You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

My philosophy of mathematics

Gregory July 09, 2020 at 01:02 8750 views 37 comments
It is well known in some circles that Whitehead and Russell trained the part of the brain that processes logic to do math. It has its consequences. I don't know what part of my brain I've trained to do math, but it's a puny part (Seinfeld episode comes to mind). In a way though i am one of the greatest mathematicians in the world because I realize how at the most abstract level standard math maps out the impossible. The more math you know the less math you know,in a way. 2+2 equals anything but four. That's my stance.

I was wondering if anyone had a defense of standard mathematics which did not appeal to mathematics itself. Can you avoid a circle while doing it?

Comments (37)

DingoJones July 09, 2020 at 01:38 #432895
Reply to Gregory

How could anyone dare to argue with one of the greatest mathematicians in the world?
Though I am honoured you came down from the mountain to humble us (im sure your very busy with all the genius math you are doing) with your declarations, I simply can not in good conscience go against your almost singular understanding of mathematics, O Calculating One.
“2+2 equals anything but 4”.
Riveting. Bold. Original. Gregory the Great ladies and gentlemen, be humbled in his presence or not at all.
:meh:
Banno July 09, 2020 at 01:52 #432897
Reply to Gregory Reply to DingoJones

Indeed, the most cogent defence of Dunning-Kruger I have seen today.

When we add this to gems such as:
Quoting Gregory
At work yesterday I set up three jars and looked in the box and it was empty. On the shelf was all six. The universe has done something nice


...boom this is deep stuff!

So today's Trophy for Best Fractured Ceramic goes to you, @Gregory.

User image
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 01:53 #432898
Who is George?
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 01:57 #432899
Dunning and Kruger are easily refuted. So no smart people know they are smart? Pride can make you dumb, but thinking you are smart can also trigger smart thoughts. Think of Napolean Hill. When ever people say "studies prove" I always know it as a signal to go in the other direction. The intelligentsia suck
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 01:59 #432901
And to keep this a legit thread, I point out that you can't defend math without recourse to math. So it Is an unproven field of thought. If anyone wants to thrown in Godel feel free
Banno July 09, 2020 at 02:06 #432903
Quoting Gregory
to keep this a legit thread


:rofl:


Quoting Gregory
Dunning and Kruger are easily refuted.


:lol:
Banno July 09, 2020 at 02:06 #432905
Reply to Gregory Such a memorable name.
Deleted User July 09, 2020 at 02:08 #432906
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:10 #432907
I'm a nominalist so i don't think anything is isomorphic.
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:13 #432910
One mistake that math obviously made was to say pi never repeats. It obviously does repeat otherwise all the whole numbers would not remain staggered even to odd for infinity. Infinity is well ordered in the Aristotelian sense. Anyway, some interpret Godel to have proven that you can't avoid contradictions in math
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:15 #432911
Today I have been reading Godel Esher and Bach, as well as Hegel's lesser logic
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:19 #432913
On the Dunning and Kruger thing, is it not obvious they they are defining who is intelligent. Who is to say the IQ test is scientific? To say it is is a massive claim. My twin brother has a 148 IQ and I don't think he is smarter than I. I haven't taken one of those
InPitzotl July 09, 2020 at 02:28 #432915
Quoting Münchhausen trilemma (wiki)

there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:
  • The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
  • The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
  • The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

...but I'm not sure I get the point of playing the Münchhausen trilemma as a game.
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:32 #432916
Reply to InPitzotl

Do you think Godel proved option 2?
Banno July 09, 2020 at 02:42 #432918
Reply to Gregory Where did Dunning and Kruger or the subsequent studies make us of IQ? Or are you offering further examples?
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:42 #432919
A well ordered infinity runs smoothly. If Godel has really proven that the Liar paradox lies at the heart of mathematics, then a disordered infinity underlies math, which.I suspected. A disorder infinite series has no center of gravity to keep it logical. Keeping the logical and illogical balanced actually is truly a game. But I had initially wanted an interesting conversation about math. People who know the danc moves of numbers are being scornful because I turned the music off
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:44 #432920
Reply to Banno The

How else did they determine who was "truly" intelligent than by IQ? The IQ test was obviously invented by people who thought THEY were smart
Banno July 09, 2020 at 02:44 #432921
I think you should have a chat with @Metaphysician Undercover.
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 02:45 #432923
Reply to Banno

