Math depends on axioms which are based upon fallible human observation

[Romanov]

I’m a relativist, truth is a paradox to me. What’s absolute is the relativity of the absolute. As such, I have pondered this question for a while…Is math truly objective? I haven’t arrived to a conclusion as to what math is, but I have arrived at the conclusion that math is not objective. I started off with first asking something silly such as, “Is 2 plus 2 always 4?” Upon further investigation I came across the concept of, ‘axiom’. I then asked, “What is an axiom exactly?” And everywhere I looked, I kept seeing an axiom being defined as an assumption, a postulate. In fact many mathematicians define an axiom as exactly that. Axioms serve as a starting point for further reasoning and this is how math can get very complex at higher levels. 

Alright so if an axiom is only an assumption, what is the root of that assumption? Human observation. It’s the same observation that leads to the belief in a separate self, the ego. Humans try to not be biased but so long as subjectivity exists, there will be bias. Math cannot be ‘bias-free’ and neither can science. Math cannot be absolute because to consciousness there is no difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Romanov

[Osaid]

Math is based on imaginary distinctions, so yes it is conceptual. A tool. A projection. It's a way of looking at the world which shows us patterns and helps us understand and work with things better, but just because something is useful doesn't necessarily mean it is based on truth. At the very least, it might lead you to truth, like a finger pointing at the moon.

[Romanov]

12 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Math is based on imaginary distinctions, so yes it is conceptual. A tool. A projection. It's a way of looking at the world which shows us patterns and helps us understand and work with things better, but just because something is useful doesn't necessarily mean it is based on truth. At the very least, it might lead you to truth, like a finger pointing at the moon.

Exactly. And by no means am I trying to say math is useless, it’s very useful. Buttttt, useful≠absolute truth. 
 

I just think that math is the strongest argument for objectivity, and for that reason alone I focused on challenging it. One cannot believe in an absolute truth without believing math is absolute. I don’t find belief in a god to be the problem, but belief in absolute truth. The idea that there is truly something material outside of consciousness.
 

How in the world can anything be perceived without the perceiver? 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Romanov

[Leo Gura]

@Romanov You are correct in noticing that no system of logic or knowledge can work without axioms and assumptions.

All formal logical systems are in fact constructed using a carefully selected set of axioms. These axioms are formally declared.

There are in fact an infinite number of possible logical systems based on an infinite number of various axioms.

There exist very unusual types of logics which do not correspond to the logic of physical human reality, similar to how there are various unusual types of non-Euclidian geometeries which do not correspond to our physical universe.

Edited September 21, 2022 by Leo Gura

[RMQualtrough]

This is philosophy I think, but the interesting kind. Math is based on things like, designating a banana item one then another banana as another one. And together you have two bananas.

Logic and numbers, seem to be things happening in it but could they be any other way? Could 2 + 2 be 5? If two bananas placed beside two bananas magically transformed into 5 of them, maybe we'd say yes.

[amanen]

Math isn't objective. God can just change the structure of logic or math itself, which would invalidate everything in it. It wouldn't work in this universe though, because we already have a specific system set up. We can't even think many of these different structures because our own logic does not allow for these possibilities. The construction is so deep that absolutely no structure is fundamental, which means that there are infinite ways of structuring logic. There could even be consciousness (and probably is) that does not operate on any kind of logic at all, that's how fundamentally powerful the self-construction ability of consciousness is, it does not require any logic but can create it if necessary. It can make any arrangement whatsoever, including all "impossible" ones.

[r0ckyreed]

9 hours ago, Romanov said:

Math cannot be ‘bias-free’ and neither can science.

Not sure how you concluded this. Science and math can and will evolve over time. How do you know that math and science cannot be bias free in 500 years from now or with aliens, etc.?

Meditation is a form of science, and meditation isn’t biased? 

I agree with you that math will always be limited due to it being locked in the conceptual world of numbers, but science is not limited to that language/logic game. Conventional science is limited to language, but the science of spirituality is not limited to language but transcends it.

Spirituality and science are one.

Edited September 22, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[Romanov]

2 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Not sure how you concluded this. Science and math can and will evolve over time. How do you know that math and science cannot be bias free in 500 years from now or with aliens, etc.?

Meditation is a form of science, and meditation isn’t biased? 

I agree with you that math will always be limited due to it being locked in the conceptual world of numbers, but science is not limited to that language/logic game. Conventional science is limited to language, but the science of spirituality is not limited to language but transcends it.

Spirituality and science are one.

I guess I meant science in the conventional sense that hinges on a materialistic paradigm, that there is a world outside of consciousness comprised of stuff called matter 

[r0ckyreed]

8 hours ago, Romanov said:

I guess I meant science in the conventional sense that hinges on a materialistic paradigm, that there is a world outside of consciousness comprised of stuff called matter 

Gotcha. Science is too broad to be limited by materialism. Quantum mechanics seems to be challenging materialism. 

[Mu_]

19 hours ago, Romanov said:

I’m a relativist, truth is a paradox to me. What’s absolute is the relativity of the absolute. As such, I have pondered this question for a while…Is math truly objective? I haven’t arrived to a conclusion as to what math is, but I have arrived at the conclusion that math is not objective. I started off with first asking something silly such as, “Is 2 plus 2 always 4?” Upon further investigation I came across the concept of, ‘axiom’. I then asked, “What is an axiom exactly?” And everywhere I looked, I kept seeing an axiom being defined as an assumption, a postulate. In fact many mathematicians define an axiom as exactly that. Axioms serve as a starting point for further reasoning and this is how math can get very complex at higher levels. 

Alright so if an axiom is only an assumption, what is the root of that assumption? Human observation. It’s the same observation that leads to the belief in a separate self, the ego. Humans try to not be biased but so long as subjectivity exists, there will be bias. Math cannot be ‘bias-free’ and neither can science. Math cannot be absolute because to consciousness there is no difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. 

You may enjoy a couple of video's I made that are in tangent with this question you ask and may provide some fundamental answers about reality and thus this question.

If you have any questions, or objections, please bring them up, its useful for stuff like this and understanding Truth and yourself.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Mu_

[Vibroverse]

Well, yes, a=a might be an imagination ultimately, consciousness ultimately, if we think of existence as consciousness, but what we need to accept and deal with, I guess, is it is a deeeeeeeeeeeeep level imagination. 

[Leo Gura]

A = A is beyond logic. It's Absolute Truth. No getting around that one.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Vibroverse]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A = A is beyond logic. It's Absolute Truth. No getting around that one.

What if we can even get around that one? ???

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Vibroverse

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Vibroverse said:

What if we can even get around that one? ???

What if we can't?

[Vibroverse]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What if we can't?

But when you say 1+1 does not equal 2, don't you imply that 1 does not equal 1, and doesn't that also imply that a is not equal to a? 

[Leo Gura]

Maybe 1+1 equals 2?

And maybe I equals U?

Edited September 22, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Vibroverse]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Maybe 1+1 equals 2?

I think you're trying to say "maybe all is about love", and I think I'd agree with that, haha.