Also, the discussion is subjectivism versus objectivism.

Its simply a train of thought.

Nihilism is utter feminity. There are two types of feminity - chaos feminity and void feminity.

Chaos has some elements of order in it. Just as feminine persons have a semblance of rationality. For instance, Farcturus descended posts occasionally rational truths. But you don’t ever see her replying to forum philosophers like Amorphos, she is stuck in Edward Allen Poe land, mentally masturbating over having sex with her own wolves.

You are stuck in nihilistic void because you want to be. Spend some time doing art or something creativity, giving meaning to your life. Mix it up - write books, do art, do all kinds of invention things.

Even when I am angry and hateful, I can still be happy about it, because it is chaos feminity not void feminity. Theres no pill to fix that - you’re just feeding void bound thoughts.

Ah, the voice of Satyr. He takes his masculine feminization of mankind to the extremes. Pretty soon taking a shit on a toilet becomes a feminine act.

Taking a shit on a toilet is a feminine act. Feminity is good in the right doses. Know when to use it - daemon lore.

Feminity becomes a problem when men are so hypnotised by TV trance (trance and hypnosis is feminine as fuck) that they can’t think rationally.

Yeah, I don’t agree with Satyr’s prognosis on everything which doesn’t make me a true believer, I know.

Its not Satyr I dont steal his shit. Im just discovering the same truths he did.

Uh-huh…

I do not see a shitty world just one with no objective meaning to it which is what nihilism is. But this does not mean that I as a nihilist cannot find

meaning to my own existence. Also your wonderful but ridiculous panacea is actually nothing more than the product of an over active imagination

It is an axiomatically deductive system of logic and so no it cannot be subjective

So, the symbology of mathematics is an objective one?

Realism in the philosophy of mathematicsis the claim that mathematical entities such as number have a mind-independent existence. The main forms are empiricism, which associates numbers with concrete physical objects; and Platonism, according to which numbers are abstract, non-physical entities.

The “epistemic argument” against Platonism has been made by Paul Benacerraf and Hartry Field. Platonism posits that mathematical objects are abstract entities. By general agreement, abstract entities cannot interact causally with concrete, physical entities. (“the truth-values of our mathematical assertions depend on facts involving platonic entities that reside in a realm outside of space-time”[1]) Whilst our knowledge of concrete, physical objects is based on our ability to perceive them, and therefore to causally interact with them, there is no parallel account of how mathematicians come to have knowledge of abstract objects.[2][3][4] (“An account of mathematical truth …must be consistent with the possibility of mathematical knowledge”[5]). Another way of making the point is that if the Platonic world were to disappear, it would make no difference to the ability of mathematicians to generate proofs, etc., which is already fully accountable in terms of physical processes in their brains.

Field developed his views into fictionalism. Benacerraf also developed the philosophy of mathematical structuralism, according to which there are no mathematical objects. Nonetheless, some versions of structuralism are compatible with some versions of realism.

The argument hinges on the idea that a satisfactory naturalistic account of thought processes in terms of brain processes can be given for mathematical reasoning along with everything else. One line of defense is to maintain that this is false, so that mathematical reasoning uses some special intuition that involves contact with the Platonic realm. A modern form of this argument is given by Sir Roger Penrose.[6]

Another line of defense is to maintain that abstract objects are relevant to mathematical reasoning in a way that is non causal, and not analogous to perception. This argument is developed by Jerrold Katz in his book Realistic Rationalism.

A more radical defense is to deny the separation of physical world and the platonic world, i.e. the mathematical universe hypothesis. In that case, a mathematician’s knowledge of mathematics is one mathematical object making contact with another.

In analytic philosophy, the term anti-realism describes any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false. This latter construal is sometimes expressed by saying “there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not P”. Thus, one may speak of anti-realism with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, or even thought. The two construals are clearly distinct but often confused. For example, an “anti-realist” who denies that other minds exist (i.e., a solipsist) is quite different from an “anti-realist” who claims that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not there are unobservable other minds (i.e., a logical behaviorist).

Mathematics is merely a type of reasoning concerning quantities. Is reasoning subjective?

Mathematics is merely a type of reasoning concerning quantities. Is reasoning subjective?

According to anti realism, yes. It’s very interesting this anti realism is. Just came across it this morning.

Apparently we all live in a Platonic world of make believe.

In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism (opposed to preintuitionism), is an approach where mathematics is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than the discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in an objective reality. That is, logic and mathematics are not considered analytic activities wherein deep properties of objective reality are revealed and applied but are instead considered the application of internally consistent methods used to realize more complex mental constructs, regardless of their possible independent existence in an objective reality.

