math ⊕ science ≠ ∅

[@AlexanderofMiletus]

As a philosopher, I have no comment. (Math is just applied philosophy)

[@HypernovaBolts11]

I was gonna make a comment close to this but you beat me to it. Congrats and thank you.

[@wayfereralpha7072]

Theologian: Hmm... where am I?

[@Randomini]

"The simplest theory that matches the data is the truth" - I guess the handwaveish bit is precision about what constitutes "simplicity", and "matches". I'd sooner formulate as "the simplest theory that lets you make accurate predictions" - science isn't just about the formulation of theories, but the usage of those theories to make predictions. Because "things just happen for no reason" is near the lowest-complexity theory you can make, and it always "matches the data", but because it gives you zero predictive power it's a strictly worse theory than any which does.

[@lsusr265]

@@Randomini Yeah, this is true. I was pretty handwavy about the details for how induction works.

[@joaogabrielimperial7777]

😵‍💫

[@BenjaminJeter]

Nitpick: ChatGPT made a mistake when it said tan(x) is irrational -> x is irrational (I would wager that x=1 is a counterexample, but I believe this is open). What you want is either tan(x) is rational -> x is irrational or the contrapositive of this (x is rational -> tan(x) is irrational).

[@toranbahadurniroula3250]

Physics is not completely applied mathematics because math cannot prove or disprove 2nd law of thermodynamics. Any thing more complex than hydrogen atom can barely be explained by physics. Neither mathematics nor physics or chemistry explain the emergence of life. One is merely a tool for another. Saying physics is a subset of mathematics or chemistry subset of physics or biology subset of physics and chemistry is like archimedes saying he will move the earth with the long enough lever