0435: "Purity"

[theferrymantune]

(...)

First, no something can't be perfectly, universally true. The Problem of Induction states that while we think that we know many things are universally true, such as "The sun will rise tomorrow", it does not mean that it was / will always be necessarily so. And as we can't experience anything beyond our own perceptions, we cannot know anything other than what we believe (falsely) to be true.

Second, given the limits of our perceptions, B could quite easily be A if we misinterpreted what A is. If there is a truth beyond our perception, or if there is no truth at all, then what one person labels something is of no significance. What if person X labels an object "red" (A), while person Y labels an object "green" (B). Who is colour-blind, who is 'right'? Both see a similar object, but different colours. Is perception statistical? What is 'joy'? What is 'pain'? What are the variations of both these sensations? The answers are too variable to pin any one truth, regardless of perception.

Third, your unperceived 'existence' or 'matter' would require someone or something to record it, and therein lies the problem: it is still perceived. The analogy of stars being recorded is flawed because if, as Berkeley irrefutably proves, bodies cannot exist without being perceived, then there exists the possibility that all the universe exists only in our mind, and is unconsciously created and destroyed by our perception. The recording would maintain the matter, yet the 'truth' of the matter would still be questionable. Unlikely, but not falsifiable.

The "Purity" problem is one of knowledge: we cannot know if something is purely, truly correct. We trust science because it (in tandem with philosophy) does not seek to tell us what knowledge is, but rather what it is definitely not. This circumnavigates the Problem of Induction: we do not KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, we believe it will, based on the current physical phenomena that we have observed. But it is still only belief.

'Wisest is he who knows he does not know' - Socrates.

Without asumptions how would one even say there is NO universal truth to things. (Presumed impossible proof isn't proof of absence of possible proof - lol). Perhaps just like you can't investigate the opposite without assumptions.
If there is no such a truth it is a pretty important task to "label" stuff on a personal level, and even as a group. And also if there is some objective truth I fail to see why it would be of no significance to keep giving personal meaning to things. It is by the least a very healthy thing to do.
I agree, for all we know the whole of spacetime will crack open and our bubble will burst this very second. But that seems a poor reason to put every tool of study away as merely another thing to believe in.
Also if the bubble would burst more math! ^_^

[Sevilla]

Haha, this is probably my favourite one.

[macronencer]

Sorry, going OT but @theferrymantune - OOH!!! You have a Moomin avatar. I like you.

[ANorthernSoul]

Apologies, I'd had a few pints too many and was trying to rehash my last semester's epistemological philosophy as a self-improvement project.

Kind of playing Devil's Advocate, as I don't really believe in the radical scepticism or theory of immaterialism that I was arguing for.

To say there are no universal truths is a truth in itself. These paradoxes are exactly why philosophy is so interesting, and frustrating.

^^^^(Macronecer)
Good answer! I overlooked the classic Cartesian conclusion 'Cogito ergo sum'. The one truth we can be sure of is that if we (as an individual) are considering this problem, then we know consciousness exists. Even if it is just our own consciousness being duped on a massive scale by prankster God / the Devil / the Matrix.

And yeah, the Moomins were great!

[macronencer]

Apologies, I'd had a few pints too many and was trying to rehash my last semester's epistemological philosophy as a self-improvement project.

Kind of playing Devil's Advocate, as I don't really believe in the radical scepticism or theory of immaterialism that I was arguing for.

To say there are no universal truths is a truth in itself. These paradoxes are exactly why philosophy is so interesting, and frustrating.

^^^^(Macronecer)
Good answer! I overlooked the classic Cartesian conclusion 'Cogito ergo sum'. The one truth we can be sure of is that if we (as an individual) are considering this problem, then we know consciousness exists. Even if it is just our own consciousness being duped on a massive scale by prankster God / the Devil / the Matrix.

And yeah, the Moomins were great!

Heh, I know the feeling (r.e. both pints and philosophy). Thank you for that gracious response - if indeed you really exist.

We must take care of our solipsists: if they go, we all go!

Signed,
Snuffkin

[The Rumpled Academic]

If I’m not allowed to be sure they can’t be true except in my opinion, what guarantee do you have that the external world exists at all?

None!

If you can never be 100% sure of anything, how can you be 100% sure that you can't be 100% sure of anything?

I can't!

(There ain't no guarantees in life, buckaroo.)

