Meaninglessness of mathematics science and all views

[pam69ur]

It is claimed by the philosopher colin leslie dean 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.


gamahucherpress.yellowgum.comContentless 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)

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
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

The 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

[cuppajoe_9]

*puts on pragmatist hat*

Bunk. The reason we have mathematics and logic and science isn't to make a load of nihilists happy, it's to solve actual, real-life problems. Even if there is an inherent self-contradiction somewhere in the statement 1+1=2, if I assume that it's true I can figure out the gas mileage of my vehicle and make sure the clerk at the grocery store hasn't ripped me off and calculate where the moon will be at a particular time of the month and all sorts of useful things. Maybe the assumption that all objects tend to move towards the centre of the earth at a certain number of meters per second per second unless somehow impeded is based on nothing, but I sure as hell want the engineer who designed the elevator that I use every day to be working on that assumption. Maybe the rules of logic are self-defeating, but when I'm falsely accused of being the Boston Strangler, I want the jury to keep them in mind.

[billyjack]

all the things that this dean gal claims to be meaningless are full of meanings! logic, math, yada, yada, ect...reason being, they all use symbols, and symbols represent or mean things--ie. . .symbols are full of meaning.

the only meaningless thing is reality itself. since it doesnt represent anything.

just a side note- meaningless doesnt have bad connotations when i say reality is meaningless. it just means reality doesnt represent anything. rather, everything tries to represent it--and as cupojoe said, some of these representations or meanings are quite pragmatic for everyday life.

is this what dean is saying?

[RobinHood3000]

is this what dean is saying?~shrug~ ...iuno.

I agree with billjack and cuppajoe. Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean it's not practical, and in the real world, that's what matters.

[pam69ur]

but you all miss the point you are all enchanted by the works or magic of maths and science you seem to think because lvthey work then there explantations are correct. This is just a fallacy Get your minds off the magic and see what dean is saying Logically matrhs and science are meaninglessss ie entail self-contradiction yet they work HOW/WHY can they work when logically they are not true. Once we see this mystery we see that maths and science are nothing but magic The real question dean opens up is to find just how they work if logically they are not true. An answer to this might be a real pradigm shift just like copernicus tooks us from an earth centred universe to a more open view So long as you just stay with the magic you will remain with the cave men hudled around your fires with your minds in the straightjacket of superstitiion and magic

[billyjack]

but you al miss the point you are all enchanted by the works or magic of maths and science you seem to think because vthey work then there explantations are correct. This is just a fallacy Get your minds off the magic and see what dean is saying Logically matrhs and science are meaninglessss ie entail self-contradiction yet they work HOW/WHY can they work when logically they are not true. Once we see this mystery we see that maths and science are nothing but magic The real question dean opens up is to find just how they work if logically they are not true. An answer to this might be a real pradigm shift just like copernicus tooks us from an earth centred universe to a more open viewSo long as you just saty with the magic you will reamin with the cave men hudled around your fires with your minds in the straightjacket of superstitiion and magic

pragmattic does not imply correct. the only place contradictions exists is in a logical framework. i think dean is still stuck in this framework that she claims to see from a birds eye view.

i like the phrase straightjacket of superstition. and i agree it needs to be taken off.

[cuppajoe_9]

you seem to think because vthey work then there explantations are correct. This is just a fallacyNo, this is Ockham's Razor. If I build a car, and the car goes from A to B, it's reasonable to assume that 1) I built the car correctly and 2) the principles of physics that allow the car to run are correct. No?


Logically matrhs and science are meaninglessss ie entail self-contradiction yet they work HOW/WHY can they work when logically they are not true.Maybe your first premise is incorrect? Let's start with math, then. 2+2=4. '2', '+', '=' and '4' are all terms which humans have invented the definitions for, thus insuring that the statement will always be true. You are, of course, free to use your own definitions of those terms, but then the clerk at the grocery store will be stealing an awful lot of your money. Where is the contradiction?


