u/Oreeo88

This is a strict external audit against the axiomatic method in math and how it is a problem for physics

1. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

2. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

3. Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

4. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

5. Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

6. Viewed strictly from outside the system, the axiomatic method in math smuggles in epistemic empirical claims and limits about reality systematically. By definition the axiomatic method limits and restricts what you can even ask, and logically validate within its system

7. applied physics and science can not systematically ignore the axiomatic method in math past addition of physical matter externally, because if you adopt a formal system, you systematically automatically inherit every foundational rule that makes that system work. Just because physics can “ignore” an axiom doesn’t mean they actually ignored it.. it just means they broke down a wall in the closed maze to make physics work.. they are still operating inside the closed axiomatic system past addition of physical matter

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries)

This post is mostly for the philosophers of math here not math academia. Math can not defend this without retreating to solipsism and denying reality to be used as the baseline

First this is a strict external audit

1. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

2. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

3. Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

4. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

5. Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

6. Viewed strictly from outside the system, the axiomatic method in math smuggles in epistemic empirical claims and limits about reality systematically. By definition the axiomatic method limits and restricts what you can even ask, and logically validate within its system

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries)

The axiomatic method in math just got straight up gutted within these 6 points

First this is a strict external audit

1. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

2. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

3. Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

4. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

5. Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

6. Viewed strictly from outside the system, the axiomatic method in math smuggles in epistemic empirical claims and limits about reality systematically. By definition the axiomatic method limits and restricts what you can even ask, and logically validate within its system

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries)

The axiomatic method in math just got straight up gutted within these 6 points

1. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma if your system is a closed axiomatic system because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

2. You can not distinguish dogma from non dogma without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

3. Viewed strictly from outside the system the axiomatic method is a closed system.

4. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

5. Viewed strictly from outside the system it is an objective fact that a closed axiomatic system limits your thoughts and physics

(This is a strict cut throat external audit against the axiomatic method in math itself. There is no external justification for it and thats the least of your worries)

1. without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification then you can not distinguish dogma from non dogma because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

2. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

This is a critique of the axiomatic method itself. There is no external justification for it.

>!But i can provide external justification for no axiomatic method: you can test claims themselves against reality!<

1. Without falsifiability you can not distinguish truth from dogma.

2. Axioms in isolation are not falsifiable by definition.

(This is a strict external audit meaning consistency and utility, and that’s how the system works/category error are not logically valid defenses)

Its a hard truth to swallow that you have to take everything back to addition of physical matter to start over but what you gain is falsifiable starting assumptions instead of unfalsifiable axioms, control over physics, and clarity that youre not running in a trapped maze of a false axiom. You gain freedom.

A list of unlimited reified options is a constraint compared to non reified options (viewed from outside the system)

It’s hard for people to comprehend that their true grounded knowledge stops after addition of physical matter.

>!(This is an audit of math as a system and how it is applied to reality. Not an internal audit. You can not use utility and consistency as a defense, you can not use “that’s just how the system is!” as a defense, you can not use protecting dogma as a defense) This isnt my rules, these are logics rules. these defenses are logically invalid and off topic. They have nothing to do with this!<

Its a hard truth to swallow that you have to take everything back to addition of physical matter to start over but what you gain is falsifiable starting assumptions instead of unfalsifiable axioms, control over physics, and clarity that youre not running in a trapped maze of a false axiom. You gain freedom.

A list of unlimited reified options is a constraint compared to non reified options (viewed from outside the system)

It’s hard for people to comprehend that their true grounded knowledge stops after addition of physical matter.

>!(This is an audit of math as a system and how it is applied to reality. Not an internal audit. You can not use utility and consistency as a defense, you can not use “that’s just how the system is!” as a defense, you can not use protecting dogma as a defense) This isnt my rules, these are logics rules. these defenses are logically invalid and off topic. They have nothing to do with this!<

Math says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math

thats not because of a technical or logical issue, its a choice

thats a ban.

This cuts off any kind of alternative grounded math. This controls and limits physics. You cant ignore pure math axioms in applied math or physics because the entire math is built on them past addition of physical matter. If you adopt a formal system, you automatically inherit every foundational rule that makes that system work.

I’ll give a cash reward for anyone who can give a logical proof of justification for banning reality because its not possible. (without using consistency and utility as defense, and without using dogma as defense)

realistically if you look at it mathematicians true grounded education stops after addition of physical matter

after that youre digging into youre own ungrounded imagation. because someone came in inserted reification and arbitrarly seperated math and physics. it could have been done with it not seperated and still can, but youll have to go back. You’ll have to get rid of all ungrounded assumptions and subjective arbitrary rules and strict definitions.

The way foward past addition of physical matter is to not insert reification and not seperate math and physics.. it’s that simple. And again that means ridding arbitrary man made rules and definitions.

These arbitrary 1984 style rules control physics. (For example the rule that says you can’t use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math)

This cuts off any kind of grounded math period.

This controls and limits physics period. You can’t just ignore pure maths axioms in applied math or physics because past addition of physical matter physics uses math built on those ungrounded axioms. That’s a trap

There is no justification for math to insert a subjective catch 22 rule that says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math. The rule is not a technical or logical limation. it’s a choice.

Past addition of physical matter you are committing serial reification, reversing cause and effect(trying to make concepts fit into reality instead of using reality to make a concept), circular reasoning, and protecting dogma.

If this is a system of a control, then it’s a perfect one. They teach you utility and consistency as a defense while knowing consistency and utility can still work inside of a false axiom. They teach you it doesn’t matter if math refers to objective reality while knowing math controls the field of physics.

realistically if you look at it mathematicians true grounded education stops after addition of physical matter

after that youre digging into youre own ungrounded imagation. because someone came in inserted reification and arbitrarly seperated math and physics. it could have been done with it not seperated and still can, but youll have to go back. You’ll have to get rid of all ungrounded assumptions and subjective arbitrary rules and strict definitions.