Be fair Rumpled, your standard for knowledge of the external world is WAY too high

No, it's just that my standard for Absolute Universal Truth is as high as the term demands it to be.
I'm fine with using the shorthand of 'knowing' and 'proof' in everyday discourse - I certainly don't start philosophically gasbagging people every time they try and tell me that something's true - but here, in a discussion about the theoretical absolute and pure truth of mathematics, it's appropriate to dose everything in the scepticism it's easier to ignore in everyday life.
It's not that 'everyday knowledge' is a "second kind" of knowledge that is equally valid - it's the one and only kind of knowledge we have; and it's simplified, and it's hopeful, and it's wholly uncertain.

Again - of course it's best to treat our observations as truth and try and build things (testable things) from them. But when we sit down and think about what we actually know, for certain, we should be never so vain as to think that we are, without doubt, accessing absolute truths of the Universe, even with mathematics. Socrates is right on the money with this one.

And even an evil demon wouldn't be able to change maths...
Because the demon would have to do the maths right first. So the maths would still exist.

An Evil Demon who has managed to engineer the facade of your entire life... can pretty much do whatever he wants. If he constructed different basic rules/axioms for your little life-show (you know, regular skips backward and forward in the line of temporal causality, A = B but C on Tuesdays, that sort of thing), then the maths you would believe in would be different. And, rather than revealing absolute truths about the Universe outside of the box, they would only exist in your (and perhaps the Demon's, if he did indeed "have to do the maths first") mind.

(Frankly, I think Descartes got scared by the direction of his own arguments and chickened out. The bit in the Meditations where God comes in and saves everything makes me weep. Come on, man! The Demon could have fabricated the very systems of logic you used to build the Cogito! Admit it!)

But no-one is saying these axioms are true. They’re presumed, they’re assumed, and we admit it; the pure bit is that, given them, this other neato stuff is true. Given A and B, C- and we don’t care if A and B are true (although if B can be derived from A, even better) Saying soemthing is pure iron doesn't mean Iron is holy, it has a specific meaning, to do with the subject. In this case, it means free from impurities, trace elements- in the same way as maths is free from physics. It's pure once you understand what is meant by pure- and that doesn not mean, for maths, that all this simply is true. It's simply true, given axioms.

Why isn't the logic that you use to go from A to B and C and beyond (the 'givens', and the 'deriveds') subject to the same Evil-Demon-Doubt as everything else? If you're accepting that the axioms might not be true, then why not the processes of logic and derivation? I mean, if you've accepted the possible fallibility of something as central to human understanding as A=A, why on earth should the other assumptions that go towards the leap from An Axiom to The Derivations Of That Axiom escape the sceptical treatment?
Couldn't they just as easily be the falisified invention of the Evil Demon's demented imagination? It doesn't make a lot of sense that the Demon would feed his 'subjects' some fakery (ie. the existence of 'A'), and also some absolute logical truth (ie. that A - A = 0?).
Maths can't be 'pure', because every step involves uncertain human assumption. By all means, let's work as though it is truth - because that's how it's been working for us (and is how it would work inside the illusory box). I've even got absolutely no problem with using the shorthand of 'truth' in everyday situations - building cases, reaching conclusions, understanding; it's all good shit. Yet we should never make the mistake of genuinely believing, on a philosophical level, that we know absolute truth. Everything we know, have ever known, or will ever know, is fallible. Accepting that - and doing stuff anyway - is pretty important, I think.

[theferrymantune]

Sorry, going OT but @theferrymantune - OOH!!! You have a Moomin avatar. I like you.

^_^!

Apologies, I'd had a few pints too many and was trying to rehash my last semester's epistemological philosophy as a self-improvement project.

Kind of playing Devil's Advocate, as I don't really believe in the radical scepticism or theory of immaterialism that I was arguing for.

To say there are no universal truths is a truth in itself. These paradoxes are exactly why philosophy is so interesting, and frustrating.

^^^^(Macronecer)
Good answer! I overlooked the classic Cartesian conclusion 'Cogito ergo sum'. The one truth we can be sure of is that if we (as an individual) are considering this problem, then we know consciousness exists. Even if it is just our own consciousness being duped on a massive scale by prankster God / the Devil / the Matrix.

And yeah, the Moomins were great!

Having some wine myself ^_^ So i better say something that seems to be on topic...uhm..

