• 1 Post
  • 139 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle





  • The problem is that you failed to adequately disambiguate your position from nonsense. The position you presented is a poor one and an unwelcome thing to try and defend in this community. Additionally, your presentation of the subject was combative instead of illuminating and your statement about “true things” is just a bad presentation of a thing we have excellent proofs of without the hand waving.

    Frankly, it was difficult for me to differentiate your argument from a bad apologist argument.


  • Godels proof is quite clear. There are infinitely many assertions that are true but have no proof. Those assertions can be mapped to extant things. This is not an area that requires deliberation. If you are unfamiliar with the incompleteness theorum we can discuss it more. The fantastically great thing about this work is that it was the pursuit of a “complete” purely philosophical logic derivation of mathematical principles (the continuation of the work by Bertrand in the Principia Mathematica).

    The thing here is we are arguing two different points… You are arguing that empirical evidence can demonstrate the usefulness of models to explain more empirical evidence… Which is true. I am arguing that philosophy builds models. You aren’t wrong(except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method… You are just wrong about that) and I am not wrong. We are arguing different things.


  • The (poorly) argued point they are trying to make is the distinction between the empirically identified congruences between the math and the internally consistent tautological truth of the math itself.

    The reason I bring this up is your point about math modeling empirical evidence is an important distinction. Where their argument truly breaks down is the idea that all internally consistent tautologies are of equal value to us as humans. This is obviously false.

    And frankly, their other argument about this showing that true things exist without empirical proof is offensively stupid since we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.


  • While what you say is true, tautological arguments are not useful in and of themselves. Internally consistent mathematics is not a useful construct unless we can empirically discover structures that those mathematical systems model. Einsteins theory of relativity is not impressive without the empirical discovery that the it is/was a better model than the existing Newtonian models that proceeded it.

    To argue that internally consistent tautologies are true and are of equivalent usefulness is a bad faith argument that inappropriately equates two logical constructs.












  • And the wonderful thing about it is we know it is incomplete, because relativity math stops working at the quantum level. Quantum math and relatively math used to be incompatible… The standard model of physics unifies the two(or is it “is unifying” still?), but with that some truly mind-boggling math came out of it. String theory, m theory, multi universe theories… experiments that show macro objects that should respect relativity math behaving according to quantum math… And we are just at the beginning of understanding the implications of what some of the math suggests.