The fundamental distinguishing characteristic of intuitionism is its interpretation of what it means for a mathematical statement to be true. In Brouwer’s original intuitionism, the truth of a mathematical statement is a subjective claim: a mathematical statement corresponds to a mental construction, and a mathematician can assert the truth of a statement only by verifying the validity of that construction by intuition. The vagueness of the intuitionistic notion of truth often leads to misinterpretations about its meaning. Kleene formally defined intuitionistic truth from a realist position, yet Brouwer would likely reject this formalization as meaningless, given his rejection of the realist/Platonist position. Intuitionistic truth therefore remains somewhat ill-defined. However, because the intuitionistic notion of truth is more restrictive than that of classical mathematics, the intuitionist must reject some assumptions of classical logic to ensure that everything he proves is in fact intuitionistically true. This gives rise to intuitionistic logic.

To an intuitionist, the claim that an object with certain properties exists is a claim that an object with those properties can be constructed. Any mathematical object is considered to be a product of a construction of a mind, and therefore, the existence of an object is equivalent to the possibility of its construction. This contrasts with the classical approach, which states that the existence of an entity can be proved by refuting its non-existence. For the intuitionist, this is not valid; the refutation of the non-existence does not mean that it is possible to find a construction for the putative object, as is required in order to assert its existence. Existence is construction, not proof of non-existence (Fenstad). As such, intuitionism is a variety of mathematical constructivism; but it is not the only kind.

The interpretation of negation is different in intuitionist logic than in classical logic. In classical logic, the negation of a statement asserts that the statement is false; to an intuitionist, it means the statement is refutable[1] (e.g., that there is a counterexample). There is thus an asymmetry between a positive and negative statement in intuitionism. If a statement P is provable, then it is certainly impossible to prove that there is no proof of P. But even if it can be shown that no disproof of P is possible, we cannot conclude from this absence that there is a proof of P. Thus P is a stronger statement than not-not-P.

Similarly, to assert that A or B holds, to an intuitionist, is to claim that either A or B can be proved. In particular, the law of excluded middle, “A or not A”, is not accepted as a valid principle. For example, if A is some mathematical statement that an intuitionist has not yet proved or disproved, then that intuitionist will not assert the truth of “A or not A”. However, the intuitionist will accept that “A and not A” cannot be true. Thus the connectives “and” and “or” of intuitionistic logic do not satisfy de Morgan’s laws as they do in classical logic.

Intuitionistic logic substitutes constructability for abstract truth and is associated with a transition from the proof to model theory of abstract truth in modern mathematics. The logical calculus preserves justification, rather than truth, across transformations yielding derived propositions. It has been taken as giving philosophical support to several schools of philosophy, most notably the Anti-realism of Michael Dummett. Thus, contrary to the first impression its name might convey, and as realized in specific approaches and disciplines (e.g. Fuzzy Sets and Systems), intuitionist mathematics is more rigorous than conventionally founded mathematics, where, ironically, the foundational elements which Intuitionism attempts to construct/refute/refound are taken as intuitively given.

Among the different formulations of intuitionism, there are several different positions on the meaning and reality of infinity.

The term potential infinity refers to a mathematical procedure in which there is an unending series of steps. After each step has been completed, there is always another step to be performed. For example, consider the process of counting: 1, 2, 3, …

The term actual infinity refers to a completed mathematical object which contains an infinite number of elements. An example is the set of natural numbers, N = {1, 2, …}.

In Cantor’s formulation of set theory, there are many different infinite sets, some of which are larger than others. For example, the set of all real numbers R is larger than N, because any procedure that you attempt to use to put the natural numbers into one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers will always fail: there will always be an infinite number of real numbers “left over”. Any infinite set that can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers is said to be “countable” or “denumerable”. Infinite sets larger than this are said to be “uncountable”.

Cantor’s set theory led to the axiomatic system of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC), now the most common foundation of modern mathematics. Intuitionism was created, in part, as a reaction to Cantor’s set theory.

Modern constructive set theory includes the axiom of infinity from ZFC (or a revised version of this axiom) and the set N of natural numbers. Most modern constructive mathematicians accept the reality of countably infinite sets (however, see Alexander Esenin-Volpin for a counter-example).

Brouwer rejected the concept of actual infinity, but admitted the idea of potential infinity.