So long as you just saty with the magic you will reamin with the cave men hudled around your fires with your minds in the straightjacket of superstitiion and magicYour ad hominems can't hurt me, not while I'm wearing my pragmatist hat.

[pam69ur]

and pragmatics being a view is as meaningless ie entials self-contradiction as all other philosophies You all seem to miss deans point ie every prodiuct of human thinking entails meaninglessness ie scepticism nihlism pragmaticism even meaninglessness etc all entail meaninglessness

you say 2+2=4 but you cant even tell me what a number is tel us what an irrational number is and point to it on a real line

if you had read dean you will se he show you all major paradoxes in mathematics ie set therory probablity axiomatic theory and number theory which ential maths is meaningless
as for you pragmaticism read dean and u will see it entail meaninglessnes like all other views

pragmaticism want save you from utter meaninglessness

[cuppajoe_9]

and pragmatics being a view is as meaningless ie entials self-contradiction as all other philosophiesWhy?


You all seem to miss deans point ie every prodiuct of human thinking entails meaninglessness ie scepticism nihlism pragmaticism even meaninglessness etc all entail meaninglessnessNo, we get the point. He's a nihilist. All is meaningless, nothing can be known or communicated, &c., &c., &c. Are you going to back it up?


you say 2+2=4 but you cant even tell me what a number isIt's a symbol indicating a count, total or quantity of units.


tel us what an irrational number is and point to it on a real lineAn irrational number is one with an infinite number of non-repeating digits. They typically represent such values as the area of a perfect circle, which do not occur in real life. *Points on a number line to a spot slightly to the right of 3.14*. There's pi.

You still haven't pointed out a contradiction.


if you had read dean you will se he show you all major paradoxes in mathematics ie set therory probablity axiomatic theory and number theory which ential maths is meaningless
as for you pragmaticism read dean and u will see it entail meaninglessnes like all other viewsWell, you linked to five books, so if you want to have this conversation, you're going to have to summarize.


pragmaticism want save you from utter meaninglessnessThat's an odd thing to say to an atheist absurdist.

[billyjack]

An irrational number is one with an infinite number of non-repeating digits. They typically represent such values as the area of a perfect circle, which do not occur in real life. *Points on a number line to a spot slightly to the right of 3.14*. There's pi.

.

i think this quote points toward what the creator of this thread is saying. mathematics had to create things that dont exist in order to make their system work. thereby, and tell me if i am wrong here pam69ur, a system that needs things that dont really exist is a contradiction.

[pam69ur]

you say a mumber is
It's a symbol indicating a count, total or quantity of units.
so what count or quanity of units is an irrational number
so point to an irrational number on a realline
and if it never terminates how can a number that never ends exist on a line that does end-contradiction
dean is not a nihlist you just dont get it even nihlism entails meaninglessness

[pam69ur]

hi billyjack
you are correct in your post your post shows just how maths can entail meaninglessness
but maths entails meaningless right at the heat of some of it major areas as dean shows as well

[cuppajoe_9]

you say a mumber is
It's a symbol indicating a count, total or quantity of units.
so what count or quanity of units is an irrational number
Well pi, for example, is the ratio between the diameter and the area of a perfect circle (use whatever units you like).


so point to an irrational number on a reallineI believe I just did.


and if it never terminates how can a number that never ends exist on a line that does end-contradictionIt isn't a contradiction. The number can't be fully calculated, so you use an aproximation.

In any case, what I asked for was the contradiction in the satement 2+2=4.


dean is not a nihlist you just dont get it even nihlism entails meaninglessnessYes, I know nihilism entails meaninglessness. Nihilism is about meaninglessness. Nihilists believe that no epistimological system is valid because nothing can be known. Kind of like Dean, eh?

