The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-12 19:14:29

My interest in philosophy is what lead me to love mathematics so please bare with me. Those of you who have studied philosophy may find this ridiculous, but I would learn much through your explaining of why.

I was doing my daily philosophizing and started to wonder if the word dialectics and the word mathematics are synonyms.

If dialectics is the process of ariving at truth through logical arguments, and mathematics = logic at it's highest level, then dialectics, in it's most efficient and therefore logical form is: the arriving at truth through mathematical arguments, which is exactly what mathematics is.

Is it not?

Hegelist and Marxist philosophies for example are therfore paradoxes described as: non-mathematical mathematical idealism and non mathmematical mathematical materialism, intrinsically incomplete because of thier inferior and limited non mathematical logics. Therefore, our current methods of philisophical reasoning through lower levels of logic, inevitably result in illusionary truths. Consequently, such paradoxal illusions hold, because of the flawed levels of logic used to prove them superficially.

Is this not in itself in direct contradiction with the definition of dialectics?

Is it logical to attempt to arrive at something "logically" through an inferior means of logic?

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-12 19:59:56

Also, since this is a math forum, and I am newer to math than I am to philosophy, can someone help me prove this argument true or false mathematically?

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-12 21:58:03

If all members of class d, are members of class m, then if x is not a member of class m, x cannot be a member of class d.

And

If any member that appears to be a member of class d but is not a member of class d , also appears to be equal to any member of class m but is not equal to any member of class m, then if x appears to be a member of class d but is not a member of class d, then x also appears to be equal to any member of class m but is not equal to any member of class m.

That's all I got!

Last edited by MATHSKITZO (2006-05-12 22:53:10)

George,Y · 2006-05-13 00:29:38

Math structure is basically based on a simple philosophy-either A, or not, but not both. This is a logical, but insufficient interpretion of our world.
for example, we know that

A->B <=> notB->notA

Proof:
A status can be strictly categoried into B and not B, and a status( though whether it is the same as the former status is unknown) can be categoried into A and not A
then we have
A -> B
notA notB
A cause only B, and A cannot cause notB, which is the very meaning of
A->B
then if notB "turns on", we say that the latter status must fall into notA class to avoid controversary.
then notB->notA

So basically "yes or no"philosophy, yes is yes, no is no, others are Plain #@$!

Last edited by George,Y (2006-05-13 00:30:27)

MathsIsFun · 2006-05-13 00:55:09

MATHSKITZO wrote:

My interest in philosophy is what lead me to love mathematics so please bare with me. Those of you who have studied philosophy may find this ridiculous, but I would learn much through your explaining of why.

I think that philosophy is everyone's subject - we can all examine and think about why we are here, what is beauty, what it means to live a good or bad life.

So philosophy is more art than science (in my humble belief, anyway), and all the proofs in the world may not change what people think.

Some years ago I saw someone had painted a large message on the road in white paint (some days later it was cleaned up). But I will never forget what was written there. It wasn't "Happy New Year", it wasn't rude, it wasn't supporting the local football team. It simple said "Long live self deception". I wonder why?

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-13 01:01:34

George,Y wrote:

Math structure is basically based on a simple philosophy-either A, or not, but not both. This is a logical, but insufficient interpretion of our world.

Is it truly insufficient though, or is it just a matter of analyzing the #@$ out of "our world" in order to properly identify the A's from not A's?

By the way, thanks for deciding to help, despite my apparently maniacal nature of presentation!

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-13 01:33:16

"So philosophy is more art than science (in my humble belief, anyway), and all the proofs in the world may not change what people think."

I believe science and math are also arts, and that any philosophy can be broken down and proven mathematically.

You seem to be implying that philosphical reasoning isn't credible because it's purely human subjectivity right? Yet scientific reasoning in the grand scale, is limited in the exact same way but what I call terrestrial subjectivity.

Also, isn't it from philosophical reasoning from which math evolved in the first place? How can the creator be any less credible than the creation?

How is it that, most of the "ancient" mathematicians that are responsible for the math you learned in school were also philosphers? It seems to me that it's been the more philosphical/scientific type of people who act and cause things to evolve, whereas, the purely "scientific" type of people seem to only react to this and remain complacent, untill a philosphical reasoning again comes along that presents a credible enough possibility of a significant discovery or change in something.

What about guys like Aristotle, or Kepler, a guy who was beyond the point of being philosphical, reaching mystical, yet from his ideas a scientific revolution was born, Newtons laws were sort of based, and modern understanding of science exists.

So basically, all the "non-artistic" methods which dictate your truth, were created by what you may call "artistic" methods?

Last edited by MATHSKITZO (2006-05-13 02:20:35)

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-13 03:07:11

Anyway, I appologise for going against the stigma modern math created, and if I commited blasphemy by failing to abide by any theological guidelines set by sacred Math Gods.

I understand how almost all creative thought has been pretty much stigmatized and indoctrinated out of modern mathematics, despite the it's being the reason modern mathematics exists.

I realize how idiosyncratically preposterous it must seem here for someone to claim to love math, yet to go and call it an art and claim to like philosophy of all things as well. To you guys that's probably like a mass murderer claiming to be a pacifist right?

Anyway, I really do love math and that's why I am here. I will for now on pay closer attention to the current belief system, and I won't cause any controversy by stating an oppinion outside of it.

I just need to get back to math, I want to get as good at it as some of you guys are. It's amazing. Math really is fun, and contains a minimal level of B.S most of the time.

