Link between mathematics and metaphysics ?

[Anonymous No.22322910]

[Anonymous No.22322917]

if you want to you can arbitrarily divide your phenomena into little zones with barriers and start counting them I guess.

[Anonymous No.22322920]

>>22322910
relational logic

[Anonymous No.22322942]

>>22322910
There is none. Metaphysics wankers want there to be because the abstractions of math get alot of respect while their metaphysical masturbation is laughed at. But just like the forms and other abstract objects a link doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.22322952]

>>22322942
>metaphysics
>abstractions of math
jesus christ the sheer volume of confidence paired with ignorance in this post

[Anonymous No.22322953]

>>22322942

[Anonymous No.22322954]

>>22322910
You're talking about methamatics.

[Anonymous No.22322962]

>>22322952
Is metaphysics just about abstractions then? That would make it a lot less controversial since we deal with abstractions everyday. But no one is claiming an abstraction has some real existence.

[Anonymous No.22322984]

>>22322962
not something I say often, but literally google "metaphysics definition". you really shouldn't be speaking confidently on this subject. without metaphysics there is no math.

[Anonymous No.22322989]

Mathematics is metaphysics

[Anonymous No.22322990]

>>22322984
>without metaphysics there is no math.
What a joke. Seriously study a little math before saying dumb shit like this. Math is in no way connected with metaphysics much less dependent. It is deductive logic applied to arbitrary axioms. Even the type of logic used is arbitrary when you get down to it. Metaphysics doesn't intrude anywhere on it.

[Anonymous No.22322994]

>>22322990
your definition of mathematics relies on metaphysical principles you fucking balloon.

[Anonymous No.22323005]

>>22322994
>your definition of mathematics relies on metaphysical principles you fucking balloon
The fuck are you talking about. I already said what math was
>It is deductive logic applied to arbitrary axioms. Even the type of logic used is arbitrary when you get down to it
There is no talk about existence in math outside of assuming something exists or not. What you assume is up to personal taste or what you think may model reality. It's close to being a game where you have to closely follow the rules.

[Anonymous No.22323052]

>>22322910
What are some good maths books for people with an interest in philosophy to read?

[Anonymous No.22323056]

>>22322990
See>>22317528

[Anonymous No.22323057]

>>22322942
Math is more real than metaphysics because it is the only thing verifiable and metaphysics should be treated the same way as math. Read Descartes.

[Anonymous No.22323065]

>>22323056
And I beat that you down in that thread. Axioms aren't chosen with some goofy metaphysical justification and your "intuition" doesn't guarantee something is consistent. You have a bad case of magical thinking, just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's consistent(or real).

[Anonymous No.22323072]

>>22323052
Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic

[Anonymous No.22323076]

>>22323065
You simply missed the point entirely

[Anonymous No.22323087]

>>22323076
What point? You were saying bullshit like your intuition can guarantee that something is consistent. If you claimed proof by intuition of the consistency of the system of Euclidean axioms in a math paper you'd be laughed out of the room.

[Anonymous No.22323121]

>>22323087
I literally posted a book written by mathematicians that said the same thing I did. If axioms are arbitrary and intuition is useless, then how the fuck is it that we happen to be so successful at not making contradictory bs up 90% of the time? We can’t just fucking come up with random sentences out of nowhere, much less sentences that are applicable to the real world. There are literally infinite possible axioms you could create and almost all of them are meaningless and would contradict many that you combined them with. You simply don’t understand what it’s like to actually do mathematics. Why don’t you try to create some “arbitrary” axioms right now? You can’t. They will be based on something you’ve experienced or can imagine.

[Anonymous No.22323138]

>>22323121
>I literally posted a book written by mathematicians that said the same thing I did.
It didn't say the same thing and I fucking pointed that out in the same thread.
>If axioms are arbitrary and intuition is useless, then how the fuck is it that we happen to be so successful at not making contradictory bs up 90% of the time?
Directly after you said that in the other thread, that started by talking about the Principia of all fucking things, I pointed out how the Principia was only written in response to the INCONSISTENCY of the very intuitive naive set theory. Intuition is worthless to guarantee consistency or truth.
>We can’t just fucking come up with random sentences out of nowhere, much less sentences that are applicable to the real world.
I already said in this thread >>22323005
>What you assume(the axioms you choose) is up to personal taste or what you think may model reality.
There are a huge number of different systems of axioms that mathematicians just made up. I even brought up non-well-founded set theory when you claimed it was intuitive that a set can't contain itself.

[Anonymous No.22323161]

>>22323138
Maybe you can’t into logic but you didn’t make a single point even worth refuting in this point. Just shut up dude. Don’t say you beat me down when your argument literally relies on you being able to imagine a square circle.

[Anonymous No.22323162]

>>22323161
Like I said above if you try and claim a proof by intuition in your math class the teacher is going to fail you. I'm just warning you.

[Anonymous No.22323188]

check it out boys and girls: the rearionship between metaphysics and mathematics / natural sciences

why is the universe intelligible?

because all things fictional and physical, are produced by recursive novelty, and thus bare a family resemblance

https://youtu.be/xqY08gN_FCM