I would say that mathematics is the only science that has absolute replicability that can occur when using the scientific method, assuming that a theorem is proven properly.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I would say that mathematics is the only science that has absolute replicability that can occur when using the scientific method, assuming that a theorem is proven properly.
And unfortunately, mathematics itself, is not proven.
There are indications that it may be wrong. (that its assumptions are wrong, and so arise incorrect conclusions)
What indications exist that certain assumptions of mathematics are incorrect?
The work of Goedel (for his Incompleteness Theorem) and Whitehead and Russel (for which the basis of logic was formalized) speak for themselves when the latter constructs logic from, literally, nothing!
You are making baseless accusations without any substance whatsoever.
Please provide evidence of your claims.
I am working on a post of this topic, but it is difficult going.
Its kinda like talking about pizza-gate three years ago. No one knew, or wanted to talk about it, and getting into it meant pulling in a LOT of disparate pieces.
Your reaction is also an example of what this post was talking about.
How, I would have responded was, "In what ways? Can you tell me more?"
I find that most people don't even know that mathematics is built on a bunch of assumptions. So, when you talk about challenging them, you either get outright denial, or blank stares.
Most of my theories come from people who be described as self-trained mathematicians. And so, in the "peer-reviewed" world, they are nobodies.
In the mathematics that I am working on (and others like me) PI is a rational number. It appears that several ancient civilizations (like the Mayan) also had this form of mathematics. (they encoded it into their pyramids)
All I can do is point it out, and anyone who wants to can go look for it.
Mathematics requires proof of claims or evidence. That is the very essence of mathematics. I saw only claims and nothing more.
I did respond that way. And I quote:
Even when I was amicable in my response asking you for any indication (which I meant to act as a synonym for evidence) that you had that the assumptions of math are false, you make a claim that my reaction is an example of what this post was about.
In short, I observed and stated that your claims were baseless and had no evidence. I asked for your sources and information, yet you sidestep the question.
I have some more questions that I am sure you will also choose to not answer.
Do you know that "1 + 1 = 2" is an assumption? It has not been proven yet.
I believe someone has come up with a proof of "2 + 2 = 4" but I am not sure.
There is another assumption that you can always add 1 to a number.
This assumption creates all kinds of problems. Infinity, not being able to divide by zero, etc.
Current mathematics assumes linear number lines. Everywhere in the universe we look, we do not see straight lines. We see circles, loops and spirals.
There are people working with circular number lines. And closed loop dimensions.
Lets say you had a number, which equalled all of the possible atoms in the galaxy.
Then if you counted 1,2,3,4... all of the atoms, any number larger than all possible doesn't make any sense.
When you look at the universe through these different mathematics, the universe and its laws make much more sense.
You failed to address any of my questions regarding proof or evidence to your claims.
You then continue to make claims with no backing.
Before continuing with more baseless statements, please respond to my questions that ask for evidence of all of your previous statements.
What? That "1 + 1 = 2" is an assumption?
I know they don't teach that in your typical mathematics class, but it is well known to all who look for it.
I would reply to you, but it's not possible.
You never answered any of my questions. And there is really no reason to continue, however ...
As far as 1 + 1 = 2 being an assumption, you never read Whitehead and Russel's Principia Mathematica (which I referenced in my first comment).
You'll find that they prove that statement 1 + 1 = 2 starting with assuming the concept of nothingness, or in mathematical set notation terms, the empty set.
For your homework for this evening, read the first chapter and do all the exercises.
because it's a priori it's independent of experience
Indeed but even mathematics are based on axioms, which in turn have to prove themselves in order for them to work. Mathematical axioms in the spectrum of engineering though can give us pretty good scientific results.
You misunderstand the definition of axioms.
Axioms do not have to be proven in a logical framework. They are assumed to be true and do not need to be proven.
math doesn't need to be based on axioms. it's INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE. the base of math is based on a priori knowledge or simply said the truth.
you just went full dogma there....
math is a tool inspired by humans..nothing a priori there. everything they measure is based on how humans perceive reality. ..and humans have very limited senses in perceiving everything that exists around them.
Up and foremost they help us create relations ..when we run short though, we throw negative numbers, infinity, zero so we can make sense of things.
Same thing applies to language. We say "nothing" but every time there is something. We just omit the details, we overgeneralize, so we can communicate.
bro what's the result of 2+2?
in some cases 4. In some others 5.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/775273/contradiction-prove-22-5
Here is another one
http://www.businessinsider.com/2--2-doesnt-always-equal-4-2014-6
great. in both cases there were used logical deductions : MATH. bye
thats a straw-man argument girl. How can you bring up logic when you are not using any in your argument? also