`"According to Weyl 1946, 'Brouwer made it clear, as I think beyond any doubt, that there is no evidence supporting the belief in the existential character of the totality of all natural numbers ... the sequence of numbers which grows beyond any stage already reached by passing to the next number, is a manifold of possibilities open towards infinity; it remains forever in the status of creation, but is not a closed realm of things existing in themselves. That we blindly converted one into the other is the true source of our difficulties, including the antinomies – a source of more fundamental nature than Russell's vicious circle principle indicated. Brouwer opened our eyes and made us see how far classical mathematics, nourished by a belief in the 'absolute' that transcends all human possibilities of realization, goes beyond such statements as can claim real meaning and truth founded on evidence." (Kleene (1952): Introduction to Metamathematics, p. 48-49)`

Finitism is an extreme version of Intuitionism that rejects the idea of potential infinity. According to Finitism, a mathematical object does not exist unless it can be constructed from the natural numbers in a finite number of steps.

surreptitious57: Arminius:Mathematics is an abstract discipline yes and it is of course logical and logic is in your mind your subjective mind

If you say that something is objective then you refer to the world thus to something outside your subjective mind

Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic and deduction pertains to that which is definitely true

And anything that is definitely true such as mathematics is objective too as it cannot be subjectively interpreted

Deduction perains to that which is true if the axioms are correct. In math since you get to make up little abstract worlds where we take the axioms as true then valid deduction from there will, within the system, lead to conclusions that are true, there. But they may have no meaning beyond that made up realm. IOW the deductions may be true in that symbolic realm but have no objective truth for us or about the real world. I think it is off to refer to math as objective in total. To me the term objective means that conclusions are accurate about the universe. I am not sure I would call them subjective m. More like, at the very least consistant imaginary abstractions. Later we may find that the specific math does apply to the world, like say, non Euclidian geometry did, and then it moves into an objective system.

Then a lot of math is derived empirically and objective or may be right off the bat.

Well, which is it? Is mathematics a subjective imaginary construct or is it objectively certifiable?

How does something that started out subjective in origin overtime moves into a objective system?

Mathematics is both subjetive and objective; but primarily it is a subjective system (exactly: a subsystem of the subjective system logic), and secondarily it is an objective system (exactly: an applied subsystem of objective systems).

Relating to the process of awareness / consciousness there are two „ways“: b[/b] the way from semiotical, linguistical operations to logical (philosophical), mathematical operations, b[/b] the way from mathematical operations to logical (philosophical), linguistical, semiotical operations.

Some of the non-human living beings have consciousness, but they have a very much smaller brain and less consciousness than the human beings have. Only human beings have such very, very complex conscious systems, especially the linguistical, the logical (philosophical), and the mathematical system. Let’s say that some of the non-human living beings have a pre-consciousness because the diffrence betwenn their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is too large.

An example:

A lioness „instinctively »knows«“ how much cubs she has. When one or more of them are lost, she realises it, but she can’t count like humans can. At first the lioness „goes“ the conscious „way 1“ without any linguistical and logical operations (see above), thus from the semiotical operations (sign: „lost cubs“) to the mathematical operation („all cubs – missing cubs“), and then she „goes“ the conscious „way 2“ without logical and linguistical operations (see above), thus from the mathematical operations (for example: 7 – 2 = 5) to the semiotical operation (sign: „less cubs“). The mathematics in the brain of the lioness works but she doesn’t „consciously »know«“ that it works.

Another example:

A predator must be able to calculate the „worth“ of attacking a prey If it is not profitable or even too dangerous, it is better to protect oneself and to gather forces. A predator with a broken leg can hardly catch a prey; a predator with a broken lower jaw can hardly eat a prey: a predator without a tongue can hardly drink. Predators must „instinctively »know«“ much about their environment and their skills, their risks, what is possible and what is too dangerous.

In order to survive the non-human living beings don’t need such a complex brain, such a complex awareness / consciousness, especially such complex systems of language (linguistics) and logic (philosophy), as the human beings have. Human beings are luxury beings.

- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186170&p=2490903#p2490903
- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186493&p=2492127#p2492127
- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186493&p=2492127#p2492331
Human beings can say: „I don’t want to eat today because tomorrow or later I am going to eat a Sacher torte“. The evolution of the luxury beings means the process of winning more and more luxury at the cost of losing more and more instincts, means becoming less and less beings of adaptation to the environment but more and more beings of alienation, of insulation. Nevertheless, human beings are also predators, but they are luxury predators because they are luxury beings.

And we - the humans - judge about subjectivity and objectivity. If we were not capable of using mathematics much more than (other) animals, then we would use it just subjectively, namely for self-preservation (like all [other] animals), and because we would not know or merely instinctively know that, we were also not capable of knowing what “subjective” and “objective” mean.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001:Joker, and all nihilists, are sadly mistaken. They see a shitty world, and think that there is no equation which would make all sentient beings happy.

I, Trixie, am a grand entertainer. I know what makes people happy, I know what makes them tick.

I could make a youtopia for all these faggots, I know the equation, there is an equation for eternal happiness, so amoral nihilists are dead wrong.

For example, me wanting to exile bad females into Earth 2 is actually not part of the equation of happiness, but if I wanted to, I could modify it and be nice to them and follow the equation of eternal happiness, I just am choosing not to.

When you find a happy pill to cure nihilism along with a utopia to house all the nihilists you let me know.

