Quote:
Originally Posted by auroraglacialis
Actually yes. There are things in mathematics that are not solvable.
|
There are contradictions, but those are not 'unsolvable' as they are never practically encountered - an example is P=NP - while both can not be true, in practice, by necessity, one must be true and contradict the other.
Mathematics is nothing less than the practical application of observation, on a level lower than even the most general of the laws of physics, which use it as a premise. By the simple premise that things can be observed, everything can be built via observation over countless layers of abstraction.
Quote:
|
The realm ends when it comes to things that are not logical, not scientific. You cannot capture the essence of emotions with science. You can try to explain the physical results, hormones, neurons and all that, but you cannot really describe what love is or how fear feels.
|
Neither can you assume that the experience is consistent between individuals for that exact reason, yet people still recognise it in others.
Quote:
|
It is not an argument at all, this is not a debate in that I am not trying to say that science is wrong.
|
That is completely beside the point - for one, it can also be called an
appeal to consequences, and whether or not a point is an argument does not change its logical consistency or lack thereof.
Exactly.
'Accompanying values' are a matter of what the individual applies - their logic may be rigorous and based on observation, or it may be based on emotion and guesswork. That doesn't change the laws of physics, or any premise.