[pam69ur]

quote
Nihilists believe that no epistimological system is valid because nothing can be known. Kind of like Dean, eh?
no not like dean as dean says this view will ential meaninglesnes-you juist miss the point ALL, EVERY THING entails meaninglessness
you say 2+2 = 4 i say tell me what a numbers is you say an irrational number can exist on a line i say how can a number that dont end exist on a line that ends -contradiction
and all you can say oh it is an approximation sorry that aint good enough u say an irratuional number exist so show me if you cant tell me if an irational number is real or imaginary then you cant tell me if 2 is real or imaginary

and as billjack noted
quote
i think this quote points toward what the creator of this thread is saying. mathematics had to create things that dont exist in order to make their system work. thereby, and tell me if i am wrong here pam69ur, a system that needs things that dont really exist is a contradiction.

[cuppajoe_9]

no not like dean as dean says this view will ential meaninglesnes-you juist miss the point ALL, EVERY THING entails meaninglessnessYes, nihilists believe that all epistimological views are meaningless, including their own.


you say 2+2 = 4 i say tell me what a numbers is you say an irrational number can exist on a line i say how can a number that dont end exist on a line that ends -contradictionIt might be if either 2 or 4 were irrational numbers, or if irrational numbers really didn't exist on a number line.


and all you can say oh it is an approximation sorry that aint good enough u say an irratuional number exist so show me if you cant tell me if an irational number is real or imaginary then you cant tell me if 2 is real or imaginary2 is in fact, a real number. An imaginary number would be the square root of a negative. Two isn't even an approximation, it's an exact value. Still waiting to see a contradiction.

I don't have to create anything that doesn't exist to make two and two equal four, I just have to define carefully.

[RobinHood3000]

entailYou keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Pam69ur, I still don't see any argument to cease and desist using mathematics. Sorry.

[pam69ur]

quote
Yes, nihilists believe that all epistimological views are meaningless, including their own

you miss the point of dean even this views is meaningless

quote
2 is in fact, a real number. An imaginary number would be the square root of a negative. Two isn't even an approximation, it's an exact value. Still waiting to see a contradiction.

and if an irrational number never terminates how can a number that never ends exist on a line that does end-contradiction
u say an irratuional number exist so show me if you cant tell me if an irational number is real or imaginary then you cant tell me if 2 is real or imaginary

so if 2 is real then is an irational number real then show me one not an aproximation but a real existent one on a real line

[RobinHood3000]

Just because it's long doesn't mean it's big. Your logic is flawed - cuppa has pointed to pi without issues on a terminating line (segment).

[pam69ur]

i am not saying not use maths -but just see that there is a mystery as to how it works when it aint logfically true but entials ie ends in or collapses into meaninglessness or self-contradiction

[pam69ur]

contradiction = a number that never ends existing on a real line that ends

[cuppajoe_9]

you miss the point of dean even this views is meaninglessThat is exactly, exactly what I just said.


and if an irrational number never terminates how can a number that never ends exist on a line that does end-contradiction
u say an irratuional number exist so show me if you cant tell me if an irational number is real or imaginary then you cant tell me if 2 is real or imaginaryI don't believe you know the definitions of the words 'real' and 'imaginary' when applied to mathematics. 2 is most defitlely a real number. Imaginary numbers are the square roots of negatives. If you think that 2 is the square root of a negative number, there is something seriously wrong with your counting.


so if 2 is real then is an irational number real then show me one not an aproximation but a real existent one on a real linehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Golden_ratio_line.svg/270px-Golden_ratio_line.svg.png
Not that that has anything to do with the question.

