lemonwood
@lemonwood@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
What do you actually think it’s philosophy and what do you propose instead? How do you know your “tools” are better? Better by which criteria? Why those and not others? Even just attempting to answer any of these questions is doing philosophy. You can’t escape it. Framing philosophical questions in the language of say, set theory, like Russel did, dosn’t answer them. It’s just using another language. The Vienna Circle thought (inspired by Wittgenstein) that using a formal language would make the answers perfectly clear. And the one who refuted them, proofed them wrong, was no other then the one they admitted the most, Wittgenstein himself. No one will take your ideas seriously, if you don’t engage with this history first. I’m not saying it’s pointless or stupid, it might well be worthwhile. You just have to do it first or end up embarrassingly chasing around the first idea that pops into your head. Like “I feel sure about my answers in a math test and unsure about my essay in philosophy class, that’s why math is the best and philosophy is stupid” this is the infantile, level your understanding of both philosophy and math is at currently. Or maybe it isn’t, but it sure seems this way, since you haven’t clearly articulated you position, nor made any attempt to formulate an argument for them. Not using normal language and not using mathy language.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
Mathematical proofs aren’t generally agreed.
Yes, they are. Have you seen the controversies around many recent proofs? Proofs are getting so long and topics so specialized, that simply just reading them takes for ever. Some important ones have only been checked by one or two people. Some have been out for years and are still controversial, because no one claims to have some the immense work to actually checked them. That’s one of the reasons why proof assistants are used in the first place. They help, but they come with their own problems and challenges.
This is why ethics has failed. It has been built on the unstable foundation of philosophy instead of on the solid foundation of mathematics.
This is such a very old idea and you’re not the first one to have it. Just try it yourself as an exercise. Is like to see how you get an ought from an is with pure math. Every one who tried to build ethics on math only failed. Please, just google it or read some of the links I shared. Philosophers are totally familiar with very advanced math and use it. Again read some articles on like set theory or quantum mechanics on plato.stanford.edu to verify yourself. It’s already being used and always has. Even the antique philosophers were mathematicians. They invented logic and geometry. Every philosophy student through antiquity and the middle ages up to the Renaissance was forced to learn them before getting to the more advanced topics.
No matter how smart you are, other smart people probably had very similar ideas before you, tried to formalize them, got challenged, responded, tried again and so on. The history of their work is the history of philosophy. Trying to do better without even reading any of it would fit the definition of being naive.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
just like human language proofs require the reviewers brains to be bug free to a point. The repeated verification makes proofs as correct as anything can get.
Exactly, I’m glad you understand. There’s no epistemological certainty in math, just like in normal language. We have to make do with being pretty certain, as good as it gets. I like lean for it’s intended purpose: advancing math. No one involved in lean is seriously claiming it produces some kind of religious absolute certainty. Neither is anyone trying to replace philosophy.
Math can’t elevate anything above philosophy, because in a sense, it is part of philosophy, one of the parts using specialized language, specifically the part that is concerned with tautologies.
Have you clicked on the links to the philosophy wiki I provided? Maybe read about what a brilliant mathematician and philosopher has written on the philosophy of mathematics to convince yourself, that philosophy of mathematics is valuable and necessary (wether you agree or not). You’re already engaging in philosophical debate yourself. Your claims about the nature of philosophical arguments and mathematical proofs are themselves philosophical in nature.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
It’s not about those specific proofs. You’re claiming, that every possible proof stated in lean will always halt. Lean tries to evade the halting problem best as possible, by requiring functions to terminate before it runs a proof. But it’s not able to determine for every lean program it halts or not. That would solve the halting problem. Furthermore, the kernel still relies on CPU, memory and OS behavior to be bug free. Can you be sure enough in practice, yeah probably. But you’re claiming absolute metaphysical certainty that abolishes the need for philosophy and sorry, but no software will ever achieve that.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
Lean runs on C++. C++ is a turning complete, compiled language. It and it’s compiler are subject to the halting problem.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
They already knew that. You’re treading an old work out logical positivist path, that was inspired by Wittgenstein who worked closely with Russell (both mathematicians and philosophers) and he later saw his error, rejected his positivist followers and explained how truth is not a correspondence to facts, rather meaning is derived from use in language. This applies to all languages, formal and informal, including math and logic.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
I explicitly refer to your second paragraph.
I covered those other arguments in another top level comment in this same thread. Yes, you absolutely can argue computer verified proofs. They are very likely to be true (same as truth in biology or sociology: a social construct), but to be certain, you would need to solve the halting problem to proof the program and it’s compiler, which is impossible. Proofing incompleteness with computers isn’t relevant, because it wasn’t in question and it doesn’t do away with it’s epistemological implications.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
They all debated the question what being mathematical means there whole lives.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
I see philosophy as a place to make nonrigorous arguments.
It’s the other way around: math is where your just ignore questions about what makes sense, what knowledge is, what truth is, what a proof is, how scientific consensus is reached, what the scientific method should be, and so on. Instead, you just handwave and assume it will all work out somehow.
Philosophy of mathematics is were three questions are treated rigorously.
Of course, serious mathematicians are often philosophers at the same time.
- Comment on the two party system is just one big party 2 months ago:
If Dems win next election, things will get even worse than they are now. Much, much worse in fact. That’s just the inevitable trajectory capitalism is on. Things would just get worse a bit slower than under Trump, at least for the privileged labor aristocracy in the imperial core. The evil empire would simply be run into the ground by slightly more competent genociders. Revolutionary change is the only way out.
- Comment on the two party system is just one big party 2 months ago:
If Dems were in power now, they’d do fascism too. The economic contradictions have simply increased to a point where fascism is necessary for capitalism to remain profitable for the ultra rich.
- Comment on "Being vegan is unnatural" 2 months ago:
It means this metastudy is less of a study and more of an advertisement. The outcome of a metastudy depends even more on who does it, especially if they make up the criteria for which research is “good” enough to include.
- Comment on Fck it, we ball 2 months ago:
The navigation, technically. Building a compass and using it.
- Comment on Fck it, we ball 2 months ago:
I mean, exactly half of those are actually true.
- Comment on "Being vegan is unnatural" 2 months ago:
This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
- Comment on CONTACT LEFT! 2 months ago:
US soldiers in Iraq didn’t just steal with impunity and without any shame, they didn’t just fight an unjust and murderous war against an innocent population based on nothing but lies, they also ran well organized rings for child kidnapping, rape and sexual slavery for twenty years on multiple US bases.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
This is perfect, thanks. I’ll steal it
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
- Comment on Butter 3 months ago:
Panpsychisr breakfast
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 6 months ago:
Smith goes into great detail in “The wealth of Nations” about how landlords are parasites. He explains why theoretically and empirically and gives specific examples. He lacked an understanding of historical materialism, so he wrongly thought capitalism would naturally get rid of them.
- Comment on Landlords are parasites 6 months ago:
Vienna, Austria is a classic example. Don’t know about the current situation, though.
- Comment on Public service announcement 6 months ago:
No, I think that’s just you.
- Comment on Protect yourselves! 6 months ago:
Geese eat mostly grass though.
- Comment on No um actuallys for the love of god 😭 6 months ago:
Most time would be spent solving the integrals of the trigonometric functions. Those are the kind, that you either just know, or would typically look up in a table, which is where they were taken from for the meme. Though you could do them by hand using substitutution.
- Comment on Truly 7 months ago:
Play Balatro instead. It’s fun without money and has all the poker hands.
