Thread 16831454

>It is impossible to conceive of mathematics without geometric and chronological intuition

Was he right?

>an understanding of space and time
sure
if you have to think and analyze, you are living in space and time
if you are outside of both, you dont need to analyze, you are above that

>>16831454 (OP)
>It is impossible to conceive of mathematics without geometric and chronological intuition
the claim is epistemologically relative, not absolute.

>>16831454 (OP)
Yes.
The effort to prove that Mathematics is just logic failed and died with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

>>16831553
Weres the logic behind that.

>>16831454 (OP)
He's right

>>16831454 (OP)
It is hard to imagine a creature that exists in space and time that wouldn't develop intuitions about space and time prior to conceiving of mathematics. Perhaps we could simulate such an intelligence now.

>>16831454 (OP)
he is kinda right. I would go further and say its impossible to conceive of mathematics without objects. Because that's literally how one quantifies.

I dont give a fuck about what you imagine in your brain you dont imagine an "essence" you imagine something more objective with shape.

1 orange, 2 oranges, 3 oranges, etc

the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are just symbols to represent the quantity of "something"
so without OBJECTIVE existence, that is that which has physical presence there would be NO math, nothing to quantify. Just a spacious empty unthinking black nihilistic void.

yes im racist

>>16831454 (OP)
No and most of what have been said about math before the 20th century is obsolete (set theory don't require geometric intuition). See formal logic books for reliable philosophy about math.

He had a relevant insight about math being somehow innate though.

>>16832270
absolutely retarded and idealistic statement lol
Kant was onto somehting, he is right in fact but he words it poorly.

>>16831553
The Incompleteness Theorem applies to all lifical systems. Not just math.

>>16831553
>>16832274
>lifical
*logical

>>16832274
retarded
brother physical existence itself is not a "logical system" its just matter in motion, it doesn't even think, and yes matter is what generates the forces with are called its "Laws". We are not inside a "system" either a thought of someone or a video game matrix kinda shit.

There is just matter and we human life developed the capacity to quantify matter and reason around it, that is it. I don't give a fuck if you believe in the "mind realm" or whatever the fuck, there is nothing holy about retarded ass math, its just quantifying. You are not special you are a nerd retard that should get beat the fuck out for being a midwit.

>>16832276
>physical existence itself is not a "logical system
Correct. And this applies to math as well.
Math, and logic in general, were invented by humans to describe reality and are not intrinsic parts of it.
Idk what the fuck you're upset about, retard.

>>16831454 (OP)
He forgot to add one thing:
>it is impossible
>FOR ME

>>16832282
nature invented all humans
humans invented all math
therefore, nature invented all math

A -> all B
B -> all C
A -> all C

The anon you are replying to is not me by the way. You're just wrong, and that sperging anon is dropping bars, calling you out for the fraud that you are, even if he is acting like a sperg about it.

>>16832276
>We are not inside a "system" either a thought of someone or a video game matrix kinda shit.
And how do you know that? The universe might as well be a simulation, we are just biological machines anyway.

>>16832322
He might not be you but you have the same mental illness.

>nature invented all humans
>humans invented all math
>therefore, nature invented all math
By this logic, one cannot distinguish between the natural and synthetic.
Nature also invented bicycles. Nature invented crystal meth.

Not that any of this even matters. The conversation this far has been:
>Godel incompleteness theorem proves math isn't just logic
>but theorem applies to math and logic in the same exact way
>but we don't live in a logical system
>the same could be said about math
And now you make this post which... what even is your point?

>>16831597
what's the use case for the logic behind that.

>>16831454 (OP)
the mathematics he knew about was child's pretend-play compared to modern math. he isnot so much wrong as irrelevant.