[pam69ur]

is an irational number real then show me one not an aproximation but a real existent one on a real line
contradiction = a number that never ends existing on a real line that ends

u cant tell me if an irrational number is real ie it exists on a real line there for you dont now what 2 is -if you cant tell me what an irrational number is then you dont really know what a number is all you can say is look 2 fingers but you cant say look an irrationbal number

quote
Originally Posted by pam
you miss the point of dean even this views is meaningless
That is exactly, exactly what I just said.
no you said a nihlist belives all epistemological views are meaningless
but he makes one exception his own -show me a nihilist philosipher who says what dean says with a quote

[pam69ur]

even nietzsce beleved in perspectivism which was his absolute epistemology

[cuppajoe_9]

u cant tell me if an irrational number is real ie it exists on a real line there for you dont now what 2 is -if you cant tell me what an irrational number is then you dont really know what a number is allNon sequiter.


you can say is look 2 fingers but you cant say look an irrationbal numberYes I can. I just did. I just showed you phi on a very real and very finite number line. 2+2=4 does not involve any irrational numbers, so it was unnecesary anyway. For your point to hold, you need 2+2=4 to reduce to absurdity, not to misuderstand the meaning of an irrational number.


no you said a nihlist belives all epistemological views are meaningless
but he makes one exception his own

No, I said:


Yes, nihilists believe that all epistimological views are meaningless, including their own


show me a nihilist philosipher who says what dean says with a quoteIt's entirely irrelivant to this discussion and I'm not particularly interested in persuing it. If you are, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) would be a good place to start.

[RobinHood3000]

Based on what I've read so far, the numbers aren't the only irrational entities on this thread.

[pam69ur]

nihlists always believe their negations are based upon a privilged view
dean says even this view is meaningless
dean is unque in being the first to claim eevery view every epistemology every thesis and its anithesis every proiduct of human thinking even meaninlesnes and nihlism entail meaninglessness

contradiction how can a number that never ends exist on a real line -if you cant see that contradiction then there is no pioint debating even the greeks who discovered irrational numbers saw that such that and they decieded to not call irrational numbers numbers at all

[RobinHood3000]

Who was it that said that "Those who refuse to see are no better off than those who cannot see"?

[cuppajoe_9]

contradiction how can a number that never ends exist on a real lineLook at the real line I just showed you. The middle point is an irrational number (specifically, one plus the square root of five divided by two). It exists. The line exists. The line is finite. There are an infinite number of geometric points on a finite line, because geometric points don't have any length. It isn't a contradiction, you just don't understand it.

In any case, the statement 2+2=4 does not contain any irrational numbers!

[pam69ur]

u can point to any thing on a line and say that is an irrational number
BUT
an irational number dont end sio you cant point to its ennd there fore you can point to it
quote
contradiction how can a number that never ends exist on a real line -if you cant see that contradiction then there is no pioint debating even the greeks who discovered irrational numbers saw that such that and they decieded to not call irrational numbers numbers at all

if you can tell me what an irrational numbers is-as the greeks could see -then u cant tell me what a numner like 2 is -and dont just say look 2 fingers
thus with out knowing what numbers are mathematicians dont really know what they are talking about
how can they make things work with out knowing what they are doing
as billyjack pointed out
quote
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 View Post

An irrational number is one with an infinite number of non-repeating digits. They typically represent such values as the area of a perfect circle, which do not occur in real life. *Points on a number line to a spot slightly to the right of 3.14*. There's pi.

.
i think this quote points toward what the creator of this thread is saying. mathematics had to create things that dont exist in order to make their system work. thereby, and tell me if i am wrong here pam69ur, a system that needs things that dont really exist is a contradiction.

[pam69ur]

as billyjack pointed out
quote
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 View Post

An irrational number is one with an infinite number of non-repeating digits. They typically represent such values as the area of a perfect circle, which do not occur in real life. *Points on a number line to a spot slightly to the right of 3.14*. There's pi.

.
i think this quote points toward what the creator of this thread is saying. mathematics had to create things that dont exist in order to make their system work. thereby, and tell me if i am wrong here pam69ur, a system that needs things that dont really exist is a contradiction.

