I’m pulling the “twitter is a microblog” rule even though twitter is pretty mega now, hope that’s ok.

  • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Here is what we know for sure:

    There can be no enumerable list of axioms for the true statements of mathematics. No computational procedure could exist to determine whether propositions are valid, provable, or even equivalent. And no matter how you formulate the number-theoretic axioms, a mathematician would always have insights (for instance, about whether a Diophantine equation has a solution) that are both clearly “true” and obviously unprovable. This holds true for all digital systems.

    Here is what we don’t know for sure:

    The metaphysical implications.

    Your distinction between science and philosophy is incorrect. Science is inductive and abductive. It can’t “prove” things. It’s not deductive. Mathematics and philosophy can prove things.

    Philosophy also determines the formal systems we use as a basis of reasoning, for instance, in science.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Mathematics and logic

      agreed

      and philosophy

      and here I disagree

      Edit: aww, baby doesn’t like the philosophy of being disagreed with and blocked me. Should probably go back to kindergarten instead of college

      • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yes, of course you can prove things in philosophy. Have you ever heard of syllogistic reasoning? The basis of… you know… proofs?

        All science is philosophy. Hence the P in PhD. Not all philosophy is science. Hope that helps.