Thanks, will do
DingoJones July 09, 2020 at 02:46 #432924
Reply to Banno

Wow. Why do you have to be cruel to Metaphysician?
Banno July 09, 2020 at 02:46 #432925
Reply to DingoJones I just thought they might have much in common.
DingoJones July 09, 2020 at 02:54 #432927
Reply to Banno

I see. Couple world greats huh?
Banno July 09, 2020 at 03:00 #432930
Reply to Gregory Ah, my bad; I wrongly assumed that by "they" you meant Dunning and Kruger, not the clandestine "they" of conspiracy theorists. But I see now that talk of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is a failed attempt by THEM to libel those who have seen through their machinations.
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 03:08 #432932
Quoting Banno
But I see now that talk of the the Dunning-Kruger effect is a failed attempt by THEM to libel those who have seen through their machinations.


This isn't difficult. They claim they can measure intelligence and assign psychological traits to people who aren't. I am saying they don't really have evidence
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 03:10 #432933
Napoleon Hill had perfectly legit reasons to believe that if people tell themselves they are good at something they become good at it through the use of their subconscious. Dunning and Kruger weren't distinguishes people who are prideful and won't use their intellects and people who use Hill's methods. So I reject their conclusion as unscientific.
DingoJones July 09, 2020 at 03:17 #432934
Reply to Gregory

:lol: :lol: :rofl:
InPitzotl July 09, 2020 at 03:18 #432935
Quoting Gregory
Napoleon Hill had perfectly legit reasons to believe that if people tell themselves they are good at something they become good at it through the use of their subconscious.

...
Quoting Gregory
So I reject their conclusion as unscientific.


What scientific methods did Napoleon Hill employ?
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 03:19 #432936
Quoting InPitzotl
What scientific methods did Napoleon Hill employ?


Same as every psychological study that has ever been done: observation
InPitzotl July 09, 2020 at 03:20 #432937
Quoting Gregory
Same as every psychological study that has ever been done: observation

Were they scientific, though? You know, as opposed to those unscientific Dunning-Kruger studies?
Banno July 09, 2020 at 03:21 #432938
Quoting InPitzotl
What scientific methods did Napoleon Hill employ?


See the WIki article.

One couldn't have asked for a better author to validate @Gregory's argument.
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 03:22 #432939
Maybe I have a high IQ. I think I am very smart so you probably think the study in question is proof enough I don't have a high IQ. Maybe the study only shows that people who don't think they are smart score high on the IQ test. I am willing to bet though that most people who score high on it think they are smart and I am more than certain that they people who invented the test thought they were smart. So you have a Godelian problem even here as well
InPitzotl July 09, 2020 at 03:23 #432940
Quoting Banno
See the WIki article.

Oh I'm not so interested in the actual Napoleon Hill, as I am in the epistemic standard being employed (though I would like to imagine Napoleon Hill playing a nice game of chess against DrDrunkenstein).
Gregory July 09, 2020 at 03:25 #432941
Quoting InPitzotl
Were they scientific, though? You know, as opposed to those unscientific Dunning-Kruger studies?


There is no such thing as a "scientific" psychological study. There are way too many factors for that. The establishment says all the time "that's just anecdotal" about an herb or something. Of course what people tell people in white coats in a laboratory is also anecdotal. There is way too much dogmatism over this stuff. All you can do is accept your observations and run with them. It's you guys who are making this stuff into dogma
InPitzotl July 09, 2020 at 03:31 #432942
Quoting Gregory
There is no such thing as a "scientific" psychological study.

If scientific is the standard and this is the rationale, I would think you should be skeptical of both Napoleon Hill's and Dunning-and-Kruger's studies. So I'm particularly interested in the fact that you're only skeptical of the latter.
Deleted User July 09, 2020 at 03:33 #432943
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
TheMadFool July 09, 2020 at 03:38 #432945
Quoting Gregory
at the most abstract level standard math maps out the impossible.


I'm curious to know how.

Quoting Gregory
The more math you know the less math you know,in a way. 2+2 equals anything but four.


In what sense do you make that assertion? Clearly, from a certain angle it's a contradiction but you probably have something else in mind.
Streetlight July 09, 2020 at 03:42 #432946
This thread does not meet the quality standards of the forum.