/lit/ - Literature

>>14569637
who invented math?

>>14569651
Math invented math; ad infinitum.

But mathematics is not even complete as a set of provable axioms. How can it be universally infallible?

>>14569678
>math as known can't currently explain everything so it's wrong

Math doesn't exist and is the subjective assimilation of the man without organs within the Dionysian plane of Osiris. Only once you realize Iamblicus symbolically castrated Plato retroactively can you realize that the last man of the Kali Yuga was, paradoxically, the spectacle of capital that ontologically perished in the race war of years gone by. Thus, when John Baptist said that he was unworthy of losing the sandals of the man that would soon arrive, he fully assimilated the symbolic hierarchy of post-modernism and the flows that parasitically circulate within its own solar anus. To be cast away from the veil of the hylic nature one has to read the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and fully commit self-death, not to the Oedipal complex of course, but rather to the life fulfilling machine of capital that violates every single categorical imperative and leads one on into the realm of beyond-being-self when one can only see the reflected Id as the Psychic self of Shankara, as Guenon (pbuh) once said.

That's just my opinion

>>14569697
its not so much that it can't "explain everything" as that it can't explain itself. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

>>14569723
>as Guenon (pbuh) once said.
I keked

>>14569726
Math explains itself through math. What comprises the metaphysics of math? Math. Math is math is math for infinity. This is why it’s infallible. And before you say math is just our interpretation - math is our interpretation of the fundamental and un-excludable properties of existence: i.e the point, lines, circle, triangle, etc.

>>14569723
This is just your interpretation and it’s filled with garbage nonsense meant to manipulate people beyond the fundamental specs of truth you manage to sprinkle in the flowery prose. Sophists get the rope.

>>14569637
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Also I was in a car with three other people a month ago and saw a fucking ghost or something. Everyone saw it with me, and I don't know what to make of it. It hurt my skepticism really hard

>>14569637
Read about atomic decay.

>>14569741
>>14569741
I mean that seems pretty recursive. Have you read Godel or the other logicians attempt to complete mathematics? Doesn't it seem questionable to just essentially interpret it as itself when its difficult to define how it operates? Even if I take what you say as true, which is questionable, what makes it so that something is itself gives it infallible? What do you mean by infallible? I

>>14569780
It is meant to be recursive because if it were recursive then it would prove to be unstable and our universe could never manifest as we currently know. Infallible in the sense that regardless of temporal laws, non-temporal follows the strict code of ordered beings represent timeless constructs of more commonly known as forms. A point will forever be a point, and a line will forever be a line. These things exist regardless of material necessary to observe its existence and if multi-dimensions were proven to be a truth, these rules and laws would hold true regardless of the other dimensions properties. You cannot transfer a point in our universe to not be a point in another, and same with a line in our universe cannot not be a line in another. They are infallible in this sense.

>>14569798
>if it were recursive
if it were NOT recursive**

>>14569774
Half-lives of elements are predictable and follow a mathematical formula.

>>14569798
As a tag on for further clarification: a closed being (which we call a circle) may not be known in another dimension as a circle. This is the property of interpretation. They have interpreted the infallible into a concept which is transferable fo fallible things. Alternate dimensions, if they possess circles, will be a circle due to the infallibility of the construct

>>14569751
Well, yeah. There are further dimensions of infallible ideas, but for the most part those are irrelevant until we can conclusively agree as an entity that the logos is infallible through itself. When we do agree then we can move onto other less obvious infallibilities

>>14569798
This whole idea of forms seems like a marketing strategy for metaphors to me. A made up idea from internality to give imaginary order to something. All in all it sounds like imagination. Concern yourself and the world with materialism and material reality: those things are provably real and do not need their ideal 'platonic' form. It all seems idealist and thus ideological and capitalistic. I won't have a retreat to the rare air of high metaphor to explain an immaterial thing, and have very little interest in the claim that lines and points (themselves arithmetically incomplete) are somehow indicators of ideal forms. Platonism and idealism are boring and played out marketing tactics. Give yourself a break, form man.

>>14569854
Oh, so I should just sit back and let the marxists implement their own form of form-brainwashing meant to manipulate people into believing the universal truths lead to someplace which I don’t agree? I see you’re retarded enough not to understand that the game of semantics has been played far longer on the idea of forms than any other existential concept. You’re suckered into the con-man game of retreating back to what is comfortable and recognizable. You’re weak and afraid.

>>14569849
You could just have just said that faith is for that which reason cannot explain.

>>14569878
So you admit that your whole notion is ideological and has very little to do with math. Good, that gets us somewhere. With regard to universal truth I'm more interested in epistemology and ways of knowing /how/ we know than universal truth, which marx and marxists like myself initiate in capital. In the end I'm not so concerned with accepting truth as constructing a method of dialectic understanding of reality (forgive me if that is unclear.) If you disagree that's probably fine but I'd maybe step back from the disingenuous math games and state your position more plainly. I would start with the idealism.