One of those pills seems to be a special one:

Irrealism was initially motivated by the debate between phenomenalism and physicalism in epistemology.[2] Rather than viewing either as prior to the other, Goodman described them both as alternative “world-versions”, both useful in some circumstances, but neither capable of capturing the other in an entirely satisfactory way, a point he emphasizes with examples from psychology.[3] He goes on to extend this epistemic pluralism to all areas of knowledge, from equivalent formal systems in mathematics (sometimes it is useful to think of points as primitives, sometimes it is more useful to consider lines the primitive) to alternative schools of art (for some paintings thinking in terms of representational accuracy is the most useful way of considering them, for others it is not). However, in line with his consideration of phenomenalism and physicalism, Goodman goes beyond saying merely that these are “world-versions” of the world, instead he describes worlds as “made by making such versions”.[4]

Metaphysically, Goodman’s irrealism is distinct from anti-realism though the two concepts are frequently confused. “We are not speaking in terms of multiple possible alternatives to a single actual world but of multiple actual worlds.”[5] He makes no assertions regarding “the way the world is” and that there is no primary world version i.e. “no true version compatible with all true versions.” As Goodman says, “Not only motion, … but even reality is relative.”[6] It follows that Goodman accepts many forms of realism and anti-realism without being troubled by the resulting contradictions.

substitive

The extremes between these polarities can be seen, in my “mind” by two areas, science’s crux and cognitive neuroscience, both in different ways. Let’s look at science’s crux as I think of it as. Take Newton’s absolute theory of gravitation. Is it “real”? Does it actually describe the world as it really is? Okay, a long came another theory by Einstein with his mathematical equations on general and special relativity. Are either of these two men have the absolute correct explanation of the gravity? I believe a skeptic viewpoint has to be put towards physics these days first. So let’s try this. Physics in Newtonian mathematics is absolute meaning that its based not on probablism, but hip and thigh match with mathematical precision the fabric of gravitational pull. Todays physics is probablism and a chasm exists between Einstein’s General and Relative theories. Does a theory that tries to explain everything really be based on probablism? I just want to pose that question.

The crux of science, I believe, is that it ultimately reduced things to physics, by and large, and physics is based on man made equations. So what are these equations all about? I believe these equations are mental substitutes. That is, we see the world more closely as it is, and we try to make order to it with these equations.

Therefore, the line between objective and subjective and be cut between closely here with mathematics trying to explain the outside world but failing to do so with accuracy because the world is a dapple one filled with irregularities.

In cognitive neuroscience we see the mind and brain can interact with each other. With antipsychotics, with poking the brain in certain areas by electrical shocks, which are getting more accurate as time goes on, by fmri’s watching the brain unfold as we watch as our stream of consciousness explodes. It’s awesome.

substitive

The extremes between these polarities can be seen, in my “mind” by two areas, science’s crux and cognitive neuroscience, both in different ways. Let’s look at science’s crux as I think of it as. Take Newton’s absolute theory of gravitation. Is it “real”? Does it actually describe the world as it really is? Okay, a long came another theory by Einstein with his mathematical equations on general and special relativity. Are either of these two men have the absolute correct explanation of the gravity? I believe a skeptic viewpoint has to be put towards physics these days first. So let’s try this. Physics in Newtonian mathematics is absolute meaning that its based not on probablism, but hip and thigh match with mathematical precision the fabric of gravitational pull. Todays physics is probablism and a chasm exists between Einstein’s General and Relative theories. Does a theory that tries to explain everything really be based on probablism? I just want to pose that question.

The crux of science, I believe, is that it ultimately reduced things to physics, by and large, and physics is based on man made equations. So what are these equations all about? I believe these equations are mental substitutes. That is, we see the world more closely as it is, and we try to make order to it with these equations.

Therefore, the line between objective and subjective and be cut between closely here with mathematics trying to explain the outside world but failing to do so with accuracy because the world is a dapple one filled with irregularities.

In cognitive neuroscience we see the mind and brain can interact with each other. With antipsychotics, with poking the brain in certain areas by electrical shocks, which are getting more accurate as time goes on, by fmri’s watching the brain unfold as we watch as our stream of consciousness explodes. It’s awesome.

I like it how you describe the dependency to use mathematics and equations to understand the universe as mental substitutes. Very nice.

Yes, indeed the world is filled with irregularities. The universe also for that matter.

The objectivist thinker I’ve noticed is an uniformic conformity type thinker who will not stop in trying categorize all of existence into a nice little bow and neat package. Unfortunately for objectivists the universe and planet doesn’t work this way.

This isn’t to say that objectivism isn’t useful in the physical sciences studying subjects like gravity for which it is.

It’s not like one can approach the subject of gravity purely out of subjectivism.