zurew

You are still confused about this. Some parts of math can be used to describe physical reality but there is much more to math than just describing physical reality. What do you specifically mean without being vague - that math isn't in alignment with phyiscs? So far when pushed on this you couldn't deliver anything tangible or of substance.

Whats next? Will you guys demand math to give prescription drugs for you?

You want to transform math to become physics at this point. I don't know why you would want to do that.

I don't know what your model is, but as long as your model isn't defined in a way where you have two mutually exclusive axioms - I think you can create a consistent system.

No (if by math we mean an axiomatic system), but that wasn't your question to him originally. Your question to him was specifically about your system where you presented specific operations.

I don't know why you would imply that he is being bad fath and at the same time demand him to do all the work for you. Some of you guys are lazy and arrogant as hell.

It seems that you have read some of my rants . I appreciate seeing some of you holding his feet to the fire as well.

Yeah thats probably true, that they maybe had some physical meaning, but my understanding is that right now math is not depended on any specific empirical fact. Like you could change all the empirical facts that we accept to be true right now, and math would still hold because of its axioms. In other words, I don't see any direct connection between any specific kind of empirical fact and between any specific kind of math axiom. Because if the claim is that there is a direct dependency between a specific empirical fact and a specific math axiom, then my question would be ,which specific empirical fact change would necessitate the changing or the redefining of one of the math axioms?

@Ero Hi , cool that you are here, you can clean this thread up and correct whatever bs we are talking here

Yeah that is a controversial one, because as far as I understand, mathematicians would say that math would be true regardless how the physical world works. This kind of goes back to modal logic - where we talk about certain things being possible in all possible worlds (possible here means logical possibility and the set of all physical possibility is inside the set of logical possibility - in other words, there are much more logically possible things than there are physically possible things). I personally disagree with the idea that math is empirically grounded (meaning the truth value of math propositions are not directly depended on the physical laws of this universe) . Like if we would want to go down that route, there is so much ambiguity that could be applied without the usage of extremely strict mathematical definitions (especially defining very strictly what we mean by identity). For example, I could empirically justify almost anything that would contradict basic math axioms. Like, If I would want to get silly about it, I could say 1+1=3, because empicially if two people fuck, one children will be born (and even this is not necessarily true, because sometimes 1+1=4 or more depending on what we are talking about twins, triplets or anything else) - I could even add here that 1+1=1 or 1+1=0, because when two people have sex and when one of them has a deadly STD, the other could catch that STD and then both of them could die later down the road. - and here we only talked about human sex, if we go to animals even more crazy empirical cases could be brought up that would almost all contradict basic math axioms. I can come up with other silly examples if needed, but the basic point here is that that crux of the issue seem to be how strict our definitions are and this doesn't seem to be about anything empirical. Also where did you empirically observe that 1million*1million=one trillion? - you accept a bunch of mathematical statements that you have never observed or empirically verified in the physical universe ever before - hence why this goes back to definitions imo and to inference rules that we all agree on, regardless whats going on empirically .

Yes if we agree upon math axioms then it is obvious, and it is clear that there is no internal contradiction there. But when those axioms are questioned you can't just appeal to those axioms and I don't think most people here would be able to give a satisfactory justification/explanation for the choosing process. Thats why im trying to invite math majors into this discussion, who probably have spent more time investigating this specific question than any of us here. Like could you lay out specifically the defense or the justification for the choosing/picking process for the math axioms? Like why pick or why agree upon specifically those axioms?

Yes I have, but I don't think that course really deals with the philosophical depth of the question. That course is more practical oriented rather than philosophical. Meaning seems to be much more than just about purpose and even within the context of purpose - I don't think that the course answers how to select/find a meaningful purpose. I can finish the whole course and unconsciously select for a superficial purpose , that I will drop and maybe even regret down the road. +I disagree with the underlying premise that you can just freely create meaning if you want - there seem to be some underlying principles that would be interesting to be explored that grounds what people will find meaningful in general and what kind of things are generally necessary to have a meaningful life.

I genuinely don't know what kind of answer you are looking for. When you say math is inconsistent - I don't know how to interpret that other than checking out the axioms and then checking for a contradiction that can be derived from those axioms. If you want to say "I don't know the reasons why we selected/agreed upon these specific math axioms" - I won't be able to provide an answer to that. But given what the current math axioms are,there is no contradiction that could be derived from those axioms. As a sidenote for math nerds - I know that there has to be at least one math major actualizer on this forum (if you are a guest - go ahead and register), -come here and lay out your thoughts and feel free to correct me or others if you see any incorrect or cringy things.