[cuppajoe_9]

an irational number dont end sio you cant point to its ennd there fore you can point to itI can and I have.


if you can tell me what an irrational numbers is-as the greeks could see -then u cant tell me what a numner like 2 is -and dont just say look 2 fingersWhy not?


how can they make things work with out knowing what they are doingBecause they know exactly what they're doing.

[cuppajoe_9]

a system that needs things that dont really exist is a contradiction.No it isn't. A system that defeats itself is a contradiction.

[pam69ur]

quote
No it isn't. A system that defeats itself is a contradiction.
u cant show me the end of an irrational number therefore you cant point to it on a real lline your system just defeated itsself-as the greeks clearly saw

quote
as billyjack pointed out
quote
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 View Post

An irrational number is one with an infinite number of non-repeating digits. They typically represent such values as the area of a perfect circle, which do not occur in real life. *Points on a number line to a spot slightly to the right of 3.14*. There's pi.

.
i think this quote points toward what the creator of this thread is saying. mathematics had to create things that dont exist in order to make their system work. thereby, and tell me if i am wrong here pam69ur, a system that needs things that dont really exist is a contradiction
your seystem just deeated itself

[cuppajoe_9]

u cant show me the end of an irrational number therefore you cant point to it on a real lline your system just defeated itsselfYeah, but dude I can point to an irrational number on a number line. And I already have. In addition, that would not show that the system defeats itself, even if it were true.

I repeat: two and two make five. All of those are rational numbers. Show me the contradiction.

[pam69ur]

you cant [point to a number that never ends there for you can never point to it on a real line
your system defeats itself
how can a number that never ends exist on a line that does end

[cuppajoe_9]

I don't even need to point to any irrational numbers to make two and two equal four. Like changing the topic much? 2+2=4. Conradiction is where?

And, in any case, an infinite number of decimals does not make the number infinitely large. I've showed you a number line with an irrational number on it. Get over it.

[pam69ur]

u cant point to the end of an irrational number there for how can an irrational number that dont end exist on a line that ends

quote from you
There are an infinite number of geometric points on a finite line, because geometric points don't have any length. It isn't a contradiction, you just don't understand it.
without length they are nothings
therefore
so how can an infinite number of nothings ie have no length add up to a finite length-
how can an infinite number of nothing add up to say 3 cm then say 10 cm both length contain an infinite number of nothings
yourseystem defeats itself again

[cuppajoe_9]

Nope, it doesn't, because geometric points don't actually exist.

And, in fact, irrational numbers have nothing to do with the statement 2+2=4, which you still can't point to an inherent contradiction in. Also, you keep saying that I can't do something which I've already done. Several times.

I'm done. If you would like to keep repeating the same arguments over and over, you can just go back and read my earlier posts. Goodbye.

[pam69ur]

quote
Nope, it doesn't, because geometric points don't actually exist.
how can an infinite number of non-existents make a finit something

u say numbers are quaintities so 2 cm is made up of an infinite number of non-existents so when i add 2cm +2cm to get 4cm i am really adding two lots of ininite non-existents to get another sum of non-existent infinite nothings
and you say your system is not self defeting and meaningless

[pam69ur]

sory u can say it as long as u have breath but you cant point to something that has no end

[RobinHood3000]

I grow tired of "meaningless" words.

[pam69ur]

quote
I grow tired of "meaningless" words.
great now you can give up reading philosophy and beliving in the explanations of maths and science
you are getting the point of dean at last

[RobinHood3000]

Point? There was a point?

[pam69ur]

yes everything entails meaninglessness even nihlism maths -the most rational of human endeavours - science every product of human thinking -even meaninglessness

cuppajoe_9 even shot himself in the foot when he pointed out a line is made up of an infintit number of non-existents which when added together give us a finite length

[RobinHood3000]

Clearly your math is different from mine. A line IS made of of an infinite number of points, regardless of its length (so long as it is positive).

Frankly, I think that you're the one that shot yourself in the foot when you claimed that nihilism had a point.

[Taliesin]

We read through this topic and our head hurts.