Mathematics has become a religion

[ladyjane]

maths has become the new religion for some people looking for absolutes to give the comfort

they treat maths like a religon and treat it heros as high preists giving us the laws of the god of maths
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww

i said

what maths is immune form criticism just because it works

you said

denali said

Why actually yes.

just what a religous person says about criticism of his god
and

denali said

You’re throwing an a prior construct which produces nothing of note against one that produces something;

exactly like a religious person who in the face of logical arguments against god says well it works for me

[denali]

@ladyjane

You’re throwing an a prior construct which produces nothing of note against one that produces something;

exactly like a religious person who in the face of logical arguments against god says well it works for me

Holy shit. Of all the ones you could have chosen to try to make your argument you chose that one?

This’ll probably be closed pretty quickly dear, but that’s effing hilarious. =D>

Imagine if we replaced math with the scientific method and you tried to “invalidate” the scientific method. Is the scientific method a religion now too?

You need to get out more. If you take a construct and try to smack it into another construct, we would judge which construct we want to keep based on the respective usefulness of them for addressing problems in that strange world that isn’t a complete fabrication of our imaginations.

Neither of these things is true; we aren’t talking about reality here. We’re talking about the way that we cope with reality and the language we use to describe it.

[ladyjane]

Imagine if we replaced math with the scientific method and you tried to “invalidate” the scientific method. Is the scientific method a religion now too?

there is no scientific method
read T kuhn
the structure of scientific revolutions

or feyerbend
against method
ever one knows there is no scientific method

hahahahahhaha

[Mr_Reasonable]

Kuhn thinks that the method leads to paragigm shifts, not that there’s no method. You’re wrong.

[denali]

@ladyjane

Imagine if we replaced math with the scientific method and you tried to “invalidate” the scientific method. Is the scientific method a religion now too?

there is no scientific method
read T kuhn
the structure of scientific revolutions

or feyerbend
against method
ever one knows there is no scientific method

hahahahahhaha

So let me get this straight:

math: no.
science: no.
logic: no.

colin dean leslie: yes.

It takes language to actually prove a point

[ladyjane]

Kuhn thinks that the method leads to paragigm shifts, not that there’s no method.

there is no method no scientific epistemology

paragigm shifts come about when the anomalies and aberrations and contradictions become
to much for normal science- which is no more that routine alllgorythimic monkey work

[IrvingWashington]

For fucks sake ladyjane. Maths is a language, you seem to be incapable of grasping this fact. Like any language, sometimes the practitioners go a bit far and think they can describe ‘reality itself’. Because some people use english to express what they think are absolutes doesn’t make english rubbish.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@ladyjane

Kuhn thinks that the method leads to paragigm shifts, not that there’s no method.

there is no method no scientific epistemology

paragigm shifts come about when the anomalies and aberrations and contradictions become
to much for normal science- which is no more that routine alllgorythimic monkey work

Do you mean to say that there’s no scientific epistemology? Are you crazy?

[ladyjane]

Do you mean to say that there’s no scientific epistemology? Are you crazy?

there is no scientific epistemology
it is just anarchy
inference one day
perception the next
deduction one day
induction the nest
logic one day
guess work the next

ad hoc here ad ho there- science is full of them
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

An interesting example of an ad hoc hypothesis is Albert Einstein’s addition of the cosmological constant to relativity in order to allow a steady-state universe. Although he later referred to it as his “greatest blunder,” it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.

books.google.com.au/books?isbn=9810208545…

Maxwell’s Displacement Current These assumptions are directly based on the ad-hoc … the current circuit is continuous and closes up by the displacement …

dualspace.net/uploads/Permittivity1.doc.

Dirac in 1927 proposed a sea of negative energy electrons, superficially resembling pair-space but which was an ad hoc extrapolation from the total energy equation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current

Displacement current possesses the units of electric current and it has an associated changing magnetic field. It appears in James Clerk Maxwell’s 1861 paper entitled On Physical Lines of Force where he added it as an additional term to the electric current term in Ampère’s Circuital Law.

a dogs dinner

[MagsJ (Surya Loka.. triumvirate)]

The whole world is one big formulated concept - take your precious poetry for instance!

[Kermit1941]

Damm right!

Mathematics is the only true religion
because it does not require any prior doctrine.

Mathematics flows from the logical ability that resides within every human being.

Mathematics is my religion.

Mathematics as a religion does not require any true believers.

It does not prosecute those who fail to understand.

Mathematics is the only religion which insists that you take nothing on faith.

There are no doctrines in mathematics.

Mathematics is the ultimate reality.

