"Metaphysics" is just another word for imagination

Do you pretend that mathematics is not also a language game?

That's a distinction I was careful not to make. Of course it is arbitrary, but at least it is not plagued by connotation or cultural heritage. And mathematics is not only "possibly useful."

Like God, math is complete in itself. To know two, or every other number, you only need to know one. And one comes with being conscious (not even sentient).

>Strictly speaking, as a construct of the senses the physical world or "physics" is also just imagination.
All beliefs which postulate an "objective reality" are imaginary, including science and religion, because there is no purely "objective" observer. All supposed "objective" realities must be postulated from a subjective point of view.

>perfectly elucidated proof of God's relationship to Man
well said user

>And one comes with being conscious (not even sentient)
This is all we CAN know to an absolute, unchanging certainty

>human brain confirmed for being a mistake

The Fall was a bad thing brother

this
mathematicians come closer than any other human to God

FUCK i'm supposed to go to bed soon but now i'm wracked by original sin and ancient knowledge says there is no cure.

surely there is a philosopher who speaks on the next stage of our evolution. maybe the internet as new-organ to Man? nick jesus of nazareth land, someone. JC Denton? give me more nanites, fucker.

don't let it go to your head, little monkey

if you believe in original sin you ought to believe in Christ the Savior
relax

why do you think i mentioned Jesus Christ Denton?

original sin cursed us with knowledge. the internet is gonna scoop our brains out now.
relax, you have nothing to lose.

he's obviusly shitpostig, jc is metapphysical i this thread's sense

you cant spell imagination without magi

You can't smell fart without smart

EXPLAIN

it's a bill clinton joke, millennial.

THE ISNESS SUCH THAT AND SO ON "IS" BEING AS ISNESS WAS BEFORE THE THEY AND WHICH IS OUGHT NOT TO OUGHT YET IS IMPLICIT AS THE OTHER POSITS THE UNDERLYING FUNCTION ISNESS OF ITSELF

youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8

ol' billy swingin dick is a postmodernist for sure. can't abide the truth.

Let's assume you're correct. Where does this lead to? Science can't be proven empirically and is therefore just imagination.

No, he's just a politician.

Alright socrates, I'll take your bait.

It takes us to a pre-literate society, because language is a house of cards.and nothing can be verified but mathematics. We need to invent a new means of communication. Probably use our primitive binary computers for a starting point.

Mathematics can be proven? How?

1 is the truest number that you'll ever know.

2 can be as true as 1, it's the truthiest number since the number 1.

and so on.

there is no such blockchain of accountability for letters, sounds of letters, syllables, words, or sentence fragments made into "coherent thought."

How would you demonstrate, using empirical methods (like cointing coins), the equation: dy/dx = 3x^2ln(x) + x^3*1/x

alright i think i see your game socrates you ingrate i'll have your hide for this.

way back in the thread math was equated with language as an equally false construct. i say that is false. math is inherent in human experience. if one understands the nature of one, of being for themself, mere selfishness, they can know math. it is a primal knowledge.

the language i propose hasn't been invented yet you dummy, and i'm not a math major. i'd have to break that down into component operations and i'm not going to do the tedious work just to satisfy your lame attempt at dialectic socrates. ho ho ho i am paid very well for my work thank you user ho ho ho.

>trying to equate a bad angle of a gorgeous lion’s skull with that deformed animal’s face

in fact there is no such thing as coherent thought where language is concerned.

What makes 1 true?

Btw math isn't all about numbers.

Math is about axioms which are by definition unprovable. They're MADE UP and held by logic. Rules are that they can't be contradictory and that there have to be as few of them as possible. This leaves us with logic. Do you want me to type out a proof that axioms of logic are contradictory?

I told you. 1 is an expression of I. Me. Mine. I AM. If 1 is not true, nothing can be true because all experience from primal up is false.

Axioms are written and understood in words, which stand on assumptions. I'd love to hear your circular reasoning and knock yourself out if you want but it won't carry much water in this particular debate since language is on trial.

>does not offer argument
>asks to be proven wrong

I may add whatever reason to the statement "you're wrong" and I'll be in a better position than you are right now

An argument is being made, after the initial claim. So it is with dialectic, pleb. Now contribute to mankind or gtfo.

