Deeper than infinitely deep?roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:03 pmI'm relating to something deeper here and you don't want to see it.
It's turtles all the way down. Go check for yourself though - I am not coming with you.
Deeper than infinitely deep?roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:03 pmI'm relating to something deeper here and you don't want to see it.
My theory fixes the infinite regression problem. Reality is fundamentally TRIUNE. This trinity is expressing the state of SUPERPOSITION.
Oh boy. Your theory...
"The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity."
Agreed.roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:19 amThere is no "factual" basis for counting/addition and the subsequent CREATION of "quantity." 1+1=2 is a belief, an assumption, that has been accepted as fact.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:18 pm The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
The Principia Mathematica 360 page "proof" is obviously not a discovery of a fundamental phenomenon, but a programming of human consciousness into believing that 1+1=2. Occam's razor cuts those 360 pages down to a single sentence: "One plus one equals two because every single last one of us believes that it does."
1 is problematic as evidenced by the other thread, in the math section, where I point out there is one universe as there is only the universe (because only necessitates 1) however this 'only' nature to the universe necessitates it without contrast (and contrast is necessary for form to occur as something must be compared to something else if it is to exist as a form) thus further necessitating it as 'formless' or '0'. When quantifying the universe it is both 1 and 0.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:04 am 1 is problematic.
Despite that I'm in agreement with the gist of the OP.
The theorem requires self-evidence and as such is subjective. The gist of this post is about the problem of self-evidence and branches into math by default...so in one respect the post is about math and in another respect it is beyond math and applies to epistemology.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:14 amOK. You reject the axioms (premises), but do you accept any of the theorems (conclusions) ?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:18 pm The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
It means it is a relative truth and as such does not speak universally. As relative my use of math does not negate that I can simultaneously not accept it. I can draw a picture and accept it as not true. Existence does not always require truth.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:40 amWhat does you not accepting them entail?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:18 pm The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
Do you not use math when shopping? You don't count things?
Do you avoid technology based on math?
Do you not check the change you receive from stores?
How does this not accepting the axioms of math affect anything?
And Jesus wept. Agent Smith, you shatter your own records...Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:44 am I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?
The effectiveness of Mathematics is perfectly reasonable once you understand the concept of Turing completeness.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:13 pm Op, I highly recommend you read the essay The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner. It takes mathematical skepticism seriously, very seriously, and then takes the opportunity to look at some case studies in science to try to investigate the success of mathematical theories in generating predictions in these realms.
The essay is free online and not long at all.
I thought I was human. It turns out I'm not and no, I'm not an alien.alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 2:23 pmAnd Jesus wept. Agent Smith, you shatter your own records...Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:44 am I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?
There are several ways of looking at this:Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:14 pmThe effectiveness of Mathematics is perfectly reasonable once you understand the concept of Turing completeness.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:13 pm Op, I highly recommend you read the essay The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner. It takes mathematical skepticism seriously, very seriously, and then takes the opportunity to look at some case studies in science to try to investigate the success of mathematical theories in generating predictions in these realms.
The essay is free online and not long at all.
It's only Mathematicians who think tools which are designed/engineered to be reasonably effective work "unreasonably effectively". The sort of people who think Mathematics is discovered, not invented.
Stupid people who don't know how to make tools.