Kermit Rose

[ladyjane]

Mathematics is the only religion which insists that you take nothing on faith.

rubbish you take it on faith that maths is not inconsistent

every time maths is shown to be inconsistent you ad hoc creat axioms to out law the inconsistency
ie russell paradox
the seperation axiom of zfc was created to outlaw russels paradox

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2 … set_theory

3. Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The “restriction” to z is necessary to avoid Russell’s paradox and its variants

but the axiom of seperation is an impredicative defintion and text books on logic say such defintions are invalid

same happened with the burali-forti paradox

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burali-Forti_paradox

Modern axiomatic set theory such as ZF and ZFC circumvents this antinomy by simply not allowing construction of sets with unrestricted comprehension terms like “all sets which have property P”, as it was for example possible in Gottlob Frege’s axiom system. New Foundations uses a different solution.

maths is an ad hoc attempt to avoid inconsisteny based on the faith that maths is consistent

just as saying god does not exist to a reliouous person creats outrage
saying maths is inconsistent to a mathematician creates outrage
go read colin leslie deans book

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ience4.pdf

The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

[ladyjane]

Mathematics is the only religion which insists that you take nothing on faith.

rubbish you take it on faith that maths is not inconsistent

every time maths is shown to be inconsistent you ad hoc creat axioms to out law the inconsistency
ie russell paradox
the seperation axiom of zfc was created to outlaw russels paradox

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2 … set_theory

3. Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The “restriction” to z is necessary to avoid Russell’s paradox and its variants

but the axiom of seperation is an impredicative defintion and text books on logic say such defintions are invalid

same happened with the burali-forti paradox

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burali-Forti_paradox

Modern axiomatic set theory such as ZF and ZFC circumvents this antinomy by simply not allowing construction of sets with unrestricted comprehension terms like “all sets which have property P”, as it was for example possible in Gottlob Frege’s axiom system. New Foundations uses a different solution.

maths is an ad hoc attempt to avoid inconsisteny based on the faith that maths is consistent

just as saying god does not exist to a reliouous person creats outrage
saying maths is inconsistent to a mathematician creates outrage
go read colin leslie deans book

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ience4.pdf

The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

[ladyjane]

Mathematics is the only religion which insists that you take nothing on faith.

rubbish you take it on faith that maths is not inconsistent

every time maths is shown to be inconsistent you ad hoc creat axioms to out law the inconsistency
ie russell paradox
the seperation axiom of zfc was created to outlaw russels paradox

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2 … set_theory

3. Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The “restriction” to z is necessary to avoid Russell’s paradox and its variants

but the axiom of seperation is an impredicative defintion and text books on logic say such defintions are invalid

same happened with the burali-forti paradox

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burali-Forti_paradox

Modern axiomatic set theory such as ZF and ZFC circumvents this antinomy by simply not allowing construction of sets with unrestricted comprehension terms like “all sets which have property P”, as it was for example possible in Gottlob Frege’s axiom system. New Foundations uses a different solution.

maths is an ad hoc attempt to avoid inconsisteny based on the faith that maths is consistent

just as saying god does not exist to a reliouous person creats outrage
saying maths is inconsistent to a mathematician creates outrage
go read colin leslie deans book

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ience4.pdf

The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

[aporia]

What do you even mean, “all views are meaningless”? Wouldn’t you need a meaningful view to compare it with? How could people have a notion of meaning if they’ve never actually encountered it?

What you’re saying is like saying “everything is blue”. The moment it is said, it is obviously false, because if everything were blue there’d be no variation in color, hence no words or concepts to classify the variations.

[ladyjane]

What do you even mean, “all views are meaningless”

meaninglessness = contradiction

all views ends in self contradiction
all very simple

[earthy]

math is a religion that seems to work when applied to reality, why?

[SuperCulture]

@IrvingWashington

For fucks sake ladyjane. Maths is a language, you seem to be incapable of grasping this fact. Like any language, sometimes the practitioners go a bit far and think they can describe ‘reality itself’. Because some people use english to express what they think are absolutes doesn’t make english rubbish.

Ladyjane needs to chill out and relax, ladyjane seems more like a troll then someone interested in truth.

[aporia]

all views ends in self contradiction

even that view, so it is also true that not all views end in self contradiction.

i guess we agree on more than i thought, colin.

[ladyjane]

even that view, so it is also true that not all views end in self contradiction.

i guess we agree on more than i thought, colin.

yes even the view that all views end in meaningless end in meaningless

just by saying meaninglessness end in meaningless does not mean that there is a meaningfull view
thesis and antithesis end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction
sceptisim
nihlism
every thing ends in meaninglessness