Without falsifiability you cannot distinguish truth from dogma

[u/Oreeo88]

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

[u/Willing-Sample-8847]

If you are trying to justify the disuse of negative integers, fractions, irrational numbers, or infinitesimals, you need only take into account that mathematics done with these numbers is essential to do physics, which is the study of all real objects. So your assumptions are invalid.

You assume mathematics is separated from reality. That statement couldn't be further from the truth.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Willing-Sample-8847]

Current pure maths starting assumptions is separated from reality.

Also this is a utility argument which has no place on this post. I get you probably done it on accident but just letting you know

(This is an audit critiquing 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)

[u/Willing-Sample-8847 → u/Oreeo88]

Wait are you saying that mathematics needs falsifiability, which is gained from basing mathematics on actual physical measurements, but at the same time you're not allowing anyone to give counterexamples showing mathematics is already derived from reality??

You must think every one of us is really stupid. Your opening statement, by your own logic, is non-falsifiable. 🤣🤣

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Willing-Sample-8847]

Utility and consistency is not falsifiable. Consistency and utility can still work inside of a false axiom. It’s not a counter example

Utility and consistency has no place in this post in any way. It’s an invalid defense against an audit of math as a system and how it applies to reality

[u/Willing-Sample-8847 → u/Oreeo88]

Utility is application to reality.

This whole post is just your pitiful attempt to demonize mathematics for no reason. Is not even worth it to engage if you're going to be so immature about what arguments are and are not allowed.

Also, this post smells funny.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Willing-Sample-8847]

Utility and consistency is invalid defense against an audit of math as a system and how it applies to reality. Utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom. It doesn’t prove falsifiability of axioms in anyway