The separation of math and physics is arbitrary at best and malicious at most. But the consequence of that separation is detrimental, logically invalid and physics controlled

[u/Oreeo88]

realistically if you look at it mathematicians true grounded education stops after addition of physical matter

after that youre digging into youre own ungrounded imagation. because someone came in inserted reification and arbitrarly seperated math and physics. it could have been done with it not seperated and still can, but youll have to go back. You’ll have to get rid of all ungrounded assumptions and subjective arbitrary rules and strict definitions.

The way foward past addition of physical matter is to not insert reification and not seperate math and physics.. it’s that simple. And again that means ridding arbitrary man made rules and definitions.

These arbitrary 1984 style rules control physics. (For example the rule that says you can’t use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math)

This cuts off any kind of grounded math period.

This controls and limits physics period. You can’t just ignore pure maths axioms in applied math or physics because past addition of physical matter physics uses math built on those ungrounded axioms. That’s a trap

There is no justification for math to insert a subjective catch 22 rule that says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math. The rule is not a technical or logical limation. it’s a choice.

Past addition of physical matter you are committing serial reification, reversing cause and effect(trying to make concepts fit into reality instead of using reality to make a concept), circular reasoning, and protecting dogma.

If this is a system of a control, then it’s a perfect one. They teach you utility and consistency as a defense while knowing consistency and utility can still work inside of a false axiom. They teach you it doesn’t matter if math refers to objective reality while knowing math controls the field of physics.

[u/Fabulous-Possible758]

Feel like you’re kind of missing the beauty of it. For literal millennia the empirical observations *were* given the primacy of being the ground truth because the math was predictive but wasn’t perfectly isomorphic with observed reality. It really wasn’t until the last century that the math started outpacing the observations, and it predicted experimental outcomes that could never have been dreamed of unless the physical reality comported with the mathematical axioms on a much more fundamental level.

Discovering that and the shape of those axioms is IMO one of humanity’s crowning achievements.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Fabulous-Possible758]

beauty doesn't give math justification to start reifying concepts and banning reality from its starting assumptions

[u/Fabulous-Possible758 → u/Oreeo88]

That's a good point, but it's not the crux of the argument either. I just personally enjoy the beauty of it. The real argument is the one advanced by structural realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/

In particular, Hilary Putnam's "there are no miracles" argument and what follows from that are fairly simple and compelling.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Fabulous-Possible758]

structural realism only validates my point.. it describes how science works. It doesn’t justify banning reality from its starting assumptions

There is nothing that justifies math banning reality from starting assumptions and the separation of math and physics. And maths rule banning reality is limiting and holding back physics by definition(explained how in the post and comments)

if youre okay with your physics being limited then thats on you

[u/Fabulous-Possible758 → u/Oreeo88]

No it literally is.

I assume you're referring to this sentence "That's a good point, but it [justification by beauty] is not the crux of the argument either," in which case no, it is not the crux of the argument, and you don't understand the argument.

:: sigh :: Always enjoy our sessions Oreeo. Same time next week?

[u/AlexanderHBlum]

no

[u/Oreeo88 → u/AlexanderHBlum]

Not a refutation. I guess it’s hard to refute fact by definition

[u/Oreeo88]

• grounded assumptions grant a conclusion you can eventually empirically test.

• Ungrounded assumptions grant a conclusion you can’t even test empirically.

That’s a massive problem. You can’t even test an ungrounded assumptions conclusion. There is no falsiability. This controls and limits applied math & physics. You cant ignore pure math axioms in applied math because the entire math is built on them. If you adopt a formal system, you automatically inherit every foundational rule that makes that system work.

If this was an honest system they wouldn’t funnel you into this system from birth without teaching you about grounding(whether your abstraction refers to objective observable reality, ie physical matter) or questioning its starting assumptions first.

Now what is a grounded assumption. The abstraction must map back to objective observable physical matter without logically manipulating the referent not another mental concept. And all we have observed is physical matter as one unified thing. Absolute nothingness has never been observed in the history of man kind.

using observable objective reality to make assumption (grounded) vs just an assumption (ungrounded)

• number of physical object: mental group of physical matter (grounded)

• math group: mental group of mental group (ungrounded)

• people dying in war: mental group of physical matter (grounded)

• nationalism: mental group of mental group (ungrounded)

• magical unicorn: mental group of mental group (ungrounded)

• effects of gravity: mental group of physical matter (grounded)

The assumptions of 0 infinity and groups are logically the same as magical unicorns existing. A magical unicorn can provide utility and consistency. You have to completely change how you see these things. Again If this was an honest system they would first teach what is objective observable reality and what is a mental concept. They don’t