# Against the Simulation Hypothesis

I have no choice but to be patient.

Congrats! you just solved the vexata quaestio of the foundation of mathematics.
I guess anything like a proof would be utterly superfluous.

Attano,

Are you addressing Arminius? There is a death grip on mathmatics…why?

Why should logic be “gutted of math”?

Thanks.

Let us compare the set „logic“ and its subsets with the set „sun“ and its subsets.

| 1) Set: Logic _ _ _ _ _ _ _|| 2) Set: Sun _ _ _ _ _ _|
| 1,1) Subset: Mathematics _|| 2,1) Subset: Hydrogen _|
| 1,2) Subset: Linguistics _ _|| 2,2) Subset: Helium _ _ |
| 1,3) Subset: Others _ _ _ _ || 2,3) Subset: Others _ _ |

Question: What happens if you take the hydrogen away from the sun?
Answer: The sun becomes bigger because of the helium burning.

If there were no mathematics, then logic would use linguistics instead of mathematics (like the logic of children, especially of little children, does).

Jerkey.

Observe your little grandchildren when they try to calculate in a really mathematical way for the first time. You should find out that they use language and a bit later also their fingers in order to come closer and closer to the real mathematics.

Zero is the problem. What is 1,3) Subset: Others _ _ _ _ || 2,3) Subset: Others _ _ |?

Yes, well, not only Arminius, I mean he’s surely not alone in thinking that.
As for the “death grip”… sorry, I guess I can’t develop anything coming close to an answer. I am not even sure I really get what you mean.

Here’s my 2 cents contribution to your reflection, with no ambition to become any dramatic turn of it.
Marcuse wrote on Hegel’s logic

I do not subscribe to this view. But I like the suggestion that knowing something means losing it in a way.
We do not need to entertain the idea that the description of reality by means of mathematical formulas is the ultimate reality and the in itself of the world - although some surely think that. Yet, that way of modelling an object (in a very broad sense) is the most effective way of thoroughly ‘holding’ that object. While many different and contrasting ‘essences’ or ‘beings’ can be predicated, the maths formulas may capture the powers subjecting ‘something’, what used to be called the laws of nature and, less solemnly, what makes them ‘what they are’. In that respect the Hegelian thought and the ‘laws of nature’ are alike. And for both of them what we perceive as the concrete instance, and the existence, of the object is not relevant.

The point being, that math is a construction through perception, logic developed through a project(ion), the way I do observe my grandchildren, they slowly learn the concept from seeing individual things, then conceive of the singular through a project of comparison. It is not an inherent ability , and the child learning of the singular, is characteristic of initial philosophical nominalism.

It is a construction of meaning, where the language comes first, then the logic of language.

The deconstruction of meaning to come, is the effect of the the growth of differential logic, .

No.

It is negligible, irrelevant for the matter we are talking about here.

It is, but not only.

Yes and no, because it has two directions.

Zero is the problem for 0 does not exist, we just try to fabricate its’ existence to feel in control. Try any ‘real logic’ and it does not reduce to zero.

Next batter up! I may strike you out in condescension. Playoffs are rigorous!

Are you avoiding my issue with zero?

Arm,

You were a total jerk not too long ago to yours truly because you felt me inferior. Bring your brawny brains, luvdove.

No.

Zero (null, nil, naught) can be defined. it is a special number. We work with it mathematically - similar to the fact that we work with the nothingness logically.

Defining what does not exist does not help what does. And zero is a glorious fabrication just as nothingness is. Yes, let’s waste time defining the unnecessaries and bringing in the fated spaghetti monster with gusto to make our fabricated point which amounts to a hill of beans, all of it.

You are almost funny. Are your guys’ Grandkids around, I’d make more progress. At least they count their fingers starting with one.