There exist mathematical statements that have no proof

you're obviously 24 years old trying to sound old fuck off

im both older and younger than you are

Contemporary philosophy doesn't debate whether things "actually exist". Kant put that question to bed.

Contemporary philosophy is whether desire is being being-as-itself-unto-itself or the opposite (death undoing-its-being-unto-for-nobody). Or it's whether breastfeeding is desire-for-death-as-spirit or the other way around (corresponding to its ahead-of-itself-in-being-already-in). Or whether TV-watching is the excretion (bowel movement) of machine-learning or whether the spirit is the TV-watching-as-bowel-encompassment. If you don't find this authentically true (not "true" in a factical sense but in an inverted-transcendental-non-sense) you are a positivist (a rude way of saying "retard")

i'm at least 10 years older than you, whatever your age is i get to be patronizing

You don't know too much about contemporary philosophy, huh?

You don't.

Prove me wrong (just kidding, academic philosophers stopped believing in "proof" a long time ago)

prove yourself right

Prove what?

Well, Kant didn't put the question of "whether things actually exist" to bed. I think your problem is with contemporary continental philosophy and I agree with you that it's mostly bullshit. I implore you to explore analytic philosophy, with its abundance of healthy critiques of Kant. Quine and Kripke specifically, as they more than anyone else paved the way for a coherent notion of fruitful speculation into the a priori structure of reality.

>alzheimers

>fruitful
>speculation

Pick one. Something's only "fruitful" if it has an output. They still haven't delivered a more useful answer than "The world obviously exists, we can perceive it in a mostly consistent way, and we can't ever be certain how much or how little our perception distorts it but we can be rational about how we interpret our perception"

Any attempt at being more rigorous than that is going to yield the same answer. Which is what Kant said.

Ye the scientific method is a hoax. I believe knowledge is possible in certain cases but methods of achieving it do not follow any knowable pattern. You just have to do it, so to speak.

Dont fall for the flowchart meme they give you in university

Can you elaborate more? Why is the scientific method a hoax? It looks pretty reasonable to me, and it helped our society a lot.

columbia.edu/~hg17/godel-incomp4.pdf

it's a more nuanced proof than simply saying "we can't be sure"

go take a course in mathematical logic

for a non-mathematical overview see Rebecca Goldstein's Incompleteness

there's no need to be alarmed

>They still haven't delivered a more useful answer than "The world obviously exists, we can perceive it in a mostly consistent way, and we can't ever be certain how much or how little our perception distorts it but we can be rational about how we interpret our perception"

They have, actually, because the problems they're working on are somewhat removed from "is reality real" or "are we seeing what's really there". For instance, Kripke's notion of a-posteriori necessity was an enormous breakthrough for one, because it was a genuine example of philosophical progress, and because it allowed for reasonable talk about metaphysical necessity in the context of empirical discovery and experience, as well as reviving notions of essentialism in the philosophy of science and metaphysics again.

I wouldn't expect any of this to impress you though, because you are obviously ill informed as to the state of philosophy over the past half-century and to appreciate some of the progress (yes, progress) made you need to have an appreciation of philosophy since Kant.

6.341 Newtonian mechanics, for example, brings the description of the universe to a unified form. Let us imagine a white surface with irregular black spots. We now say: Whatever kind of picture these make I can always get as near as I like to its description, if I cover the surface with a sufficiently fine square network and now say of every square that it is white or black. In this way I shall have brought the description of the surface to a unified form. This form is arbitrary, because I could have applied with equal success a net with a triangular or hexagonal mesh. It can happen that the description would have been simpler with the aid of a triangular mesh; that is to say we might have described the surface more accurately with a triangular, and coarser, than with the finer square mesh, or vice versa, and so on. To the different networks correspond different systems of describing the world. Mechanics determine a form of description by saying: All propositions in the description of the world must be obtained in a given way from a number of given propositions— the mechanical axioms. It thus provides the bricks for building the edifice of science, and says: Whatever building thou wouldst erect, thou shalt construct it in some manner with these bricks and these alone.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (pp. 100-101). Cosimo Classics. Kindle Edition.

youtube.com/watch?v=mHD08tI0T30

Please never try to broach out of the humanities. The imperfection of a rule/precept doesn't preclude rules/precepts.

