Why I Don't Accept the Axioms of Math

[Skepdick]

You are simply regurgitating what you have been brainwashed to accept.

No, I am not.

I deny that "quantity" has anything to do with the physical realm.

I never said it was a physical egg. It's just an emoji.

How many emoji-eggs do you see?



Do you want me to write you a computer program to count them?

irb(main):001:0> %w( ).count
=> 2

I'm relating to something deeper here and you don't want to see it.

Deeper than infinitely deep?

It's turtles all the way down. Go check for yourself though - I am not coming with you.

[roydop]

No, I am not.


I never said it was a physical egg. It's just an emoji.

How many emoji-eggs do you see?



Do you want me to write you a computer program to count them?

I'm relating to something deeper here and you don't want to see it.

Deeper than infinitely deep?

It's turtles all the way down. Go check for yourself though - I am not coming with you.

My theory fixes the infinite regression problem. Reality is fundamentally TRIUNE. This trinity is expressing the state of SUPERPOSITION.

[Skepdick]

My theory fixes the infinite regression problem. Reality is fundamentally TRIUNE. This trinity is expressing the state of SUPERPOSITION.

Oh boy. Your theory...

Does your theory fix the problem with theorising about theories? Because that's the infinite regress problem.

[Agent Smith]

Alrighty then, what's the next bloody question?

[Eodnhoj7]

This level of disagreement requires a PhD.

"The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity."

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

There 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.

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."

Agreed.

[Eodnhoj7]

1 is problematic.

Despite that I'm in agreement with the gist of the OP.

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

OK. You reject the axioms (premises), but do you accept any of the theorems (conclusions) ?

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

What does you not accepting them entail?
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?

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.

[alan1000]

I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?

And Jesus wept. Agent Smith, you shatter your own records...

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

[Skepdick]

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.

The effectiveness of Mathematics is perfectly reasonable once you understand the concept of Turing completeness.

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.

[Agent Smith]

I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?

And Jesus wept. Agent Smith, you shatter your own records...

I thought I was human. It turns out I'm not and no, I'm not an alien.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

The effectiveness of Mathematics is perfectly reasonable once you understand the concept of Turing completeness.

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.

There are several ways of looking at this:

If it is our nature to make tools then by default we are governed by laws of tool making thus not all reasoning is a tool.

Dually if all reasoning is a tool, and tools have faults, then our reasoning of making tools is faulty.

This is assuming we look at reasoning. However does the argument apply when we are strictly looking at math alone? Considering math checks math and a tool checks a tool then this reasoning of a tool checking a tool is a tool considering 'checking' is respectively mathematical and a tool. If the tools are faulty then any justification or negation of math is faulty.

[Flannel Jesus]

Did you read it?