Math has been described as the purest form of science. It is supposed to be the language of the universe.
However, in order for math to exist, one must assume a set of axioms which are in and of themselves unprovable. You must take them for granted, and then you can build upon it.
Doesn't this make it illogical and inconsistent? How can we use something we ultimately can't prove?
Math may lack absolute foundations but is certainly not illogical : the logic is flawless within a given set of axioms.
This is more of a philosophical question than a practical one because the somewhat arbitrary nature of the starting axioms doesn't prevent us from using math effectively. We can use math to make accurate predictions about natural events, sometimes with extreme precision : "it just works".
>Math has been described as the purest form of science.
Math is not science
But again, if it's not real and not tangible, how does it work?
And inversely, if the universe didn't exist, would math exist?
There is nothing illogical about assuming a starting premise you brainlet.
>How can we use something we ultimately can't prove?
I don't know, how did you use your computer just now without "proving" all the underlying assumptions that went into building it?
Don't answer that, let's just say you're right and you can agree to stop using your illogical computer to post here.
The reason you can't prove axioms is because they're assumed, the "proof" is a tautology. Assumptions are not unique to math, try doing anything without first assuming something.
>try doing anything without first assuming something.
^This is a good point.
You can't even begin to participate in the act of doubting things without first assuming the existence of shit like the concept of "truth" and the proposition that you personally understand what constitutes a "true" statement.
>if it's not real and not tangible, how does it work?
As a language it adequately describes natural laws thus enabling scientists to make reasonable assumptions, just like the language I'm using right now gives you some information about my thoughts despite being intangible.
>And inversely, if the universe didn't exist, would math exist?
Either nothing would exist including math, or if we assume some kind of reality outside of the universe then the laws of this reality could probably be described by a particular flavor of mathematics, although humans may be physically unable to imagine it.
That is not actually how math works at all. Perhaps you should study some of it before trying to criticize the field.
You have to make assumptions for it to work. There is no way around it.
I know, that's why I question it. I mean, I know it sounds like philosophical bull, but we assume that there is such a thing as truth. Otherwise we couldn't falsify things.
So what is the ultimate truth?
you have to make assumptions to do everything. Your argument is equivalent to some retarded "u can't know nuthin" philosophy. It ain't wrong, but it sure as fuck isn't useful, unlike math.
I assume there is consciousness inside my computer, and that it can think and act.
Prove me wrong.
I dont see how this is just a problem for math. Wouldnt this be a problem for any general system of thought? Any assumptions for any general system would be by definition unproven and therefore by your standard "illogical". Which then leads to the question: Arent the implicit assumptions in the general system of thought that grounds your question equally illogical? Shouldnt you answer your own question before math should?
>So what is the ultimate truth?
Pretty sure the brightest minds of human history have struggled with this since the advent of the "Self" and "I".
Just look at Epistemology and neuroscience to see how meta we've become in the attempt to answer these things.
>math is log-
This is a feature not a bug. Mathematics can be considered the only purely logical field because it examines the consequences of axiomatic assumptions and the logical systems they create. Science is almost the reverse process, attempting to discover the nature of the logical system that is our universe from the consequences we observe. Of course from observation we can never have 100% certainty in the underlying system (see statistics), however mathematics itself makes no claims about the nature of our universe, only about whatever abstract system is being described. You cannot, of course, prove anything without assumptions, and if you do allow for assumptions and prove things formally then you are doing mathematics.
>Doesn't this make it illogical and inconsistent?
No. Everything "logical" has to be built up from something, make a logical statement which is NOT based on any axioms, it is quite literally impossible.
"Logical" just means that it is logically consistent inside its frame of axioms, with the right definitions 1+1=0 is a perfectly true statement, that doesn't make any set of axioms "false".
We also do not know it ZFC is inconsistent, it is an open problem. (And something which probably will never be solved)
>How can we use something we ultimately can't prove?
Dude, you can not prove that you or anything you call "reality" exists.
Use use the existence of your things as a given to walk, while being completely unable to prove that your feet are real and that something like "walking" is really possible.
You have confused logic and proof. Learn to drive a bus.
We assume the observable universe has logical laws, and that we can arrive at some sort of truth or understanding about it and ultimately ourselves.
Why does the universe have such finely tuned laws if the universe came from a rapid, uncontrolled, expansion? Explosions are chaotic and never result in order.
good god you are retarded
>muh big bang
>muh finely tuned
the big bang wasn't that big, it was the period of rapid expansion right after the big bang that was big
A whole new human being could be made from the extra chromosomes both of you carry.
try real math, vortex math, the universe works pretty simply, no need to try and make it complex. The Universe is electric
youtube.com
find all the answers here
youtube.com
there was no big bang not the way you think of it anyway
youtube.com