Pi

[macronencer]

1. A is A. And A is A because we have defined A to be A.
2. In reality, A can be B - but only in those circumstances where A was B all along and we didn't realise.

I need more beer.

[MysticTerminator]

1. A is A. And A is A because we have defined A to be A.

why? what does it mean for A to be A? and how do you know that <whatever this means> follows from <you defining A to be A>?

[Lunch Meat]

I just read all 14 pages, and this discussion is really interesting.

A bunch of people have said that math is applied philosophy. What if philosophy is applied love?

...Well, think about the very derivation of the word "philosophy". Plus, the idea of love being the basis is pretty xkcdian.

Maybe that's too abstract and wanna-be eloquent to cut it in this discussion. I definitely can't prove it.

Does the idea intrigue anyone? If anyone's interested, I'll attempt to expound.

[scarletmanuka]

What if philosophy is applied love?
...Well, think about the very derivation of the word "philosophy". Plus, the idea of love being the basis is pretty xkcdian.

No, to be truly xkcdian we would have to say instead that philosophy is applied make-outs.

[macronencer]

1. A is A. And A is A because we have defined A to be A.

why? what does it mean for A to be A? and how do you know that <whatever this means> follows from <you defining A to be A>?

I was saying that symbolic logic can't ever be shown with certainty to relate to reality. But it doesn't really matter, because I was being flippant anyway.

[The Rumpled Academic]

I just read all 14 pages, and this discussion is really interesting.

A bunch of people have said that math is applied philosophy. What if philosophy is applied love?

...Well, think about the very derivation of the word "philosophy". Plus, the idea of love being the basis is pretty xkcdian.

Maybe that's too abstract and wanna-be eloquent to cut it in this discussion. I definitely can't prove it.

Does the idea intrigue anyone? If anyone's interested, I'll attempt to expound.

The ill-disguised hippy in me digs that idea a lot. ^_^

After all, why do we philosophise? Is it because, in the dim shaky haze of being, the one thing that feels absolutely certain to us is the love we feel for the Universe, and for life?
Because attempting to understand its intricate ways and moods is the most natural and intuitive way for us to express that love?

We accept those scientific theories that appear to us to be the most elegant; we create ways of looking at the Universe that we feel best articulate the grand order and humble beauty we can sense in it.
Every act of science is an act of love, isn't it?
That spate of punchdrunk questioning that occurs at the beginning of really great relationships - that fervent desire to know everything there is to know about this person - is based on the exact same impulse. Without a motivational basis in love - of life, of beauty, and of the Universe that enables them - what possible reason could science or philosophy have for even being pursued at all?

We invented a system of pitch in order to rally the varying frequencies of vibrating air molecules into an elegant lattice of notes; which we use, blissfully, to create music. Pitch only exists in our minds (C# doesn't actually exist in the sound-waves themselves): it is the end result of a chain of mental events that gives rise to an entirely subjective, internal representation of a particular aspect of the Universe - which we favour both for its internal elegance, and for its ability to be used; to create music, and new beauty.
Math is just the same: finding the conceptual system we find most elegant, and applying it to the vast, unindividuated canvas of the Universe. Using it to praise; to create things of beauty in a loving attempt to show our gratitude to the Universe for our brief and wonderful life we are gifted with.
Both are acts of science, and both are born of love. I personally don't think it's overreaching at all to say that, at the heart of them, they are the same thing.

[aceofspades]

Not in the thread of this discussion, but on the comic itself - you know the "physics is to math as sex is to masturbation" bit? I'd say it's more true that physics is to math as making babies is to sex.

[macronencer]

I just read all 14 pages, and this discussion is really interesting.

A bunch of people have said that math is applied philosophy. What if philosophy is applied love?

...Well, think about the very derivation of the word "philosophy". Plus, the idea of love being the basis is pretty xkcdian.

Maybe that's too abstract and wanna-be eloquent to cut it in this discussion. I definitely can't prove it.

Does the idea intrigue anyone? If anyone's interested, I'll attempt to expound.

The ill-disguised hippy in me digs that idea a lot. ^_^

After all...

Whoa, dude. I dug your post a lot too. Thanks for sharing it...

[SnakeoftheWest]

What if philosophy is applied love?
...Well, think about the very derivation of the word "philosophy". Plus, the idea of love being the basis is pretty xkcdian.

No, to be truly xkcdian we would have to say instead that philosophy is applied make-outs.

