluate its cardinality.

N2 is not a set, it's the extensions of the intensional rule 2n




Infinity cannot be constructed physically but the infinite set of primes can be constructed mathematically:

{ n : (n ∈ ℕ) ∧ (d(n) = 2) }

That's an intensional rule.

[CommunityBeliever]

I know it's a bunch of horseshit.What?


N2 is not a set, it's the extensions of the intensional rule 2nℕ₂ is still a mathematical set. The function 2n is a generating function, independent of the set itself.

[Broletariat]

What?

See Henri Poincare, or even Wittgenstein.

The main problem with set theory is that it tries to quantify over an infinite domain, which is, by definition, impossibly hopeless.

See here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/#WitLatCriSetTheNonEnuVsNonDen




ℕ₂ is still a mathematical set. The function 2n is a generating function, not necessarily the definition of the set.

It's an "infinite set," which is a contradiction of terms, impossible, meanignless, non-sense, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Physics. The rest are just stamp collecting. :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

Well my first preference of information technology isn't on that list. If i knew everything about that, a significant amount of my problems would be over.
Failing that if i must select something from the list, I'll take physics.

[UltraWright]

I'd choose mathematics, as it would allow me to understand everything else :)

[Broletariat]

I'd choose mathematics, as it would allow me to understand everything else :)

Wie yew troll me

[CommunityBeliever]

See Henri Poincare, or even Wittgenstein.Clearly you believe in formalism and finitism.

Even then to say that set theory is "horseshit" demonstrates blatant ignorance.


The main problem with set theory is that it tries to quantify over an infinite domain, which is, by definition, impossibly hopeless.Set theory applies to finite sets.


It's an "infinite set," which is a contradiction of terms, impossible, meanignless, non-sense, etc.

Infinity can never be constructed because you can always find a larger number. Similarly, you cannot construct an infinite set because you can always find another member. Therefore, infinite sets must be defined intensionally.

However, all this is describing is the definition of these objects not their mathematical value. Value and definition are distinct concepts.

Furthermore, they are not "meaningless". It is very practical to use infinite sets with logic programming. Here is an example:


(defn divisors
[n]

(filter
(fn [i]
(zero? (mod n i)))
(range 1 (inc n))))

(defn prime?
[n]

(and
(pos? n)
(= n (int n))
(= (count (divisors n)) 2)))

[Mythbuster]

Good, and difficult question. I love biology and astronomy. In the end, I'd go with biology to be able to have a good debate against creationists!

[Rss]

Physics. Sometimes it's just mindblowing how little do we know. That, and Gordon Freeman is my hero.

[Astarte]

scatology.

[Meridian]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

Just completely wrong. Sociology certainly isn't 'applied psychology'. Those are different fields, different fields of explanatory theory which largely does not affect any of the other fields. There is some overlap, but pretending they (in the real world) can be ordered in higher or lower degrees of 'purity' doesn't make sense.

[Broletariat]

Clearly you believe in formalism and finitism.

I'm a constructivist finitivist, I forget what formalism is exactly, so I'm not sure.


Even then to say that set theory is "horseshit" demonstrates blatant ignorance.

Henri Poincare and Wittgenstein would disagree


Infinity can never be constructed because you can always find a larger number. Similarly, you cannot construct an infinite set because you can always find another member. Therefore, infinite sets must be constructed intensionally.

But, a set is necessarily complete, you don't have incomplete sets.


Furthermore, they are not "meaningless". It is very practical to use infinite sets with logic programming. Here is an example:


(defn divisors
[n]

(filter
(fn [i]
(zero? (mod n i)))
(range 1 (inc n))))

(defn prime?
[n]

(and
(pos? n)
(= n (int n))
(= (count (divisors n)) 2)))


I dun really know anything about that at all, all I could possibly hope to comment is that it's not a set by definition and instead simply a recursive intentional rule.

[CommunityBeliever]

To get back to what I was saying earlier, the property:

( lim (n → ∞) π(n) ) = ∞

Remains true independently of any human mind.



all I could possibly hope to comment is that it's not a set by definition and instead simply a recursive intentional rule.There is a difference between definition and value.

{ n : 0 <= n <= 10 }
{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 }

Those two are have equal mathematical values, even though they are have different definitions. Some mathematical values are considered to be infinite but no definitions are.

The definition of the term "set" that I am using is in line with the mathematical communities which includes infinite sets defined by intensional rules.


Henri Poincare and Wittgenstein would disagreeYou can speak on their behalf?

[Broletariat]

To get back to what I was saying earlier, the property:

( lim (n → ∞) π(n) ) = ∞

Remains true independently of any human mind.

Metaphysics at its finest.

This is true always forever, and no matter what it's always true, you can't change it no matter what ever. It was true before us and it will be after us.



The definition of the term "set" that I am using is in line with the mathematical communities which includes infinite sets defined by intensional rules. Which I've challenged


You can speak on their behalf?

They said it well enough themselves, see for yourself, I've already linked to Wittgenstein's opposition to set theory, Henri Poincare was a pretty vitriolic opponent of set theory as well.


"All Cantor's set theory is built on a sand [...]. Later generations will regard Mengenlehre (set theory) as a disease from which one has recovered. [...] Point set topology is a disease from which the human race will soon recover."

