?????????? You guys are spaghetti
this is why it's in bad faith. you're convinced of something and requiring the disproving to be on the shoulders of what you believe doesn't work, and not what you believe does work.
Is nyte a philosopher
isnt that normal? suppose someone tried to convince you that the Christian God exists. isn't the burden on them?
metaphysical consciousness is like the Christian God to me.
in fact; like the christian god, you dont need to convince me that metaphysical consciousness is coherent, or whatever. you just have to convince me that its good for anything. like, my soul will be saved when i die, or it will help us understand cognition, better. or something.
if metaphysical consciousness cant explain drugged mathematicians, then id rather look at the brain stuff. maybe they can tell me the drugs are inhibiting X receptors causing Y center of the brain to behave poorly thus mixing up the concepts.
or for language, "wow this guy took a severe injury to his language center and now his words are mixed up in an interesting way." surely this is something that has actually happened.
causes people to believe.......
this entire approach is in bad faith.
like,
no, not when you are using formal logic, the scientific method, orders of logic etc
why do you believe that you should be able to come in and demand everyone adapt to your language? you are speaking so far beyond concepts, that you won't even allow yourself to understand/recognize, all because you a l r e a d y assume rightness, and refuse language/logic that has been established and agreed upon (proven) for centuries.
it is nothing to be learned or developed overnight or in one discussion with random internet people because you feel you have a point that needs proven wrong by other people.
a shame
The argument is thus:
- Assume that you may add extrinsic axioms to a set-theoretic universe that will allow you to assign a binary truth-value to a sentence that is independent of that set-theoretic universe.
- Godel proved that this assumption necessarily means there are real mathematical structures that exist in a metaphysical space
- Godel also proved an isomorphism exists between our actual instantiation of a set-theoretic universe and the mathematical structure/object
- Thus, we have direct access to metaphysical objects through our practice of mathematics
- Because mathematical structures exist themselves and exist in a metaphysical space, those mathematical structures are independent of human thought and exist whether or not we exist
- Because these metaphysical structures exist already without us, mathematics is a conscious process of discovery of these structures, not the construction of these structures
- Empirical methods by definition cannot investigate or interact with metaphysical objects or claims
- Thus, our consciousness has to be a metaphysical structure, as we can interact with these mathematical structures through conscious thought.
- This means that hbotz's argument that consciousness if fully contained in the physical brain contradicts his assumption of point 1.
Not only that, but he can't justify the "consciousness is all in the brain" assertion through any logic, philosophy, or empirical method. He claims that the only knowledge worth knowing is that which can be investigated empirically. For a claim/hypothesis/theory to be valid under science, it requires that you develop an experiment that you can conduct that could falsify that claim. He is unable to do so. So, not only does mathematics prove him wrong when he makes that assumption from 1., he can't justify his claim under his own framework.
He has no response to any of this. The 9 points above are all a natural language explanation of something that has been proven in the mathematical sense by possibly the greatest mathematician of the modern era. hbotz just says he's either confused or I'm interpreting it wrong, when I cited multiple sources that aren't long at all which show my interpretation is not only widely held by the mathematical community at large, but directly lines up with Godel's own commentary on his proofs.
Didn't read.
1 Like
Godel also proved an isomorphism exists between our actual instantiation of a set-theoretic universe and the mathematical structure/object
this is the mistake.
1 Like
Then it's mathematically invalid. For you to make the claim that we can't access the metaphysical mathematical structures, you have to prove that every instance of every set-theoretic universe is "bad."
Once again, mathematical realism implies that we discover mathematics. The metaphysical structures always exist, whether we've found them or not. Your question makes no sense.
Set theory? Wish it was porn set theory
No offense ewiz but you don't know what you're talking about.
You are now claiming all of mathematics is false. Want to engage in a project of proving that? What's your methodology going to be? How are you going to invent a logical system that can verify that all mathematics is ill-formed without using mathematics?
Currently delivering to an old guy who is going to complain. Going to surprise him by having a short leash if he is at all negative with me
okay. so you can interface with the metaphysical structure, but most of people who think they are interfacing with the metaphysical structure are not, because they are wrong.
so believing you are interfacing with the metaphysical structure is poor evidence that you are doing so.
Really? That's a fucking mistake? Fucking explain why Godel's proof is wrong you dumb shit
Godel these balls
we dont need to. we just go on assuming mathematics is true just like we go on assuming ZFC is consistent and that the world will not suddenly blink out of existence in the next moment.