So you're trying to explain you, I, me, but you're using language? And why is 1 equal to I? What assumptions are you using here?

Here's my unironically circular reasoning:
Assume that knowledge exists and is justified by true belief. (Assume the laws of logic are true)
The justification for any given belief b must either come from b itself, another belief that justifies itself, a circular chain of belief, or an infinite regress of beliefs
The justification for b cannot come from itself or from any self-justifying belief, since such a belief would be arbitrarily justified
The justification for b cannot come from a circular chain of belief, as circular reasoning cannot be justified
The justification for b cannot come from an infinite regress as there would be nothing to actually support the whole regress
Therefore no belief can be justified
Therefore no belief can be justified
Therefore knowledge both exists and does not exist
Therefore logic is SHITE

>What assumptions are you using here?
The assumption that an animal that is conscious, not even necessarily sentient -- has an understanding of itself and its hunger. It knows. KNOWS. Instinctually, in its lizard brain, that it needs to eat, or the boundaries of its territory, or that there is ONE of a herd of MANY that it can take down and make its lunch. Dogs and cats understand one. Pre-literate, pre-lingual humans understand one. They can pick what looks best, and that is Other as opposed to Self. Read more psychology STEMfag.

But I'm not asking for your language, I want you to demonstrate math equations outside of the theoretical form, of which the method of most apparent truth is the Empirical form, I feel I cannot avoid it's consequence also.

We cannot avoid the inquiry at hand. What would you say? Can we not prove every math problem with countable crayons?

Shit. I typed "Therefore no belief can be justified" twice. I didn't even show how logic is self contradictory. I only showed how knowledge doesn't exist. I'm sorry. I'll try better next time.

This is fine because it only proves that knowledge can be had, or not had. You can have truth or falsehood. Correct or incorrect. It does not destroy the concept of belief, only incorrect belief.

>Can we not prove every math problem with countable crayons?
Agreed. inb4 "but what if i can't be relied upon to count accurately". And I say if you have a human brain and a mathematical language it is absolutely possible however you may be forced to operate like a computer and account for each instance with a mark. Very inefficient for communicating but there you have it.

I'm not even a STEMfag. Zizek is my favourite philosopher and it doesn't take much to see that you're a pseud. Here's how I see what you're saying: "I KNOW BECAUSE I KNOW OK? THERE'S ME BECAUSE I'M HERE AND I KNOW IT, OK? I SEE THINGS AND THEY'RE THERE BECAUSE THEY TELL ME THEY'RE THERE BECAUSE EVOLUTION AND LIZARDS CANE FROM MOTHER NATURE."

>Zizek is my favourite philosopher.
A scrub from the dystopia across the pond AND a brainlet into fashionable nonsense. Boy I lucked out.

What I mean to say is instead of saying a word, or group of words, to express an idea you would be forced to speak -- Ent-like -- all the mathematical proofs that express the idea you mean from beginning to end.

k. I'll drop the logic monster persona. If you don't make assumprions and hold beliefs you can't operate in any way. I myself am leading a life full of beliefs because I literally can't do otherwise and I assume that's what you're getting at. There has to be something that we'll hold as a point of reference even if it might not be truth.

>I assume that's what you're getting at.
Correct. Its basically impossible with our current equipment but maybe possible with nanite augments or whatever. The internet-organ growing out of Our Neck will help us soon enough.

to be clear by equipment i mean lungs, vocabulary, conditioned sense of time (patience).

I don't see how nano technology would lead to justified belief. Is this some Nick Land stuff? I didn't read him and I consider myself lucky because of that.

You have not followed the argument very well. Pay attention.

I'm saying language is dead, and should have died. I'm saying it needs to be replaced by something that would have been near impossible with our prior tools. I'm saying cyborg technology could allow us to express very exact, justified belief without connotation or misunderstanding.

Imagine if you could explain the etymology and force behind every word instead of relying on the assumption that I know what the hell you're talking about. I'm talking about a new language unlike our own, one that would have been impossible with our prone-to-expectation-because-it-makes-better-hunters flesh.

