Philosophy Now Forum

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.

This level of disagreement requires a PhD.

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.

There is no "factual" basis for counting/addition and the subsequent CREATION of "quantity." 1+1=2 is a belief, an assumption, that has been accepted as fact.

The Principia Mathematica 360 page "proof" is obviously not a discovery of a fundamental phenomenon, but a programming of human consciousness into believing that 1+1=2. Occam's razor cuts those 360 pages down to a single sentence: "One plus one equals two because every single last one of us believes that it does."

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:19 am There is no "factual" basis for counting/addition and the subsequent CREATION of "quantity." 1+1=2 is a belief, an assumption, that has been accepted as fact.

That's idiotic. You are confusing the formalisation/codification/representation with what it represents. You understand the concept of representation. Yes?

You have an apple in your left hand and an apple in your right hand. How many apples do you have? We represent/encode the situation as "1+1=2".

Thereafter we attempt to find axioms (foundations!) from which the statement 1+1=2 can be deduced. It's a backwards process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:19 am The Principia Mathematica 360 page "proof" is obviously not a discovery of a fundamental phenomenon, but a programming of human consciousness into believing that 1+1=2. Occam's razor cuts those 360 pages down to a single sentence: "One plus one equals two because every single last one of us believes that it does."

Here's an egg:
Here is another egg:

Do you deny that there are two eggs on your screen?

1 is problematic.

Despite that I'm in agreement with the gist of the OP.

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.

OK. You reject the axioms (premises), but do you accept any of the theorems (conclusions) ?

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.

What does you not accepting them entail?
Do you not use math when shopping? You don't count things?
Do you avoid technology based on math?
Do you not check the change you receive from stores?

How does this not accepting the axioms of math affect anything?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:40 am Do you avoid technology based on math?

He's using this forum, so I think that's a no.

The post counter at the bottom of this page went from 7 to 8 after I pressed submit.

I don't even think it would be possible to get by in life without some basic mathematical assumptions. I could be wrong about that, but it would seem to make things very difficult. I mean if someone asks you for 50 cents for a pack of gum, you pull a quarter out of your pocket and suddenly you have no clue how many more quarters you need for 50 cents.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:53 am He's using this forum, so I think that's a no.

Yes, I was being snotty, and then also asking a real question.
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to use math but not accept (in some sense) the axioms.
I thought it was an interesting formulation: I don't accept....
So, I'm probing.

The post counter at the bottom of this page went from 7 to 8 after I pressed submit.

Random!

I don't even think it would be possible to get by in life without some basic mathematical assumptions

.Nor a whole mass of other assumptions. Sometimes in philosophy forums people can come across as if they think they never use intuition nor make assumptions. Everything they believe is based on empirical research and deduction. Good luck surviving for a week or managing to, without breaking one's own rules, argue anything.

I could be wrong about that, but it would seem to make things very difficult. I mean if someone asks you for 50 cents for a pack of gum, you pull a quarter out of your pocket and suddenly you have no clue how many more quarters you need for 50 cents.

And a teacher loses their job on the first field trip.

I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:44 am I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?

You must have noticed them in geometry in school. Even the pedagogically challenged teacher can't avoid mentioning them.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 1:03 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:44 am I didn't know math had axioms. This just doesn't make any sense. How can the cat have eaten the cheese?

You must have noticed them in geometry in school. Even the pedagogically challenged teacher can't avoid mentioning them.

Indeed mon ami, indeed! Geometry, yep, it was geometry! Cheesy cat!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:44 am

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:19 am There is no "factual" basis for counting/addition and the subsequent CREATION of "quantity." 1+1=2 is a belief, an assumption, that has been accepted as fact.

That's idiotic. You are confusing the formalisation/codification/representation with what it represents. You understand the concept of representation. Yes?

You have an apple in your left hand and an apple in your right hand. How many apples do you have? We represent/encode the situation as "1+1=2".

Thereafter we attempt to find axioms (foundations!) from which the statement 1+1=2 can be deduced. It's a backwards process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:19 am The Principia Mathematica 360 page "proof" is obviously not a discovery of a fundamental phenomenon, but a programming of human consciousness into believing that 1+1=2. Occam's razor cuts those 360 pages down to a single sentence: "One plus one equals two because every single last one of us believes that it does."

Here's an egg:
Here is another egg:

Do you deny that there are two eggs on your screen?

You are simply regurgitating what you have been brainwashed to accept.

I deny that "quantity" has anything to do with the physical realm.

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:00 pm You are simply regurgitating what you have been brainwashed to accept.

No, I am not.

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:00 pm I deny that "quantity" has anything to do with the physical realm.

I never said it was a physical egg. It's just an emoji.

How many emoji-eggs do you see?



Do you want me to write you a computer program to count them?

irb(main):001:0> %w( ).count
=> 2

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:03 pm

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:00 pm You are simply regurgitating what you have been brainwashed to accept.

No, I am not.

roydop wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:00 pm I deny that "quantity" has anything to do with the physical realm.

I never said it was a physical egg. It's just an emoji.

How many emoji-eggs do you see?



Do you want me to write you a computer program to count them?

irb(main):001:0> %w( ).count
=> 2

I'm relating to something deeper here and you don't want to see it.