And make-outs are just applied love, and love is just applied hormones, which is biology...

although depending on your views, love could actually be applied make-outs...

[DetonatedManiac]

I just noticed you were missing part of this comic... I corrected your frame of reference...

[MysticTerminator]

meh. philosophy and math seem to be at the same level of purity, needing only logic in the context of whatever they happen to be studying ?

although the philosopher's ponderings above are awesome

[INFOHAZARD]

I just noticed you were missing part of this comic... I corrected your frame of reference...

Philosophers are not pure at all. Philosophers are ulracrepidarian. There is no pure philosophy. The Positivists ran into logical inconsistencies. The language just can't keep up under the strain.

Um, a warm, fuzzy 42 to everyone.

[zalamazoo]

And make-outs are just applied love, and love is just applied hormones, which is biology...

although depending on your views, love could actually be applied make-outs...

Don't know about love, but this "purity" hierarchy pretty much describes the hierarchy of guys in my mind. XD

[INFOHAZARD]

And make-outs are just applied love, and love is just applied hormones, which is biology...

although depending on your views, love could actually be applied make-outs...

Don't know about love, but this "purity" hierarchy pretty much describes the hierarchy of guys in my mind. XD

And rape is applied what? Please be clear with your terms.

[DougBTX]

1. A is A. And A is A because we have defined A to be A.

The value of "1/0" isn't well defined (you can't point it out on a number line), so does it make sense to say 1/0 = 1/0? If you can't say that 1/0 = 1/0, and I suspect that you can't since you don't know the value of 1/0, but you can assign 1/0 to A, then you can't say that A=A ("proof by contradiction"). So, what you do instead, is say that 1/0 doesn't exist (since it isn't on the number line), and we only talk about A for things which can exist, so A=A only for things which can exist (within our system, which happens to be described by the number line in this case, but could be any arbitrary set of definitions which have a behaviour we as humans find interesting and or useful).

Tada!

[The Rumpled Academic]

although the philosopher's ponderings above are awesome

Whoa, dude. I dug your post a lot too. Thanks for sharing it...

My pleasure.

philosophy and math seem to be at the same level of purity, needing only logic in the context of whatever they happen to be studying ?

Although math requires the assumption of numbers (while the most fundamental philosophy doesn't, necessarily), I think I'd agree with that summation. At the same time, though; seeing that any discipline having absolute purity is impossible, purity shouldn't really be any kind of yardstick of goodness. It's just kind of a self-defeating thing for a human being (necessarily conditioned by uncertain sense and conceptual notions) to strive for, imo.

[MysticTerminator]

the most basic math all the way up to abstract algebra does not need numbers either

nonetheless, I don't see how it follows that (absolute purity is impossible) => (meh, purity is pointless). sure, absolute zero is impossible to attain. that doesn't mean people aren't trying to see how cold they can go. reaching c is also pretty impossible. we're still cool with building faster vehicles.

[aliosha]

1. A is A. And A is A because we have defined A to be A.

The value of "1/0" isn't well defined (you can't point it out on a number line), so does it make sense to say 1/0 = 1/0? If you can't say that 1/0 = 1/0, and I suspect that you can't since you don't know the value of 1/0, but you can assign 1/0 to A, then you can't say that A=A ("proof by contradiction"). So, what you do instead, is say that 1/0 doesn't exist (since it isn't on the number line), and we only talk about A for things which can exist, so A=A only for things which can exist (within our system, which happens to be described by the number line in this case, but could be any arbitrary set of definitions which have a behaviour we as humans find interesting and or useful).

Tada!

You can say A=A because whatever value you finally decide 1/0 to be (I don't know, don't ask me) will be the same on both sides.

See, A=A works even for things which aren't numbers or necessarily comprehendable, like infinity. I think. I've run out of knowledge.

[Eugo]

See, A=A works even for things which aren't numbers or necessarily comprehendable, like infinity. I think. I've run out of knowledge.

For that, instructions are in my tagline... (are these smileys intentionally campy? they look like designed by Georges Melies).

Anyway, depending on how you define your infinity, you get into different geometries, which are logically equal. Or, you get different algebras, where the infinity behaves differently - or you get multiple infinities (IIRC, aleph zero was the minimal infinite number, the answer to 'how many natural numbers are there', then the next one is c - number of real numbers; don't remember what was next).