Ok, but what would this justified belief be? I just typed out a proof that shows it's impossible. And this technology would use logic and math I assume. We would get nothing new out of it. It would operate using the same limitations as our current communication technology.

Alright you're not following very well socrates so I'm gonna call it. Look up blockchain technology, and why the Ents in Tolkien's story take so long to say anything, and FORGET COMPLETELY the english language. It is a product of nearly obsolete tools (human organs).

Fashionable Nonsense is nonsense itself. Imagine a bullshit text like Sokals, but about postmodernism. Imagine a text that doesn't get shit about postmodernism and that it's and taken seriously by publishers. That text already exists. It's Fashionable Nonsense itself.

yeah but binaries are shit, humans try to organize societies around it and become miserable, look at Capitalism and it's subject object growth decay bullshit it all sucks and it isn't essential and it just is total shit, maybe someday mechanized human no longer go the way of Dostoevsky's utopians because their worldly influence runs as a perfect binary system. God that'd be awful, but I probably wouldn't know that. What will happen to Thoreau and Transcendentalism? Is it all dead? Cold, calculus reason as the future? What a shit universe

Aw come on dude. I liked your nonsense. We have to continue.
>he thinks I'm not into le blockchain
I'll send you 100 Arks which are sitting comfortably in my wallet. Ark is the next big thing btw. It'll moon any moment now.

It sounds like a closed system, a complete separation between future humans and natural order. How will we know anything past the parameters we set up for ourselves?

the last time this was attempted, people gave up because discoveries cant be merged into existing language without ruining everything.

Alright. I'll close with this and if you don't get it well alright.

Imagine if you could know -- KNOW -- the first principle. The prime mover, God, the first cause that set everything else in motion. Imagine if you built a language not from metaphysics but rather treated that 1 as not an assumption but rather a fact and the root figure in a mathematical language. And all the inelegant bloated vocabulary that flows from it: names associated with every thing, names for every action, and a distinct lack of adjectives. What was impossible with human organs becomes probably with technology. Language as we know it, alphabet and dictionary, are made obsolete because every expression can be traced back by its mathematical etymology to the original cause. Misunderstanding is impossible. Subjectivity is impossible. Fucking continentals finally go quiet and analytics cream their pants. That's all I'm suggesting.

This. You're just imagining it. It's not possible to separate from "flesh". Whatever we do, it'll always be influenced by our past selves.

No, it would be as open as our own is now! That is the best part. There is no limit on the number of symbols in the universe. It would be a reinvention of language. The only real weakness I can see is the reliance on non-organic technology but I foresee that being bred into us in the next century.

And I'm suggesting that math and logic cannot be separated from language. You'd need a completely new mathematics which I can't even imagine. I mean, mathematics is held by axioms which are held by logic and logic is held by language. I don't see a way in which 1 could be fact. I get what you're getting at. We have 1. We have -1 which is not one. We have 0 which is lack of 1. etc. But this already exists and these explinations are axioms, except people worked hard to make them as concise as possible. And the "oneness" which you're speaking of is that they can't be contradictory between themselves.

but this IS a continental idea. schelling, leibniz, llull tried to construct a total encyclopaedia, where the label of a thing already gives you all the fundamental knowledge about it

It was Nick Land.

...

>numbers
>language of God

Get back to me when you realize that numbers are the twisted delusions of the materialists and that Analysis Situs is His way

Animals don't understand one, user. They simply behave.

Everything is just another expression of you.

Metaphysics is just another word for technology, making us think about individual things and forget about what really matters in existence.

are there any metaphysics experts here? can you tell me what did Elisabeth Hursthouse mean by this?

also, for all the philosophy of mind experts that I'm sure Veeky Forums is full of: what exactly did she mean by this comment?

>Implying any mathematician was closer to God than Bach.

It's a way to convey a real idea or phenomenon in an abstract way. Take love for example, it's not real and imaginary, no? Yet it feels real, drives people insane and makes them pathetic in some cases, surely that's not your imagination playing tricks on you? Maybe a bad example, Bbt pretty much what said

It's called Socratic method