It is commonly accepted among mathematicians that when given 2X = 4, that X is to equal 2. But why should we accept this as truth? Is it because the mathematician is able to offer us a proof that X should equal 2? Do we just blindly follow the mathematician off every cliff that he leads us to?
The problem with accepting what the mathematician would like us to believe, i.e. that X equals 2 in the equation above, is that the mathematician comes to this truth by a constructed mathematical narrative that has hardly changed over five thousand years of human development. The mathematical community dogmatically holds certain things to be true, but never seem to question the nature of truth itself. If one is unwilling to accept my dogma that the world is flat, why would one accept the mathematical narrative that X equals 2? Simply put, we should not accept this as truth, simply because the idea that X equals 2 is a construct pushed on us by the mathematical community. To liberate ourselves from the tyranny of mathematical dogma, our intellectual pursuits need to transcend what is considered to be mathematical truth to something else. Would not humanity better be served if X equaled 1? Of course it would! Would humanity be better served if 1+1= 10,000? Indeed it would! Why then are we so reluctant to reject the current mathematical narrative and replace it with a mathematical narrative that would better serve all of humanity?
Our answer lies in the fact that people are often afraid of change. As I mentioned earlier, the current mathematical narrative has been in place for over five thousand years. While my argument makes clear the problems with the current mathematical narrative, we must realize that a paradigm shift in mathematics will no doubt frighten the masses, so it us up to us to start the mathematical revolution. Spread the word my friends, because now is the time to end the tyranny of the dogmatic mathematical narrative.
This is a joke right? there’s no argument here to tell us what is wrong with Maths other then it’s not new.
Now I’ve heard of Anti-racist maths but I have no idea what it’s about. What’s racist about maths? Why do you want to challenge the mathematic narrative?
This is a loony idea (I don’t think telling someone that if 2X = 4 then X = 2 can be compared to leading them off a cliff!!)
Mathematical truths are true insofar as they necessarily follow from their basis, which is extension (for humans, the concept of space). To say that this X should have the option of being not-2 is like saying that triangles should have option of having 4 sides.
So I take it that it is not new “dogma” that you are trying to push on us. As such, based on your narrative, I anxiously await your “proof” of why X=1… in as much as you would not just have us take your word for it.
Pure logic, math is unsupported by anything but logic.
You are right in saying they could be leading us right off a cliff.
Think about this…
Surely our system does work, but who is to say that some aliens in some distant planet which is completely foreign to ours won’t work, because ours is supposedly correct?
1+1 equals two, this has proved itself since the beginning of human evolution and the development of mathematics, this is all true as well.
But do you honestly think that the universe works off of math? Fraid not friend, math is a way of perception.
Math is the human way to percieve how the universe works, an alien on some other planet could have a completely different system of perception, they might call it buthugash or something crazy like that, they might not have a zero, in their world x*2=4 might not suggest that x equals 2.
But it isn’t the mathemeticians job to question the validity of math. And in 10 thousand years we havn’t needed to. Why change now?
A vital distinction - maths was invented, not discovered. We need believe no more inherently in the ‘validity’ of maths than in the existence of unicorns. To build a bridge one needs the language of maths as much as one needs the language of phenomenological reduction used by Husserl. Indeed, Heidegger argued that phenomenology should (or does) precede metaphysics (maths being part of metaphysics) and as such one needs to demonstrate direct phenomenological experience of, to take the most essential presumption in maths, the existence of distinct singular entities. Funny, if I say ‘1’ then people tend to act like they understand. I say ‘a distinct singular entity’ and people say ‘what do you mean by…?’
This should demonstrate above all precisely how we act as though mathematics (which is inherently linguistic) is a different sort of language to that of analytical philosophy, or phenomenology, or metaphysics in general without having ever reasoned through the distinction. This isn’t particularly original stuff, it’s based on paradoxes as old as the presocratics…
SIATD: Maths was/is discovered, not invented. You’re right that the premiss (unity/extension) is subjective, but all that follows is objective, and what follows is what’s maths.
Sarax: 0.9-recurring does equal 1. If it doesn’t, then we should be able to express the difference, and we can’t.
multply 0.9 recurr by 2, you don’t get 2
multply it by 200, you don’t get 200 hundred
the bigger number you multiply it by, the further away you get from what the answer should be…
0.9 (recurr) does not equal one
Prove the a priori existence of distinct singular entities. Mathematics is linguistics, therefore invented. Just because you cannot grasp of the totality of mathematics being a set of created ideas that relate to one another doesn’t make it an invalid assessment. Assertions of objectivity are pretty weak as far as arguments go.
The a priori concept of cartesian space is common to all animals. I agree that in order for anything to come into being on these axes, empirical experience is required; someone who had this concept but who never had any such experience would be ignorant of straight lines, for example. My point is this: any experience of the empirical world is enough to enable people with the a priori concept of space to set-out on it perfect geometric figures (Platonic Ideas), from which Maths follows, IMO. In other words, experience makes maths possible, but it doesn’t make maths.
I never asserted that maths was a priori objective in an absolute sense; my opinion is that the consequents of the ground are objective, as consequents. I’m not overstepping “the mark” here.
That maths (which, again, is only a set of consequents) is objectively true is clear from the fact that there’s only one version.
A lot of talk. Personally I’d be keenly interesting in some supporting arguments…dare I hope even demonstration of observable evidence… that 2+2 does not equal 4. [-o<
Not one of you could do it.
someoneisatthedoor,
you believe in horses because you have ridden a horse…but…2+2=4 is no more observable than a unicorn? Interesting.
Have you never put 2 + 2 apples (dirty clothes, nuts, bolts, widgets) in a basket? What did you observe?
Let me say it another way, since you believe in horses, and it has not yet been established that you believe in apples. Have you ever seen 2 horses go into a stable with already 2 horses in it? How many horses were in the stable after that? Did what used to exist cease to exist or did something come into existence that was not in existence before?
Mathematical symbols and definitions are invented linguistics, but is all of mathematics invented linguistics? Whenever a mathematician proves a theorem, is more mathematics being invented? Similarly, did elephants not exists until someone defined what elephants are? Were all animals invented by zoologists? Did we all come into existence by defining ourselves?
