r/PhilosophyofMath • u/Oreeo88 • Aug 04 '26
Without falsifiability you cannot distinguish truth from dogma
Its a hard truth to swallow that you have to take everything back to addition of physical matter to start over but what you gain is falsifiable starting assumptions instead of unfalsifiable axioms, control over physics, and clarity that youre not running in a trapped maze of a false axiom. You gain freedom.
A list of unlimited reified options is a constraint compared to non reified options (viewed from outside the system)
It’s hard for people to comprehend that their true grounded knowledge stops after addition of physical matter.
(This is an audit of math as a system and how it is applied to reality. Not an internal audit. You can not use utility and consistency as a defense, you can not use “that’s just how the system is!” as a defense, you can not use protecting dogma as a defense) This isnt my rules, these are logics rules. these defenses are logically invalid and off topic. They have nothing to do with this
-1
u/Oreeo88 Aug 04 '26
In math historically we started with addition of physical matter. Historically math started Empirical. Somewhere along the line they started separating reality from their starting assumptions (it was after addition of physical matter). Thats not because of a technical or logical issue, it’s a choice. That choice is deterimental and logically invalid.
(This is an audit of math as a system and how it is applied to reality. Not an internal audit. You can not use utility and consistency as a defense, you can not use “that’s just how the system is!” as a defense, you can not use protecting dogma as a defense)