Thanks for not mocking me too bad for having an original oppinion. Nowadays originality can bring about a death penality, or close to it.

Gotta go learn more math ...

MathsIsFun · 2006-05-13 10:46:40

MATHSKITZO wrote:

You seem to be implying that philosphical reasoning isn't credible because it's purely human subjectivity right?

On the contrary, philosophy is entirely credible ... and I find it fascinating. But the ground always shifts under your feet if you examine any area too closely.

What I am saying is that everyone is entitled to develop their own philosophy. You can read what other people say, talk with friends and develop your own beliefs. In fact you can change your beliefs as you go if you want!

So, your philosophy is just fine.

Every philosophical argument has its own counter-argument, including this one!

George,Y · 2006-05-13 23:52:45

I think Marxism is incontigent, for Karl Marx just doubtfully applied Hegellian dialetics to materilism.

By the way, why do you say they are inferior? They themselves claim to have a "better" logic than "yes or no".

Why did I say insufficient? You cannot have 2 same apples, so 2,3...are just approximations for reality.

Ricky · 2006-05-14 05:17:33

Why did I say insufficient? You cannot have 2 same apples, so 2,3...are just approximations for reality.

However, they are the same based on how we judge "sameness." For a mathimatical example, 2 is certainly not the same as 4, but if we judge them based on mod 2 (the remainder when they are divided by 2), then they are the same.

In the same way, the two apples are not exactly the same like 2 and 4, but we call an apple that because it is fruit that comes from an apple tree, and thus, they are the same by how we judge them.

MathsIsFun · 2006-05-14 10:40:13

Ricky wrote:

2 is certainly not the same as 4, but if we judge them based on mod 2 (the remainder when they are divided by 2), then they are the same.

Good example.

Yes, we have to "approximate" the real world when we deal with it. Air Pressure is just the combined effect of being hit by lots of molecules. You tend to get as many hits from the front as from the back, but it is possible (yet highly unlikely) that you would get hit only from the back for a second. You could be suddenly pushed forward in an otherwise still room, and wonder why. Perhaps you would believe in ghosts after that.

To deal with the world in a timely fashion we have evolved to quickly classify things. "A chair", "a bird", etc. But in fact the chair is an enormously complex thing (wood with cellular structure, metal fasteners, etc), but we don't (usually) have time to think about that detail. We just go "Chair - tired - sit".

It is possible that our need to classify things in a hurry influences how we think. And that leads us to the problem: how do we know we are thinking clearly about something when we are using this thing called a brain?

George,Y · 2006-05-14 18:30:00

Ricky wrote:

Why did I say insufficient? You cannot have 2 same apples, so 2,3...are just approximations for reality.
However, they are the same based on how we judge "sameness." For a mathimatical example, 2 is certainly not the same as 4, but if we judge them based on mod 2 (the remainder when they are divided by 2), then they are the same.
In the same way, the two apples are not exactly the same like 2 and 4, but we call an apple that because it is fruit that comes from an apple tree, and thus, they are the same by how we judge them.

Sorry for my rude words. Still I need to explain my definations.

When I mean "reality", I mean "exact " reality as most people would think.
When I mean "approximation", I mean not as exact or detailed as reality. That's what I mean.

Last edited by George,Y (2006-05-15 02:53:47)

Ricky · 2006-05-15 03:09:31

Rude? I didn't see any rudeness at all. Do you mean a poor choice of words?

"I went into this bar and sat down next to a pretty girl. She looked at me and said, "Hey, you have two different colored socks on." I said, "Yeah, I know, but to me they're the same because I go by thickness." - Steven Wright

MATHSKITZO · 2006-05-15 22:08:14

George,Y wrote:

I think Marxism is incontigent, for Karl Marx just doubtfully applied Hegellian dialetics to materilism.
By the way, why do you say they are inferior? They themselves claim to have a "better" logic than "yes or no".

Well, I guess I tend to subconsciously break everything in my life down to Action and Reaction. When I first started looking at Marxist philosophy I realized revolution is a reaction, which is a huge contradiction with respect to Marxist philosophy.

For exampl: Marxists think that revolution is an action, and they try to cover up the contradiction by pointing out how every action contains components of reaction. But think about it, revolution, by the very definition of the word, doesn't just contain components of reaction, it is PURE reaction. Revolution can NOT occur unless there is something to revolt against. That right there, proves it's pure reaction and therefore, the entire Marxist philosophy is flawed. What's funny is, how FEW people have actually noticed this and pointed ito out.

I guess I broke it down into yes and no ... I guess I broke down into mathematical logic with-out even knowing it. I knew MArxist logic was inferior, but I didn't know exactly why, even though the way I saw the flaw was through a mathematical style of logic. Well, now I know.

I get it damnit, I get it ....

Hmmmm ...

Time for more math!

I still think math is an art though ...

Math Is Fun Forum

#1 2006-05-12 19:14:29

The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#2 2006-05-12 19:59:56

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#3 2006-05-12 21:58:03

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#4 2006-05-13 00:29:38

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#5 2006-05-13 00:55:09

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#6 2006-05-13 01:01:34

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#7 2006-05-13 01:33:16

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#8 2006-05-13 03:07:11

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#9 2006-05-13 10:46:40

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#10 2006-05-13 23:52:45

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#11 2006-05-14 05:17:33

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#12 2006-05-14 10:40:13

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#13 2006-05-14 18:30:00

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#14 2006-05-15 03:09:31

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

#15 2006-05-15 22:08:14

Re: The philosophical ramblings of a skitzo.

Board footer