/lit/ - Literature

>>6579693
Math isn't "true", it's just collection of definitions and relations and the exploration of the structures created by those definitions. Chess is as much math as calculus is, just played in a different way.

For any given set of mathematical axioms there will exist unprovable truth statements, so the idea of having a few laws from which you can deduce the universe is sort of silly. At best you can use mathematical abstractions to describe real life relations, but you can't scratch beneath the surface of reality itself without encountering infinite complexity and randomness. Not to mention that lots of modern ideas in mathematics and logic have no physical basis in reality, take set theory for example.

When you get down to writing proofs, the best ones rely more on the minds eye having the creativity to unravel a certain idea than brute computation anyways.

It really depends on what you define truth to be I guess. I think math as a metaphysical experience is as meaningful as most religions, so I guess in that sense it's true.

>>6579915
>Münchhausen trilemma
This seems kinda dumb tbh. All knowledge and truth can only be perceptible with the individual self as the point of reference, so it seems like truth is more a matter of personally held axioms and definitions whereas no greater reduction can be made.

If I hold a ball and declare it to be round I can describe it's behavior. If the ball is in fact shaped like a cube, and I'm simply hallucinating it's roundness then I'll soon prove myself wrong through experimentation.

If the ball is in fact a cube yet I hallucinate it to behave like a ball, then from my point of reference it's a ball and my assertions are in fact true.