meaninglessness of mathematic science and all views

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » meaninglessness of mathematic science and all views

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

pam69ur
 
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 10:21 am
It is claimed that mathematics and science are meaningless in that they entail or collaspe into self-contradiction and paradox. It is claimed that there are paradoxes at the heart of mathematics and science that make them meaningless. The mystry become that even though work and creats a pc or rockets to the moon they are logivally not true . So how can they create usaefull things when by the laws of logic they are false


This author argues
Epistemological meaninglessness is different to and undermines skepticism and nihlism and claims these views entail meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness has its greatest advocate in the philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. According to Dean's version epistemological meaninglessness entials logically via the rules of logic that all our concepts, all morals all relgions, ideas of good , evil, notions of freedom, democracy all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses all philosophies all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, skepticism, nihlism, all metaphysics, even logic itself etc in other words all views, are meaningless, epistemologically- as they all logically entail meaninglessness ie self-contradiction and paradox.


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/contentlessthought.pdf Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views].

The logic reduces all views to meaninglessness even mathematics and science

The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views) http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf

. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling.]" Even meaninglessness entials meaninglesness logically. Logic when turned back on itself and investigates itself parodoxicaly entials meaninglessness or self-contradiction
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/logiccentrismbook.pdf. Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views).

Epistemological meaninglessness goes beyound nihlism and skeptcism in claiming even these views ential meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness paradoxically even claims that logically epistemological meaninglesness entials meaninglessness. Logic demonstrates that every thing including itself ential meaninglesssness or self-contradiction.

In Dean's version of epistemological meaninglessness Logic cannot prove or disprove anything all that it does is reduce all views to self-contradiction- including itself. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness [ self-contradiction]of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/dialectic.pdfThe dialectic reductio ad absurdum argument: a method of philosophical argumentation or analysis demonstrating the meaninglessness of all views)

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE CLAIMS

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
 
spencer phil
 
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 09:08 am
@pam69ur,
Thats a lot of words to attempt to explain a very simple "untruth"
here's another lot.
as far as i am concerned there are no truths only "untruths"..the absence of absolute truth makes all things meaning less.
The word "meaning" is conceptual abstraction born of human thinking and conditioned by the human perspective on (un)reality/existence.
these viewpoints are naturally erroneous on a universal/eternal scale and therefore the attempt to define the truth using an erroneous concept as a foundation to start the investigation from will only result in an erroneous conclusion.
most theories on this planet have been developed based on erroneous assumptions which can naturally only lead to false answers.
whether something is meaningless or not is a "meaningless" thing to try to divine.
Because the word meaning is a human abstract concept and not a universal element that is essentially built in to the core of all aspects of existence.
why should we need to have a meaning? meanings are finite "depending on the context/case" relative "truths" (untruths) that we use as tools to relate with the phenomena that we encounter in the sphere that seems to be "not self" (the outside world), but they are only tools, and have no real substance in the objective universe/reality.
hope i make sense.
on a less etheric level; as for the mathematical and scientific meaningless
that occurs with many scientific theories this is also normal because the way a theory produces results are chiefly influenced by the ASSUMPTIONS made about the basic "truths" or "facts" or "data" upon which the theory is based.
E=MCsquared would be well screwed if we live in a world where the value of C was variable depending on what part of the planet you were on or what time of year it was.."E" would ha a series of different answers depending on the "C" factor..all of which would be "true" answers in their particular case.
The truth is there is no truth.
and that's why all the untruths in science work.
within the laws of the other untruths.
A friend of mine prefers to call this "relative truth"
which makes sense to me as if there are no truths then the sentence there are no truths means that it is a lie...meaning that there are truths...one thing cancels the other out.
a bit like existence.
if you look at a/c current flow. on off on off on off.
it's like existence.
let's look into the sphere/dimension of "potential" or "possibility"
what is the most impossible thing of all?
answer; that there is anything existing at all except for infinit dark void and timelessness.
if that was all then that would be "everything"
the nothing is everything.
suddenly zero becomes one.
the nothing IS "all there is" all there is means everything.
which is an existential object.
i believe that we are constantly being created and destroyed within the same split moment repeatedly.
it's impossible to have just empty nothingness so as that happenms the void is instantly filled with all things in pottential existance
making the universe.
in the very same split second the impossibility of it all crushes that same universe into an infinite void again. and so we flicker.
look a t maths look at electric current atoms molecukles tachyons anything in the universe you can find these two principles even the way a PC thinks is in 0 an 1 nothing and everything is and not is.
two sides of a coin supporting each other.
any comments?
 
Imprismed
 
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 12:31 pm
@spencer phil,
spencer wrote:
E=MCsquared would be well screwed if we live in a world where the value of C was variable depending on what part of the planet you were on or what time of year it was.."E" would ha a series of different answers depending on the "C" factor..all of which would be "true" answers in their particular case.
The truth is there is no truth.
and that's why all the untruths in science work.
within the laws of the other untruths.
A friend of mine prefers to call this "relative truth"



A negative times a negative equal a positive. The "untruths" working in a context of "untruth" is merely an opposite paradigm, equally valid, to what we might consider to be "true".

It's a bit like a liar stating that he has never spoken a true word.

If "Science" singles out manifest aspect of reality and calls it truth, according it's "relationship" to the instrumentation "Science" uses, then that "symptom" is OF the whole truth, regardless of reductionism, and therefore not untrue- it is merely a reflection from an arbitrary surface within the bounds of our perception. Our perception, even if "Maya", or illusion, is still a manifestation from the context of "truth".

There are roots to reality.

The part about the "flickering" could have validity to it, from the view atop this soap box at least-

I have some theories about the continuity of consciousness that is related- in that continuity we take for granted is not as "real" as it seems. I'm not going to go into that whole thing here, but I think there there is such thing as communal confirmation of intuitive generalized patterns of truth.. sort of a collective unconscious that speak not in mathematics or dream materials, but in the generalizations of individuals perceiving large patterns.

The words are often different, as are the specific ideas.. but they tend to flow is a singular direction. The overall patterns that emerge from these should be observed and considered.

So, wrap it- I'm sure there are "truths" in most concentrated ideas in a general pattern, and the interpolation of these small truths will eventually lead to larger, whole, truths.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » meaninglessness of mathematic science and all views
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 05:44:47