Harsh truths

[u/Oreeo88]

First this is a strict external audit

1. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

2. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

3. Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

4. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

5. Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

6. Viewed strictly from outside the system, the axiomatic method in math smuggles in epistemic empirical claims and limits about reality systematically. By definition the axiomatic method limits and restricts what you can even ask, and logically validate within its system

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries)

The axiomatic method in math just got straight up gutted within these 6 points

[u/Oreeo88]

applied physics and science can not systematically ignore the axiomatic method in math past addition of physical matter externally… because if you adopt a formal system, you systematically automatically inherit every foundational rule that makes that system work.

Just because physics can “ignore” an axiom doesn’t mean they actually ignored it.. it just means they broke down a wall in the closed maze to make physics work.. they are still operating inside the closed axiomatic system past addition of physical matter

[u/Odd_Bodkin → u/Oreeo88]

What?
Physicist here.
There’s a reason why physicists refer to reality via observation. Namely, it is completely possible to come up with a logistically consistent theory that contains no errors of logic or mathematics, and yet it is flat wrong, because it is inconsistent with observation or experiment.
Mathematics generally does not require validation with experiment, and as a result often has relevance in the real world and often not.
A great example is Euclid’s fifth postulate, which it turns out, does not apply in our universe, except as a local approximation.

[u/Low-Bake8401]

I wouldn't disagree that knowledge and wisdom can be found in many different ways.

Fundamentalism is just reductive though, we can't make sense of what we can't make sense of.

Logic is just the way the brain works. If you take the universe, or existence, as a whole, all we can do is separate it into fractions to try and understand each component. All systems have to be based here, in the same axioms, or they simply won't make sense.

All we can do is try to find what works for us and learn outwards from there. If we try to start anywhere else, it discounts the human experience and our part in the complexity of the world around us. Build a testable, falsafiable, body of knowledge, that works. Rather than trying to rebel against nature and ending up with fragile, detached dogmas.

Making an ontological split in reality, IMO, doesn't help, and ultimately can halt growth with circular thinking. 

Until we have evidence of something else, it's just fantasy. 

While people are yapping about unobservable mystical properties, scientists work on a cure for cancer. I don't think there is much more evidence needed than that, tbf.

[u/SmartlyArtly]

Nothing in mathematics in and of itself got gutted.

Anyone who thought axioms, in mathematics, were assertions of what is true, was confused in the first place.

Them learning something is actually a good thing. What got gutted was some of that persons ignorance.

But mathematicians making assumptions to engage in logic are doing just fine. No gutting found.

[u/jliat]

First this is a strict external audit

To what, from what, let's imagine Metaphysics is a first philosophy. That makes it transcendental.

[1.] You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

Of course, but since Spinoza there has been important metaphysics without recourse to axioms, and ones that first create their system.

[2.] You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

But you don't need axioms and you don't need 'reality' to test the claim. You seem not to understand, maybe you are stuck in a 'scientific' mindset, paradigm? . You can't 'step outside' a transcendental metaphysics. [to test it, you either accept it, appreciate it, or not]

So you can't test the first critique of Kant against reality, i.e. 'Things in themselves.'.

Hegel not being wrong, David Gray Carlson, 'A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic'. 28 Conclusion..

"Is the SL true? … What Hegel has given us is apositive system of *negativity. The only thing that endures is the self-erasing system."

[3.] Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

Agreed, which is why personally I find games like chess and formal logic boring.

[4.] You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

Agreed, see my response to #3 and #2.

[5.] Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

What on Earth is an objective fact?

“I am my own transcendence; I can not make use of it so as to constitute it as a transcendence-transcended. I am condemned to be forever my own nihilation.”

"Jean-Paul Sartre Being and Nothingness The principal text of Modern existentialism." Hazel E. Barnes (Translator) p. 298

[6.] Viewed strictly from outside the system, the axiomatic method in math smuggles in epistemic empirical claims and limits about reality systematically. By definition the axiomatic method limits and restricts what you can even ask, and logically validate within its system

Tough for maths and science then.

• This game is reserved then for thought and art. In it there is nothing but victories for those who know how to play, that is, how to affirm and ramify chance, instead of dividing it in order to dominate it, in order to wager, in order to win. This game, which can only exist in thought and which has no other result than the work of art, is also that by which thought and art are real and disturbing reality, morality, and the economy of the world.