Whoever said that maths doesn't need numbers to start with was right. It can invent them as it goes, in a dozen interesting ways. That's where the fun actually begins.

[xxsksixx]

I haven't read all the comments, but somebody posted a similar joke to the one this reminded me of.. sorry if you've seen it already, but this is a variation as best as I can remember it:

Psychologists laugh secretly at sociologists, because they can't even pretend at scientific rigor.
Biologists laugh at psychologists because they have no well understood first principles.
Chemists laugh at biologists, because what is biology except the interaction of chemicals?
Physicists laugh at chemists, because what is chemistry but the interaction of particles?
Applied mathematicians laugh at physicists, because they tend to misuse or gloss over important things.
Pure mathematicians laugh at applied mathematicians, because they tend to misuse or gloss over important things.
And logicians laugh at pure mathematicians, because they seldom understand the framework upon which they build.

But in reality, everybody is laughing at logicians...

And if you know a logician, you know it's true.

[DougBTX]

whatever value you finally decide 1/0 to be

That's the key, if we could decide on a single value for 1/0, then we could say that A=A for everything.

But, unfortunately, we have decided that 1/0 does not have one particular value. In calculus, it can have any value at all depending on which limits you take: 1/0 can equal 3, it can equal 4, it can equal 102. But 3 doesn't equal 4, and 4 doesn't equal 102, so if we try and say that 1/0 always equals 1/0, we contradict ourselves.

So, back to the simple case of just a boring number line with 0, 1, 2, 3 etc marked on it, we're stuck, 1/0 doesn't exist as a point on the line. Happily, if we say that A can only be something which exists on the line, 1, 2, 3 etc, then A=A and we're sorted.

[Side note: you might not like the idea of me saying that 1/0 does not exist when I can quite plainly write down "1/0". That's an illusion of language: "1/0" exists in language as a "1" then a slash then a "0", but that doesn't mean it exists where we care about, on the number line. The same as in written language, "2/2" isn't identical to "3/3", but if we consider their values as numbers, it's obvious that they both exist, and equal 1.]

[Random832]

whatever value you finally decide 1/0 to be

That's the key, if we could decide on a single value for 1/0, then we could say that A=A for everything.

But, unfortunately, we have decided that 1/0 does not have one particular value. In calculus, it can have any value at all depending on which limits you take: 1/0 can equal 3, it can equal 4, it can equal 102. But 3 doesn't equal 4, and 4 doesn't equal 102, so if we try and say that 1/0 always equals 1/0, we contradict ourselves.

So, back to the simple case of just a boring number line with 0, 1, 2, 3 etc marked on it, we're stuck, 1/0 doesn't exist as a point on the line. Happily, if we say that A can only be something which exists on the line, 1, 2, 3 etc, then A=A and we're sorted.

[Side note: you might not like the idea of me saying that 1/0 does not exist when I can quite plainly write down "1/0". That's an illusion of language: "1/0" exists in language as a "1" then a slash then a "0", but that doesn't mean it exists where we care about, on the number line. The same as in written language, "2/2" isn't identical to "3/3", but if we consider their values as numbers, it's obvious that they both exist, and equal 1.]

Actually, if you're taking the limit of something whose limit is one divided by something whose limit is zero, it's always going to be some kind of infinity (or, in other words, there is no limit). 0/0 is the one that has all those amusing possibilities.

[Lunch Meat]

The ill-disguised hippy in me digs that idea a lot. ^_^

After all, why do we philosophise? Is it because, in the dim shaky haze of being, the one thing that feels absolutely certain to us is the love we feel for the Universe, and for life?
Because attempting to understand its intricate ways and moods is the most natural and intuitive way for us to express that love?

That's pretty much where I was going, but you said it much more eloquently than I could.

Here's sort of the way I was thinking about it:
Lovers say "I love everything that exists!"
Philosophers say "What exists?"
Mathematicians say "Let's count it!"
Physicists say "How does it work?"
Chemists say "What happens when you mix this part of everything and this part of everything together?"
Biologists say "What happens when it comes to life?"
Psychologists say "What happens when it starts noticing that it's alive?"
Sociologists say "What happens when it starts noticing other little pieces of everything that exists being alive?"

And when you think about it, that sense of loving everything and being curious about everything is very childlike, which is where we all start out. And that's quite xkcdian as well.