I don't know what you mean by "understanding" there. How many people in the world can make valid criticism of math? Not much. Just because you can do addition and subtraction and multiplication, that doesn't mean that you have a deep enough understanding to make criticisms about the foundations of math. Its frankly delusional to think that one can just google an unorthodox definition and that will be good enough to undermine the whole field of mathematics (as if no mathematicians would have thought about checking out the axioms and the definitions). - the very fact that your first thought after finding a definition is that "hmm ,maybe all mathematicians are wrong" and not "I must be misunderstanding something about math or something about an axiom or definition" shows a kind of arrogant attitude.

Cause in that case the Multiplicative Identity Axiom

by "its" are you referring to specifically this ? "So if 1x1=2 3x1=6 4x1=8"

I don't know whats that above statement in response to.

If you admit you don't have any understanding , then why make claims? And no, you didn't ask any questions - you were make claims. There is 0 question mark in your prevous response to Leo.

No it doesn't have any inconsistencies. Go study the axioms and the definitions of math please, before you are trying to make a critcism. If you don't want to drop your claim - go ahead, spell out which specific math axioms are mutually exclusive or spell out which specific math axiom is being violated.

The following ones are more about his attitude than about his teachings: Lack of epistemic humility Not being charitable - sometimes presenting the weakest arguments in favour of other views Criticizing other views for having certain limits, while pretending that there is none in his own view Making a bunch of claims about other people - regarding how conscious they are or how intelligent they are and then not being able to substantiate those claims with anything tangible Specifically regarding his teachings: Making strong empirical claims without being able to substantiate them or without being able to justify them with empirical evidence - this is what he would call "making a conscious or intelligent inference" (Few specific ones that comes to mind "You can't reach this level of consciousness without psychedelics"; "No one has ever reached this level of consciousness"; "You need to have a specific genetics to reach this level of consciousness") Lack of emphasis on how to find/create meaning and how to live a meaningful life Lack of understanding and a lack of integration of logic - This will be a controversial one, but this goes to almost all the other spiritual teachers as well, because (from what Ive seen) almost none of them have even a graduate level understanding of classical logic let alone an understanding of all the other types of logics and an understanding of the different laws of logic. - its almost as cringe seeing gurus talk about logic as seeing professors making a bunch of dumb claims about spirituality

Why would you call me out on me making certain inferences about you, based on little data ? I thought thats what we are doing here. But on a more serious note - look, I understand that sometimes we make inferences based on little data - I just think this partcular one was weird (I would almost put it equivalent to saying that people with curly hair will be horrible life partners). But I don't think we will solve this disagreement (and we don't need to), because you would need to show me data that you are right (so at this point this is just my intuition vs your intuition regarding how correct your inference was).

@integral You were making huge inferences based on a fraction of data. If you want to talk about making somewhat reliable inferences, then the first step should be to collect as much data as possible (no one forced you to make an extensive assessment , based on 5 seconds of data - you made that decision yourself). Your very idea about what kind of patterns you should be looking for and what should be considered as a red flag, isn't necessarily grounded in general statistics (where you would have a huge pool of people and would see that pattern showing up every time given that particular datapoint[red flag]) , its grounded in your extremely small dataset. Obviously everyone is using red flags (as a proxy) to make inferences about other people. But the amount of data you collect,will have a huge weight on the validity of that assessment. In most of the cases, even when you have a huge dataset - that set will have thousands(if not millions) of logically possible explanations, but you will base your probability judgement on those that you are aware of ( so you are grounding your judgement in what you are aware of and not in what is logically possible - which can be like this: being aware of 5 explanations vs having 5000 logically possible explanations). Its fine to make certain judgements based on what you are aware of and not based on what is logically possible, but you should always acknowledge the limitations of that assessment and you should never conflate it with an assessment that is grounded in what is logically possible. Three relevant things to consider are: What should be considered as a red flag (a datapoint that you can use to make reliable inferences about a person) How much data you should collect, before you make your assessment What negative consequences can come from making a wrong assumption People here disagree with how reliable your assessment was and with what you consider as a red flag.

@Nemra Im not sure what you are trying to object to there. What are the things that you specifically disagree with?

Oh yeah, one can set up tests with arbitrary standards. I can do the same for confirming the exact opposite as well.