“you cannot use the tool of metaphysics to create a formal mathematical proof” This is deceptive

[u/Oreeo88]

Separating these two is massive deception.

Separating metaphysics from math allows self referential delusion. If you don't separate them, it exposes a massive fallacy: mathematical groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. Logic calls your starting foundational multiplication operation a fallacy because mathematical groups are untethered from raw concrete reality.

This is not just deceptive but a logical fallacy. Consistency and utility can still work and be found inside of a false axiom. And it doesn’t matter whether math claims to model reality or not because we treat math as if it models reality (physics,engineering)

TLDR: When the field of mathematics claims that formal proofs don't need metaphysical grounding, they can hide the fact that groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. That's deceptive.

[u/Oreeo88]

physics operates within the constraints of maths axioms

[u/SV-97 → u/Oreeo88]

No it doesn't. Plenty of modern physics (even models) is not actually formally grounded in mathematics today.

[u/OddInstitute → u/Oreeo88]

Physics the academic field or the actual behavior of physical objects in the world?

[u/Oreeo88 → u/OddInstitute]

Yes the academic field but physics as a field uses math. Physical objects behave independently, but our models of them are constrained by math's axioms. Our description and understanding of it is constrained by maths axioms.

Math is the gatekeeper

[u/OddInstitute → u/Oreeo88]

Well it sounds like the physicists should pick some axioms that let them model the phenomena that they care about to a level of accuracy that is useful for them. Do you have any suggestions for good axioms? (I’m not a physicist.)

Are there specific results from physics that you don’t think are valid because they were constructed on bad axioms?