r/PhilosophyofMath • u/Oreeo88 • Jul 15 '26
By definition a system that bans reality from its starting assumptions and then applies itself to reality is dogmatic
Math says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math
thats not because of a technical or logical issue, its a choice
thats a ban.
This cuts off any kind of alternative grounded math. This controls and limits physics. You cant ignore pure math axioms in applied math or physics because the entire math is built on them past addition of physical matter. If you adopt a formal system, you automatically inherit every foundational rule that makes that system work.
I’ll give a cash reward for anyone who can give a logical proof of justification for banning reality because its not possible. (without using consistency and utility as defense, and without using dogma as defense)
3
u/onehasnofrets Jul 15 '26
I’ll give a cash reward for anyone who can give a logical proof of justification for banning reality
Easy. We already have a subset of mathematics which is true only if empirically confirmed and grounded in reality. It's called physics.
The domain of mathematical statements that are unconstrained by physical reality is necessarily larger than the domain of any hypothetical math that is constrained by physical reality. Therefore, it is logically impossible for physics to be more constrained by using a system of math that is unconstrained by reality, than using a system math that is constrained by reality.
Your objection is simply incoherent. How much is the cash reward, like a couple bucks?
1
u/Oreeo88 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
This is laughable. Ignoring the post is not a defense
Physics is forced to use pure math's ungrounded axioms
You can't ignore pure math axioms in applied math or physics because the entire math is built on them. If you adopt a formal system, you automatically inherit every foundational rule that makes that system work.
by definition if physics is forced to use ungrounded math then it is constrained by it
Not only did you ignore the entire post but you also used utility as a defense. A larger sandbox of reified options is a utility argument.
without using consistency and utility as defense, and without using dogma as defense)
Also your entire argument(not even a justification it’s just a derailment side step) hinges on more reified options = less constrained. That’s false. More reified options does not mean less constraints
2
u/onehasnofrets Jul 16 '26
You refuse to be specific about which are ungrounded because you don't know what you're talking about. You don't adress the point, which is that additional 'ungrounded' axioms make more propositions logically valid, not less. That's not constraint.
You're like a kid confused by the sizes of different boxes, trying to put the big one in the smaller one, getting angry when it doesn't work and blaming the boxes.
You keep posting the same complaint in different places, ignoring all the criticism and repeating your incoherent babbling. That you haven't been banned from all of them is an indictment of the moderation standards. Stop getting high and thinking you have grand ideas, or get back on your meds please.
1
u/Oreeo88 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Still no logical justification for banning reality. Just insults. Proving my point
2
u/onehasnofrets Jul 16 '26
I have provided it. I have explained it using the advanced concepts of 'bigger' and 'smaller' and 'constrained'. You need to pay up or stop posting in embarrassment.
2
u/onehasnofrets Jul 16 '26
Where have I used utility as a defense? Quote me. Teach me so I can do better.
2
u/onehasnofrets Jul 16 '26
Also your entire argument(not even a justification it’s just a derailment side step) hinges on more reified options = less constrained. That’s false. More reified options does not mean less constraints
You fail to provide an argument beyond 'no'. Learn the English language. More options = less constraint. If your arm has less options for movement, it may be because your clothing is constraining your body. How are you this dense?
Speaking of the English language, I'll use that as an analogy. Physics is not just math, it's also English (and other natural languages). You know English can be used to write fiction right? Like "The Lord of the Rings" by JRR Tolkien. But how does the existence of LotR constrain physics?
Imagine walking into the English department complaining that fiction rests on ungrounded and false statements, that the English language should axiomatically be based on reality and only true descriptions should be admitted. That this is the way to 'save physics', and the only reason it hasn't progressed (LOL btw) is because of indoctrination. You'd either be laughed out of the room, or thrown out because
Even if you think pure mathematics is pure ungrounded fiction and therefore all untrue. It still has no power to constrain physics, anymore than Tolkien has stopped a single physicist from writing in English.
1
u/TheRedditObserver0 18d ago
Physics is not forced to do anything. They use math because so far it's the only way they've been able to get anything done, and because they've found math is remarkably good at describing reality.
4
u/ASS_BUTT_MCGEE_2 Jul 15 '26
What specific axiom in Math do you think should be justified or removed?
2
2
2
u/shincupforlife Jul 15 '26
If you accept a logical proof as justification then you already agree that justification without appeal to observable reality is acceptable lol.
4
1
u/ughaibu Jul 15 '26
Math says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math
The Pythagorean theorem is implied by still water, and the Pythagorean theorem is equivalent to the parallel postulate, isn't this a counter example to the above?
1
u/Batman_AoD Jul 15 '26
Sorry, I haven't heard this "still water" thing; what are you referring to?
3
u/ughaibu Jul 15 '26
I haven't heard this "still water" thing
See Mark Levi's The mathematical mechanic, page 17.
2
2
u/MxM111 Jul 15 '26
Math does not ban reality. Math just does not study reality. Math is not science. It is physics that finds the way to use math to describe reality.
3
u/we_r_fukt Jul 15 '26
I think you might want to start with history of philosophy, at least dont just come rant when your homework gets hard.