Logicians BTFO

[Anonymous No.6574598]

Where were you when you realized logic is just the current best model put forward using scientific methods, rather than something fundamental property of existence?

[Anonymous No.6574610]

>>6574598
Mathematics are
-a choice of logic by the mathematician, where he chooses which Rule of inferences to use
-a choice of axioms which are devoid of direct ontology since what matters is now the axiomatic relations between the symbols
(this is key in the language : you no longer ask what is plane, but how it interacts with other concepts in geometry. In natural languages, some stronger degree of ontology remains, but this ontology could well be removed and some mathematics in a natural language would remain)

OFC, most mathematicians denigrate the logical aspect and choose the classical logic. My bet is that they love the law of excluded middle since it is too difficult for them to carry mathematics constructively, for they were not trained to love weaker logics. The choice of the logic is crucial for both the pure mathematics and their applications.

The best illustration is likely the topology where the classical mathematician rely on the notion of point and give it to the mathematical physicist, whereas the constructivist avoids the notion of points at all cost, by principle. This principle is also backed by the consequences (for those who love the Consequentialism) since in order to do topology constructively, we must forget the notion of classical points, by generalizing what a point is. In this method, we retain most of the classical theorems, but in a constructive mathematics. On the contrary, in intuitionist logic, where the notion of classical points can be kept, all the topological theorems are destroyed. Idem in algebra, where a intuitionist version has less good theorems than a constructive one.

[Anonymous No.6574613]

>>6574610
The task of the mathematicians is thus to derive as many theorems as possible, with the definition of theorem belonging to the choice of the logic. Hopefully, soon, we will have the computers to carry all our proofs, all that will remain for the humanity will be to seek new logics and new axioms. However, even this last task will be done by some machines sooner or later ; at least it is my hope.

The use of the mathematics is thus a human framework in order to see, once somebody more or less believe in this framework, how far can we apply the rule of induction, the modus ponens and all other concepts of logic to the human experiences. There is nothing magical to it. Nothing tells us that the mathematics give us a knowledge on our experiences, even less true knowledge (if there is, somehow, a truth ; sadly, nobody knows what a truth is).
The various mathematics are not able to tell us how to rate them. Why does the humanity believe in the modus ponens ? Are there other rules of inferences of this kind that the humanity could broadly accept ?

Nothing tells us that the mathematics are special. There may equally be well other methods to have knowledge for those who believe in knowledge, or true knowledge for those whose who believe in this.

[Anonymous No.6574620]

>>6574613
In physics, the predictions can be done qualitatively, instead of quantitatively. All our apparatuses are now quantitative, but every rule and prediction of every physical model can be formulated in a natural language. In physics, nobody knows if the the equations derived by the humanity concerning their experiences do hold in others parts of the universe. This is a mild solipsism, a humanist solipsism, analogue to the old question on how to know whether China exists, if I never have been to China. Any other kind of solipsism would be frowned upon socially in our times, anyway.


The contemporary doctrine of Scientism via the broadest application of the logical framework with the belief that the human ability to predict either qualitatively or quantitatively becomes unbecoming when many people forget that it remains nothing but a human choice, without a shred of evidence (since the scientists believe in the concept of evidence) to back the speciality of the sciences.


In all this exposé, the key word is belief.