[Content]

Now, I'm an uneducated idiot so bear with me here a moment, but I thought mathematics and physics were, not only perilous mountains of applied thoughts based on the best empirical evidence currently available (just like all knowledge), but also among the unique class of systems that are admittedly flawed models that we use to reckon the universe. Haven't we proven that the mathematical and physical equations of the universe we use are, in truth, incorrect? But we use them anyway because for most things we reckon with them they work just fine. They're a handy tool but really farther from striving for absolute truth than even the interpretative fields of knowledge like history and philosophy, where you can't prove anything just make arguments based on evidence.

There's nothing really pretentious or artsy or "perfect" in any way about math. Quite the opposite it's this wonderful earthy tool that makes so much stuff work. It's like time or morality, a flawed, hypocritical, but oh so useful human tool.


Anyways, this comic and the "perfect truths" comic both made me laugh, so good job on that definitely.

The only curmudgeonly jab I'd make is that the most important advances in psychology seem, to me, to have been even more impure of biology and chemistry than is being pointed out here. Freud, Jung..."the talking cure" in general of course deal with psychological concepts that have some biological spark (destrudo and libido for instance are instincts no doubt created by chemicals in our brains as modeled by the orders of our RNA, etc. etc.), but it's also true that if you just put a bunch of brain chemists and neural biologists as the providers of psychological care that the quality would downgrade dramatically quite quickly. For all the advances in brain-affecting chemicals we have, there is still a distinction between organically caused psychological problems, like the forms of schizophrenia that can be caused by pressure on certain parts of the brain creating phantom sounds and so on, and the non-organic problems that are "biological" in only the same sense that all our emotions our. However, haven't psychologists ever pointed out to biologists that you feel a certain way and that triggers the chemicals, usually not the other way around? While I'm sure there are truly organic "chemical imbalances" in some, I do believe that there's always going to be lots of important work in psychology to be done by talk therapists and psychoanalysts, not guys in white labcoats playing around with neat peptide combinations.


And of course this is all in the spirit of thought-provoking conversation, not a debate or argument of any kind, as I read XKCD BECAUSE it occassionally sparks these thoughts in me (and when it doesn't it's still very funny and insightful).

[Random832]

Now, I'm an uneducated idiot so bear with me here a moment, but I thought mathematics and physics were, not only perilous mountains of applied thoughts based on the best empirical evidence currently available (just like all knowledge), but also among the unique class of systems that are admittedly flawed models that we use to reckon the universe. Haven't we proven that the mathematical and physical equations of the universe we use are, in truth, incorrect?

Math has nothing to do with the universe.

[DougBTX]

Haven't we proven that the mathematical and physical equations of the universe we use are, in truth, incorrect?

Since science is inherently an inductive process, a theory is only correct to the extent that it makes testable predictions, and that so far none of those predictions have been demonstrated to be false.

If a theory does not make testable predictions, then it "isn't even wrong yet", and if it is shown to be wrong in some cases, it may still make correct predictions in other cases, so we can still think of it as "correct" but with more well defined limitations on it's applicability.

As for mathematics, it depends what you think of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. He may well have proven that absolute truth does not exist, and everyone is still playing catchup.

[eiaboca]

I wrote a thing. This comic, in conjunction with other stuff I've been pondering, really spun my neurons.

http://eiaboca.livejournal.com/113817.html

Pretend that I don't embarrassingly use LiveJournal, and that instead it is my blogger account that I should switch to instead.

[stryker]

So I just discovered something amazing. At my University, all of the department offices are lined up in a single hallway, and the order they appear is.... .get this.....

Sociology, Philosophy, Physchology, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. The icing on the cake..... The math department is on a completely different floor. Or on a different level, if you will . Best real world application of the comic ever.

[scarletmanuka]

Best real world application of the comic ever.

Sorry, I couldn't see a link to the photo... where is it again?

[stryker]

The hall is a little long to take it all in one picture... may possibly make a little movie clip or something to prove it. Oh, this is at the University of Lethbridge.

[Grego]

I left this on my Physics teacher's desk when he was out without attaching my name to it. The next day he handed me Substitute, grinning. Little did I know he is also an xkcd reader. Less did I know that I had started a war.

Cheers xkcd, there go my grades =P

[MysticTerminator]

retaliate with certainty!

[crp]

I actually believe math is applied psychology, because math is a human construct. I believe physics is on top, because physics is just a definition of how the universe works

Too bad everything is applied god