Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:06 pm
Did you read it?
No time, working on reading a few books simultaneously already while working on writing a very short book.
However, reading what you have said, mathematics in predicting some things only predicts partial things and as such is not the 'whole' truth. Mathematics is a partial truth and as a partial truth is an illusion in nature. This nature of illusion stems from the fact that in predicting some truths it can give the faulty impression of predicting all truths thus leading down a never ending rabbit hole of one theory leading to the next.
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.
Which "mathematical" axioms? The ancient Greeks considered the axioms of geometry to be self-evident. On the other hand, nobody ever claimed that the axioms of arithmetic were "self-evident"; on the contrary, they were only discovered in the late 19th C, after two and a half thousand years of hard thinking. But perhaps that doesn't quite address your argument. The axioms of arithmetic are more like postulates than like axioms, as Euclid would have understood those terms; what they have in common is that both require to be accepted as true without supporting evidence, if the discourse is to go forward. The axioms of euclidean geometry were thought to be unprovably but undeniably true, in the light of everyday common sense; the axioms of arithmetic are more (seemingly) arbitrary and non-intuitive in character.
If you don't accept the axioms of arithmetic, tell us how YOU would go about proving that 1 +1 = 2. Don't keep us in suspense.
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.
Which "mathematical" axioms? The ancient Greeks considered the axioms of geometry to be self-evident. On the other hand, nobody ever claimed that the axioms of arithmetic were "self-evident"; on the contrary, they were only discovered in the late 19th C, after two and a half thousand years of hard thinking. But perhaps that doesn't quite address your argument. The axioms of arithmetic are more like postulates than like axioms, as Euclid would have understood those terms; what they have in common is that both require to be accepted as true without supporting evidence, if the discourse is to go forward. The axioms of euclidean geometry were thought to be unprovably but undeniably true, in the light of everyday common sense; the axioms of arithmetic are more (seemingly) arbitrary and non-intuitive in character.
If you don't accept the axioms of arithmetic, tell us how YOU would go about proving that 1 +1 = 2. Don't keep us in suspense.
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity.
Example:
I may observe 1 rain drop and another rain drop come together as 1 rain drop.
I may also observe one point and another point come together as 1 point.
Finally I may observe one phenomenon and another phenomenon come together as three phenomena: the one, the other one, and the set of them as one.