This is sort of a /sci/ question, but it's also a question

>>1717362
It's an open question whether mathematical truths actually exist, but the idea that they do (known as mathematical platonism/mathematical realism) has slightly more supporters in philosophy than the opposing view. I suggest reading the SEP articles on mathematical platonism and nominalism if you want a survey of the arguments on each side.

>>1717362
Well when you say, "truth," I imagine you mean something like, 'truth of about how the universe actually is' or something along these lines. I imagine that this question is up for debate, but math definitely gives us logical truths that are of a pure form (however they still rely on some pre-held beliefs like the law of non-contradiction). That is to say, there are truths within the field of math. For example, 2+2=4. So the sentence, two plus two equals four has a truth value of true. In this way, there is truth involved in math. However, 2+2=4 isn't telling us much; it's only telling us that 4=4. So in this way, math's 'type of truth' is not very informative. Leibniz said that all logical apriori truth (math, for example) boils down to this type of truth. The type that only tells us what we already know; 4=4, all bachelors are unmarried men, etc.

>>1717390
>The type that only tells us what we already know

So there are never any mathematical breakthroughs in her field, basically

File: 1471554084459.png (26KB, 1112x267px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1112x267px

>>1717390
>>1717385
>>1717362
first, today, there is no mathematics outside axiomatic mathematics

second, in axiomatic mathematics, you have a formal system defined as a bunch of
-axioms
-rules of inferences

third, in math today, you have ''''''''''''''''''''truth values''''''''''''' which have NOTHING TO DO with truth. the truth in truth values is just a name. you can call truth values ''values of bananas'' and it changes nothing.


once yo understand that mathematics is not about truths, you become good at math and stop having faith in scientific realism.

values

>>1717393
I think this is equivocation. I did not mean to say that we already know every single apriori bit of knowledge, but that every apriori bit of knowledge doesn't really tell us anything except for, "a is a." Maybe my phrasing was poor.

>>1717401
What is truth value? Are you talking about Aristotelian logic?

>>1717421
>>What is truth value?
as in first order logic.

when you do not go through semantic, which means you remain on the syntactic level, you talk about validity of inference. in a few languages, what statements you output from your semantics and syntax are the same.

>>1717362
All math is based on axioms whose verity is asserted true. Under these premises, all theorems that are derived through logic are true, but they are only true as long as the axioms are true. If you're looking for some higher cosmic knowledge or some absolute truth, then you're looking in the wrong place. Math is something that was created by mathematicians. As Kronecker put it: integers come from god, everything else is the work of men.

Mathematics is a Symbolic construct.

>>1717401
This nigger gets it. Or at least gets it better than the other niggers.

>>1718365
Is there such a thing as pure math totally divorced from integers?

>>1719377
nah, indexed sets are used everywhere

>>1720502
Then isn't that like saying, regarding physics, "The physical reality is the work of God, everything else comes from men," ?

>>1720508
no, because math is not physics. physics is saying that math is relevant to interpret the world, that whatever your devices sense, they sense numbers and you sense just like your devices.
even worst, when people in physics hear this [because they never ever reflect on philosophy of science], they fall back on ''but we cannot do anything else with our day but interpret the world as numbers'' which means that they have no clue on how to justify their salary, even though they demand to be paid monthly. Even better, rationalist claim to be empiricist, when all they do is dwell in their imagination that they try to formalize
you can view physics as the most blue pilled activity you can do, or the biggest scam .

TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.


what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...

>>1720527
I see you're every bit as jaded by rationalism as I am.

>>1717401
You seem to know what you're talking about. How does Godel's theorem play into this discussion in your opinion? (I know that it is often taken out of context, but it seems to refute the idea that you can gain any universal truths from axiomatic math)

so

Hey everyone. Quantum physics is bullshit.
It is only for computation. Has nothing to do with how reality works.
It's a tool. Not a model of the universe.