(blatantly stolen from http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Godel_letter.htm)

[thesadmafioso]

Biology, in the hope of discovering a way to bring about immortality. Sort of surprised that there are only 2 other people that have gone with this option thus far.

That and to be honest I have never really been too great with science, so it wouldn't hurt any.

[CommunityBeliever]

This is true always forever, and no matter what it's always true, you can't change it no matter what ever. It was true before us and it will be after us.Indeed.


They said it well enough themselves, see for yourself, I've already linked to Wittgenstein's opposition to set theory, Henri Poincare was a pretty vitriolic opponent of set theory as well.They didn't say that set theory was "horse shit" they are criticising Cantor's set theory and its use of transfinites.


Which I've challengedI can call all my sets intensional rules if it will please you then :p


I dun really know anything about that at all You do admit that infinite sets (in other words, intensional rules) are not "meaningless" then?

[∞]

If only cooking was an option...
:(

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

astronomy, i want to build an X-Wing with a hyperdrive

[∞]

I know this isn't /sci/ but this is my top 6 list to what I find most interesting vs least interesting.

1. Physics
2.Astronomy
3.Chemistry
4. Biology
5. Psychology
6. LOLGeology

I always sucked at geology.

[∞]

astronomy, i want to build an X-Wing with a hyperdrive

I think that has more to do with aero-space engineering.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I think that has more to do with aero-space engineering.
nope, then fine, i would find a race with that(because i would know where they where at) that has those plans, then have them send it to me

[CommunityBeliever]

Just completely wrong. Sociology certainly isn't 'applied psychology'. Those are different fields, different fields of explanatory theory which largely does not affect any of the other fields. There is some overlap, but pretending they (in the real world) can be ordered in higher or lower degrees of 'purity' doesn't make sense. There shouldn't be psychology or sociology, the next one should ecology because ecology is the study of relationships between biological organisms.

math -> physics -> chemistry -> biology -> ecology

[Aspiring Humanist]

history. I think it would be completely fascinating to learn things that were lost along the way (shit in library of Alexandria, other shit that people suppressed etc)

[Meridian]

To get back to what I was saying earlier, the property:

( lim (n → ∞) π(n) ) = ∞

Remains true independently of any human mind.

Even the statement that something is true is still a statement, and it is said of statements. If there were no humans around, nothing would be true or false, since no statements would be made. That is a remark about language. Being true or false is not a property of things, but of statements.

[Meridian]

There shouldn't be psychology or sociology, the next one should ecology because ecology is the study of relationships between biological organisms.

math -> physics -> chemistry -> biology -> ecology

They do not have such a relationship. They study different phenomena.

[Wired]

Man I'd go for Biology, gimme dat immortality >_>

I found this argument most compelling.

Otherwise I would've voted for physics. How the universe works is pretty interesting and important.

[ianz]

Complete knowledge of any of those topics would involve complete knowledge of the other ones. While we may not have a universal "theory of everything" I think it's silly to assume that one doesn't exist.

For example, Physics and Astronomy are closely related. If we had a better understanding of Physics it would almost certainly increase our ability to comprehend astronomical structures significantly. If you have a 100% complete understanding of Physics (let's face it, not possible) it's only natural that you would be able to understand any phenomenon simply by studying the physics of said phenomenon, allowing you to infer the other portions of it.

Anyways, the moral of the story is that not only is the world we live in filled with incredibly complex systems and difficult to understand interdependencies, the breadth of human knowledge acts in exactly the same way.

[La Comédie Noire]

I explicitly left mathematics out since it is entirely a human invention. It's not as difficult to learn everything about mathematics since we're the ones who make it up. Things like physics and biology though, we discover.

Man, you've just stumbled across one of the oldest debates in mathematics. The only reason you haven't gotten more shit for it is I'm pretty sure there is only a handful of people smart enough to have an opinion about it.

[CommunityBeliever]

Even the statement that something is true is still a statement, and it is said of statements. If there were no humans around, nothing would be true or false, since no statements would be made. That is a remark about language. Being true or false is not a property of things, but of statements. The content of the statement will be true even if there is no statement.


They do not have such a relationship. They study different phenomena.

They study different phenomena that are related spatially.

Chemicals (chemistry) compose organisms (biology) which make up an ecosystem (ecology).


Man, you've just stumbled across one of the oldest debates in mathematics. The only reason you haven't gotten more shit for it is I'm pretty sure there is only a handful of people smart enough to have an opinion about it.

I am willing to debate for mathematical realism. However, our discussion so far was about a misunderstanding of set theory rather then the philosophy of mathematics.

[anarcho-communist4]

I would of picked sociology if it were on there, then id get to skip college lol

[Luís Henrique]

History.

Luís Henrique

[ianz]

Man, you've just stumbled across one of the oldest debates in mathematics. The only reason you haven't gotten more shit for it is I'm pretty sure there is only a handful of people smart enough to have an opinion about it.

Mathematics is the study of spatial relationships between objects. It is not what I would call a natural science, but a method humans have devised that can be used to interpret existing data in a way that provides meaningful analysis.

Yes, it's a little silly to leave it off his poll, but ultimately the poll itself has larger problems than multiple major fields of science being left off.