You're probably just some pretentious, effete, twenty year old, not an epistemological maverick

How did humans know to eat before science?

god wasn't dead yet so thjey could ask him

>>there exist mathematical statements that have no proof
Maybe because any proof presumes the statement's validity/truth?

based gay jew

I don't know much about philosophy, but isn't logic empirical anyway? It seems to me that logic is the result of induction but unable to justify it. Weren't we fucked from the beginning?

wrong

Why?

kant

I haven't read Kant, what are you getting at? That logic is a prioristic? As far as I know, her claimed that things like euclidean geometry and logic were a priori propositions, which seems to be refuted by modern physics.

Definitely.
In my teens I was enamored by continental and contemporary philosophy (that had no bearings within or about science). As I grew older I became increasingly interested in analytic philosophy. Now all I care for is phil of science/mind/lang, and their respective scientific fields. Def a change of heart brought on by maturity and alteration of skepticism.

wrong. that is positivist propaganda.

>Def a change of heart brought on by maturity
prove it

>Kripke allowed reasonable talk about metaphysical necessity
For more than 2 thousand years we have been deluded... Kripke's genius has finally ! I hope you are baiting because this is such a ridiculous statement. Philosophy has been regressing ever since Anglos hijacked it.

I have a Pepe folder and I watch anime

i know puberty sucks

your theory isn't falsifiable bitch

lmao

Truth. Kripke pointed out the incredibly obvious statement that we could talk about two apparently different things and later find out they're the same thing showing up in different contexts. This tells us absolutely nothing about whether perception is real or how we should live our lives or anything else and cannot possibly be used to justify such statements. Which is why philosophy hasn't accomplished anything since it stopped being science. It's masturbatory faux-cleverness now.

>>there exist mathematical statements that have no proof

is this what you came away from godel's wikipedia page with

>there exist mathematical statements that have no proof
?

>As far as I know, her claimed that things like euclidean geometry and logic were a priori propositions, which seems to be refuted by modern physics.
Modern physics at the macroscopic scale deals with non-euclidean geometry. This doesn't refute euclidean geometry

From what I gather Godel's statement is simply about categorizing the equality sign "=" as being either true or false. That is you are asking if the left side equals the right side and the result, if the system is consistent is either true or false but not both or neither. And then you have a finite set of operations to which you use to manipulate the statement to arrive at an answer.
From what I can understand, Godel says you can have a consistent system, that is there are no statements that sometimes true or sometimes false, but there will be statements that you can perform operations on that will never arrive at a result. Did I get it right?

How does it not refute euclidean geometry as a synthetic a priori proposition? It is a good macroscopic approximation but invalid universally, and its validity is assessed a posteriori.

How does non-euclidean geometry's effectiveness not cause problems with euclidean geometry? I'm actually really curious about this one.

>I AM LE MEME MAN
I AM LE MEME MAN
>I AM LE MEME MAN

Interesting how this argument has consistently been used in order to back scientism. Like

>We can't be sure of anything, not even maths, so we might as well go with science

The fact that there are some mathematical statements which have no proof, I would say is only evidence that these statements are poorly formulated, and are probably being made without ground. That said, I haven't read the picrelated (GODEL).

I think Husserl kinda fixed this problem in "The Origin of Geometry". Kant just castrated Philosophy. Not really sure how that helped anything, least of all Humean nihilism.

TRUE statements. You mean that there are true mathematical statements that are unprovable. 1 = 2 is a mathematical statement.

No, godel's incompleteness says that if you have a language strong enough to express arithmetic, there are meaningful, true statements in that language which can't be proven to be true (and also meaningful, false statements that can't be proven to be false).

Also in Psychology.
Unfortunately also in modern medical science.

i can fart in my own mouth

shameful?

You have never experienced a man reaching a single conclusion. Scientism is Literature. Not even getting into its concepts of conclusion, proof, refutation, foundation, etc. and why they are the way they are, and why couldn't they just as easily be something else. Your experience of these things and all their permutations is Epistemologically identical to reading The Cat in the Hat.

