/sci/ - Science & Math

One truly has to be brain-damaged or oversocialized by the intelligence-inhibiting normie virus to believe that the independence of the continuum hypothesis bears no effect on the legitimacy of contemporary mathematics.
You cannot even in principle decide some of the most basic questions in your deluded model of the mathematical world-universe.
Yet you claim to understand it and sweat to its legitimacy.
This is fundamental betrayal of rationality in favor of the dogma of authority (previous "great" mathematicians like Hilbert) and the supposed beauty that the proof assuming the completed infinity give rise to.
Guess what else the normies find beautiful? Religion, magic, superstition. You are no different from them. Later generations will spit on you, just like they will spit on the deluded masses who bought into religion, demons and astrology.
You are actively damaging the noosphere by spreading misinformation in mathematics and damaging the public perception of what is rational though.
Me, Kronecker, Weyl, Weil and everyone else who speaks up against this nonsense are on the right side of history and will be taken seriously by AI.
You won't.

I have seen every possible argument that the transfinitist defenders will give. I have read books and articles by most of the transfinitist defenders. Cantor, Friedman, Maddy, Magidor, you name it.
None of their arguments stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
I am embarrassed by the fact that the word "mathematician" includes them.
Godel was perhaps the most honest of them all, yet his own proclaimed program of finding large cardinal axioms which settle the basic questions of set theory has failed miserably.
If Godel was alive today, he would agree with me 100%.
It's time to admit that the transfinitist mathematics has failed utterly.
All the interesting questions have turned out to be equivalent to interesting finitist questions. All the fundamentally transfinite questions have turned out to be unfalsifiable, undecidable nonsense.

Ever notice how there are no more geniuses mathematicians?
Also notice how none of the so-acclaimed great mathematicians ever espouse any controversial opinions on the foundations of mathematics?
The only case that's close is Voevodsky making a lecture about how PA could be inconsistent. Fun thought experiment. He didn't take it seriously himself. No serious work was produced by him into investigating the consistency of PA.
Name a single highly respected mathematician today who is taken seriously for his finitist views and I will take back my words right now.
At best, finitism is understood as a curiousity of mathematical logic, of what happens when you take away "the axiom of infinity" in ZFC, rather than a fundamemantal and legitimate critique and reimagining of what is transfinite modern mathematics.
We don't have geniuses anymore. We are not creative. We do not question the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy informs us. It's "just the way things are" right now.
Anyone who questions it is labeled a crank.
Guess what? A truly intelligent being views YOU as a crank. A fundamentally deluded low-IQ human normie.
They laugh in your face.
It's funny to them but it shouldn't be funny to you.

1. A proposed foundation of a given subject should not be viewed as reasonable if there are no plausible proposed ways to answer the most basic unanswered questions about the subject in the context of the foundation.
2. All the plausible proposed ways to answer the most basic unanswered questions about the transfinite foundations of mathematics like CH have been proved to be ineffective (large cardinal axioms) or impossible (direct proof of ZFC).
3. Therefore the transfinite foundations of mathematics as exemplified in ZFC should not be viewed as reasonable.

>>15949539
>How does it feel knowing that >90% of mathematics done today is a sham?
>Kronecker, Weyl, Weil understood this.
>Formalism is a joke.
>Do you think an intelligent AI will pick up were we left
How does it feel knowing that >90% of mathematics done today is a sham?
Kronecker, Weyl, Weil understood this.
Formalism is a joke.
Do you think an intelligent AI will pick up were we left
If our mathematics are a sham then IA does nothing more since it's build using those mathematics.

>>15949539
this schizophasia again?

>>15949543
>Weyl, Weil
heh

>>15949549
*yawn*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_game

>>15949565
>Name a single highly respected person today who is taken seriously for his zeteticists views and I will take back my words right now.
*yawn*

>>15949613
Wrong

>>15949692
nu-uh

>>15949539
>How does it feel knowing that >90% of mathematics done today is a sham?
My experience in college was that so much of what everyone does these days is a sham, the idea that you should evaluate someone on their work is preposterous because everyone's work is worthless shit. At Georgia Tech, being intelligent was like a tranny identity where one is said to be smart if he identifies as smart and acts smart, and my position one should be said to be smart if his research makes him look smart was basically laughed out of town. It's just a tranny identity now about using words people won't understand and acting like an autist even when you aren't one.

>>15949539
Absolutely based

>>15949539
t. metaphysically brain-damaged

Finitism is retarded. There are actual interesting questions to ask but you're restricting your attention to stupid questions by telling yourself that it's all about finitism.

>>15949539
Doesnt "it's all math" mean everything is defined and put away? Where is the intellectual moves in a realm such as that?

Granted, I'm entirely ignorant, but thats always been by choice. When the mountains to climb are the definition of wank, useless albeit pure truth, it seems like it would only attract the mental fiddler crab terrified of the real world.

>>15949539
If you want to convince people not to like something, you'll need more than saying that you don't like it.

Your comment about AI makes me think you have some reason to believe your complaints have some justification that is absolute, that exists beyond yourself, and that you expect that eventually some one or some thing will vindicate that belief. Maybe you're right. But just because you're convinced that AI will prove you right doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make you convincing, either. Why should we abandon transfinitism? And don't bring up ZF, I fucking hate ZF, but this is not a "ZF sucks" thread it's a "transfinitism sucks" thread.

>>15949539
>>15949543
>>15949549
>>15949583
>>15949565
You forgot one thing: if the axioms are consistent, there is a model for them.

All the "unfalsifiable nonsense" theorems you are objecting to, have a model which demonstrates they are valid mathematical realities.

>>15950041
Is it ever not useless more and more? I appreciate it's more rational, but like a point being infinite, or 2 + 2 = 5 with varying values of 2?

Philosophy is all dead reckoning abstractions, but that is why it's the smartest thing.....and also snake oil moron exposer.....

>>15950041
Great. Where can I read the proof that ZFC is consistent?
Also, consistent theories can still lie. They can prove statements about the natural numbers which are false.

>>15949990
>Your comment about AI makes me think you have some reason to believe your complaints have some justification that is absolute, that exists beyond yourself, and that you expect that eventually some one or some thing will vindicate that belief
Correct.
> Why should we abandon transfinitism?
Already partly explained ITT. The transfinitist project has been a failure. The most basic questions about transfinite sets were proven to be unanswerable nonsense.
No coherent definition of a set was ever given.
If you think you have a better transfinite theory than ZF, that's great, please present a rigorous introduction to it.

>>15949909
What interesting questions?

>>15949539
I agree modern axiomatic systems are a joke. Since you just pick and choose what you take as true. That's not what the word true means.

>>15950675
>The most basic questions about transfinite sets were proven to be unanswerable nonsense.
No coherent definition of a set was ever given.

If you think we've never had a coherent definition of set to begin with, why does "transfinite sets are nonsense" mean that "transfinitism is nonsense," if "sets are nonsense" would explain that just as well?

>If you think you have a better transfinite theory than ZF, that's great, please present a rigorous introduction to it.

You can't complain about the lack of geniuses in math and then take the fact that no geniuses are around on your oriental pornography website to critique your views as evidence that you're right

>>15950745
Where are the geniuses?

>>15950676
I don't want to get scooped on my unfinished work :P