Laplace's Demon still lives?

>>14569919
>So you admit that your whole notion is ideological and has very little to do with math
>I use math for the laymen as using extraordinary terms like the Lacanians is garbage pseudo-intellect meant to shut off the normie world which requires this knowledge in order to proceed spiritually through the materially advanced world.
>> which marx and marxists like myself initiate in capital
>The funny thing is, Marx ripped off every metaphysician before him and just inserted it into the economic field house once he realized no one had done that and he can make a killing selling “theory”.
>If you disagree that's probably fine but I'd maybe step back from the disingenuous math games and state your position more plainly
>So I should obscure my terminology through a myriad of labyrinths like Marx when he immediately dives into non-sequiturs in his breakdown of “Capital”? I know you only posit this idea simply because you want your own ideology to reign supreme. You don’t like the idea of metaphysics being boiled down to something easily explainable like points,
>lines, and circles. What’s more is that this explanation makes redundant any other form, like Marxism. It simply makes you useless and a sophist faggot.

>>14569919
>So you admit that your whole notion is ideological and has very little to do with math
I use math for the laymen as using extraordinary terms like the Lacanians is garbage pseudo-intellect meant to shut off the normie world which requires this knowledge in order to proceed spiritually through the materially advanced world.
> which marx and marxists like myself initiate in capital
The funny thing is, Marx ripped off every metaphysician before him and just inserted it into the economic field house once he realized no one had done that and he can make a killing selling “theory”.
>If you disagree that's probably fine but I'd maybe step back from the disingenuous math games and state your position more plainly
So I should obscure my terminology through a myriad of labyrinths like Marx when he immediately dives into non-sequiturs in his breakdown of “Capital”? I know you only posit this idea simply because you want your own ideology to reign supreme. You don’t like the idea of metaphysics being boiled down to something easily explainable like points, lines, and circles. What’s more is that this explanation makes redundant any other form, like Marxism. It simply makes you useless and a sophist faggot.

>>14569914
Reason can explain everything.

>>14569948
I dunno man I feel like materialism is a bit easier to understand than an abstract fictional metaphorical device called a 'point' that is meant to represent an unchanging eternal ideal 'thing' floating outside yet within reality but thats just me. Good luck with the complexities and struggles of idealism as refracted through mathematical ideology though it seems like a waste of time to me.

>>14569963
hope you see a fucking ghost like I did then

>>14569976
>I just feel like it’s easier to use the material to explain the immaterial
Are you really this retarded? Are you incapable of understanding what points, lines, and circles are? Nah, let’s just use arbitrary terms like commodity that have no significant source of metaphysician foundation other than whatever way you shoehorn the narrow definition into the actual metaphysics.

>>14569981
You’re just retarded and weak at recognizing patterns. Look, it’s not my fault I don’t makes

>>14569993
It's clearly not your fault you "don't makes", smug boy

>>14569637
Math has already proven that the universe isn’t deterministic though

>>14569987
Why would I ever explain the 'immaterial' as a marxist? Why are points and lines and so on material rather than metaphorical? If math is a language as some people say then I don't see why its symbols are anything more than metaphors to describe its topics. I mean sure math is useful to explain natural phenomena and the material world, but why painfully contort a metaphor into some kind of undefined abstract thing? Why leverage it to at the very least uncertain or immaterial realms as spirit or perfection, especially when logicians have already discussed many of its humanly invented limitations. It seems questionable

>>14569723
>To be cast away from the veil of the hylic nature one has to read the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>14569723

is this the true schizoposter? this is good

>>14570028
You’re an idiot. Or a j*w. Probably both.

>>14570024
>we can prove things are random
>we did it using math
Uh-oh.

>>14570047
It’s not good, it’s terrible sophistry.

>>14570049
k

>>14570024
that's not true. If you are talking about probabilistics, mind you nothing is really probabilistic, but some processes are so complex (and unknowable and immesurable) that we only bother with the outcomes, for their mechanics are so difficult to solve. So we analyse the frequency of outcomes and call that statistics and probabilistic. Examples: eletrosphere orbitals, fluid mechanics (kolmogorov)...

>>14569637

>What is the burden of proof?

Just because I can't disprove it doesn't mean it's true, fagit.

numbers cannot determine anything other than numbers, nice pre-modern category mistake

>>14570059
>>we can prove things are random
>>we did it using math
Exactly
>>14570078
>nothing is really probabilistic
Wrong. Everything is.

>>14570110
How do you know?

>>14569637
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!

>>14571519
How can something ever be without-probability?

>>14569637
hmm. smells like undergrad. are you trying /lit/ because /sci/ called you retarded or are you just so bad at math that it looks like god to you