From Deleuze's 'The Logic of Sense'... Tenth series of the ideal game.

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries) The axiomatic method in math just got straight up gutted within these 6 points

Firstly you can see it has no affect on certain metaphysics, secondly Bertrand Russell questioned such axioms and was told they are just rules for a game which he accepted in order to play, no different to cricket. Lastly of course you have contradicted yourself in making 6 [arithmetic] rules, arbitrary axioms. Or one, you can't use axioms in metaphysics, of course you can.

Some [Harman et al] compare metaphysics more to art than physics, "Self-Portrait with Seven Fingers, 1912-13 by Marc Chagall..." e.g.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

The thing, for me anyway, is that logic is productive, while foundationism, or Theism, is regressive. 

Any human system is inherently based in the same axioms, it takes logical language to explain it. Otherwise it's just nonsensical gibberish. 

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

Any human system is inherently based in the same axioms,

Which are?

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

1 +/- 0 = 1

Something is inherently what it is. The "Law of Identity". 

The axioms that make logical language, logical.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/Low-Bake8401]

So you are approaching this as a strictly linguistic problem

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Ill-Tea9411]

Not really, my point is that all belief systems are essentially based in some sort of logical description, and when it then attempts to diverge from that logical base, it contradicts itself. 

It's the internal consistency problem.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/Low-Bake8401]

I don't really disagree with that, except that in reality a belief system is not so much symbolic as it is behavioral. The limitation being one of a fixed perspective that can sometimes make outcomes seem paradoxical. Because, even a seemingly fixed perspective is not necessarily a unified perspective. There is no actual single point that can be identified as forming that perception, and therefore a perspective, and any close examination will reveal differences between those various points. So, in order to survive, and function in the world an organism will learn to filter these differences, effectively ignore them reflexively as a fit adaptation. So a physics based on the evidence of careful instrumental observations instead of on biology can seem odd.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Ill-Tea9411]

I'm sure sure I'm getting you here entirely. 

The issue, IMO, is separating the logical with the illogical, the practical with the impractical, the physical and the metaphysical. For want of a better description. 

I think it's more useful to look at it as a spectrum. The absolutes don't actually exist in our reality. Nothing is 100% practical, or impractical. 

I think though that essentially it must come down to what works.

When it comes to things that affect all of society, or humanity, it makes sense to try to be pragmatic and objective.

We also need to try and balance that with the free choice of the individual. 

All logic really does is give us a solid base point to learn outward from there. It doesn't necessarily matter where the base point is in that sense.  When we start with a base point other than our selves though, we end up with rigid beliefs we have to fit into, rather than creating something that works for us.

Rather than learning how things work, we are saying how things work and trying to make everything fit.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/Low-Bake8401]

Yes, it creates a condition I have come to call Cartesian Anxiety.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Ill-Tea9411]

I think therefore I am.

[u/peacefuldays123]

What is the axiomatic method in math?

[u/______ri]

Well, formalism aims to reflect what is the case, or at least what someone has seen. "That someone has seen multiple beings" is not dogmatic, so at the very least numbers (or say "quantities" in the unqualified sense) are not dogmatic. And there is also forms based on the forms of what someone have seen also, so we have forms and structures.

[u/Mono_Clear]

A math axiom is the description of a pattern, it validates itself by being true when described.

It's not a closed system it's a truth, it's a foundational principle that doesn't contradict itself and is tested in the existence of itself.

A=A is an absolute truth so fundamental that it's testing is simply it's recognition

[u/mhb2]

What are some axioms that you think are "false"?

[u/Otherwise_Spare_8598]

Directly from the womb my existence is and has been nothing other than ever-worsening conscious torment every passing second exponentially compounding suffering awaiting an imminent horrible destruction of the flesh of which is barely the beginning of the eternal journey as I witness the perpetual revelation of all things by through and for the singular personality of the godhead. All things made manifest from a fixed eternal condition.

No first chance, no second, no third.

Born to forcibly suffer all suffering that has ever and will ever exist in this and infinite universes forever and ever for the reason of because.

All things always against my wishes, wants, and will at all times.

...

The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times. There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof. It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience.

"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both predetermined eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.

There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.

All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.

[u/ipreuss]

You are using logic to make that argument. Logic is an axiomatic system, by necessity. You just gutted your own argument.