Non-euclidian geometry is just geometry on an arbitrary surface, a flat one being a special case.

Also Godels stuff is dependent on the axiom choice. You can't say "mathematical statements are true" without implicitly understanding that there's an axiom system underlying it. All godel is saying is that sufficiently complex axiom systems contain well-formed statements which can be true, but for which there is no proof. These logical systems are still consistent and all that jazz but still contain statements which are true, but whose truth can't be proved

Mathematics itself has no proof. It's a Symbol-based construct. The degree to which a pair of Objects would behave like the Symbol "2" and lend themselves to Material operations analogous to immaterial Mathematical ones is almost negative. And in a case of supreme irony, the world models intrinsically tied to Mathematical thinking preclude any Ideal realms in which Mathematics could operate in any other capacity than that of a Symbol-based construct.

*Which are true sorry

I

CAN

FART

IN MY OWN MOUTH

SHAMEFUL?
H
A
M
E
F
U
L
?

scientific mind has more chance to find a way to get the fuck out from dying world, than some oonga-boonga papuan

spoken as a true rationalist. try empiricism once in your life.

i'm not going for some random advices on internet

>Are we just fucked and doing anything ends up on the same level as some cargo cult tribe?
if science really is just a religion then its the only one we need. All other religions have tried and failed to reach the same level of sophisticated understanding that we now have about what the universe is and how it works, and we probably haven't unpacked 1% of what it has to offer.,

If the uber rationalists are correct and we can only make scientific discoveries off our perspective then shiiiiiit, sign me up so we can learn all we can as carbon based lifeforms.

>he advocates the scientific method
>true rationalist
Wut?

who gives a fuck cunt. as long as you don't fall into the trap of science and the scientific method and by extension mathematics being some unknown magical force with irrefutable answers to everything, a replacement for religion because you're too simple-minded to think for yourself. the actual science world and scientists don't make such bold claims of truth, media takes a paper and focuses on facet, an off-handed mention of some distant possibility, then they spin it as though they've been told that 'distant possibility' is absolutely true and the main focus of work. present media needs to fucking die in general.

so we use these things to literally build the world as we know it, we will continue to do so for centuries to come. this is good enough for the time. if it produces retarded, unapplyable and inconsistent shit then we'd obviously have a problem. in any case 'the scientific method' isn't static and mathematics just runs on a particular set up of set theory which you could just change completely or refine if you'd like to.

This thread is a bunch of liberal arts majors jerking each other off to the misinterpretation of a wikipedia page. Good job OP 8/10

The incompleteness theorem states that that any system is incomplete with respect to the operations within that system itself. You can always go outside of that system to study it. The only thing that means for science is that we'll never be out of a job because logic and nature will be infinitely complex.

We split the atom, eradicated smallpox and created a giant porn network. I think science will survive incompleteness.

see the wittgenstein quote above

What if Veeky Forums doesn't actually exists, and it's just a product of your mind? Think about it.

Come on guys, let's just be reasonable and accept something without ever doubting its worth or accepting that we could be wrong because that would just be too edgy. God, fuck teenagers; they're so dumb. I'm so much better than they are. Science rulezzzz!!!!!! Go Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Yes, but what do you mean by "True" and "False" without an equality sign? True and False only exists when use in comparison. And then what do you mean to "prove" without having a finite and clearly define set of operations to which you use to manipulate a statement? Mathematics is all symbol manipulation at this level.

thanks, only useful post here

>adolescent garbage mentality
Ad hominem, really mature.
>You know what's not based in anything real
Using the word real without a definiens. By most definitions everything we do, talk and think is "real" maybe we should think about this very word.
>Contemporary philosophy
Seems like an arbitrary category, since "analytical" philosophy was the try to create an ideal language of logic, which at least to my knowledge no one is really trying anymore.
>prove it beyond any possible refutation
Seems like a highly unscientific methodology, I would be genuinely interested in your definition of science.
> based on a good foundation. This has never happened in philosophy and never will because it's fucking based on nothing.
The first part is a normative statement and the second part is wrong there isn't one science, which can't be traced back to philosophy and mathematics, the later being a certain field of the former.