The way foward past addition of physical matter is to not insert reification and not seperate math and physics.. it’s that simple. And again that means ridding arbitrary man made rules and definitions.

These arbitrary 1984 style rules control physics. (For example the rule that says you can’t use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math)

This cuts off any kind of grounded math period.

This controls and limits physics period. You can’t just ignore pure maths axioms in applied math or physics because past addition of physical matter physics uses math built on those ungrounded axioms. That’s a trap

There is no justification for math to insert a subjective catch 22 rule that says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math. The rule is not a technical or logical limation. it’s a choice.

Past addition of physical matter you are committing serial reification, reversing cause and effect(trying to make concepts fit into reality instead of using reality to make a concept), circular reasoning, and protecting dogma.

If this is a system of a control, then it’s a perfect one. They teach you utility and consistency as a defense while knowing consistency and utility can still work inside of a false axiom. They teach you it doesn’t matter if math refers to objective reality while knowing math controls the field of physics.

realistically if you look at it mathematicians true grounded education stops after addition of physical matter

after that youre digging into youre own ungrounded imagation. because someone came in inserted reification and arbitrarly seperated math and physics. it could have been done with it not seperated and still can, but youll have to go back. You’ll have to get rid of all ungrounded assumptions and subjective arbitrary rules and strict definitions.

The way foward past addition of physical matter is to not insert reification and not seperate math and physics.. it’s that simple. And again that means ridding arbitrary man made rules and definitions.

These arbitrary 1984 style rules control physics. (For example the rule that says you can’t use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math)

This cuts off any kind of grounded math period.

This controls and limits physics period. You can’t just ignore pure maths axioms in applied math or physics because past addition of physical matter physics uses math built on those ungrounded axioms. That’s a trap

There is no justification for math to insert a subjective catch 22 rule that says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math. The rule is not a technical or logical limation. it’s a choice.

Past addition of physical matter you are committing serial reification, reversing cause and effect(trying to make concepts fit into reality instead of using reality to make a concept), circular reasoning, and protecting dogma.

If this is a system of a control, then it’s a perfect one. They teach you utility and consistency as a defense while knowing consistency and utility can still work inside of a false axiom. They teach you it doesn’t matter if math refers to objective reality while knowing math controls the field of physics.

realistically if you look at it mathmatcians true grounded education stops after addition of physical matter

after that youre digging into youre own ungrounded imagation. because someone came in inserted reification and arbitrarly seperated math and physics. it could have been done with it not seperated and still can, but youll have to go back. You’ll have to get rid of all ungrounded assumptions and subjective arbitrary rules and strict definitions.

The way foward past addition of physical matter is to not insert reification and not seperate math and physics.. it’s that simple. And again that means ridding arbitrary man made rules and definitions.

These arbitrary 1984 style rules control physics. (For example the rule that says you can’t use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math)

This cuts off any kind of grounded math period.

This controls and limits physics period. You can’t just ignore pure maths axioms in applied math or physics because past addition of physical matter physics uses math built on those ungrounded axioms. That’s a trap

There is no justification for math to insert a subjective catch 22 rule that says you can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom in pure math. The rule is not a technical or logical limation. it’s a choice.

Past addition of physical matter you are committing serial reification, reversing cause and effect(trying to make concepts fit into reality instead of using reality to make a concept), circular reasoning, a protecting dogma.

If this is a system of a control, then it’s a perfect one. They teach you utility and consistency as a defense while knowing consistency and utility can still work inside of a false axiom. They teach you it doesn’t matter if math refers to objective reality while knowing math controls the field of physics.

Maths catch 22 rule that says you cant use objective reality to justify or rebut an axiom. That traps you in the second category(making an assumption)

Now i can make an assumption that magical unicorns exist and it can be logically consistent and i can find utility in it

But then the assumption would generally be considered weak because it lacks objective evidential support and is contradicted by raw observation.

Just like how 0, infinity, and groups are contradicted by raw observation.

Maths catch 22 rule that says you cant use objective reality to justify or rebut an axiom is not a technical or logical limitation, its a choice. This is dogmatic. A country can still be considered authoritarian if you can leave it.

Now you can only replace a subjective axiom with another subjective axiom. This effectively cuts off any kind of alternative objective math where its grounded in reality.

The definition of axiom doesn't say you cant use observable reality to justify or rebut it, its only math that inserted that subjective rule into axiom. And this rule is not a technical limitation, its a choice.

Like you could use observable objective reality to justify or rebut it.. but they inserted an authoritarian catch 22 rule effectively systematically controlling all of math. I mean this is pretty funny its right infront of your faces

They inserted a 1984 style rule and barely anyone questions it or knows about it

They cut off any kind of real objective math by not letting your starting assumptions(axioms) be justified or rebutted with reality

by saying you cant justify or rebut a starting axiom with observable objective reality, you are only allowed to replace a starting subjective axiom with another starting subjective axiom.

This is deception and cuts out any kind of alternative objective grounded math. This allows control over math, letting people add and remove things that dont exist. And ultimately controlling physics through limiting language

This logically leans more to deception because there is no reason for a rule to forbid observable reality to be used to justify or rebut an axiom because this rule is a choice, not a technical limitation. It is not a logic or epistimic limitation either. And “category error” is subjective

It points to even more deception when they convinced the masses that utility and conistency can defend this, but utility and consistency can still work and be found within a false assumption/axiom. Whether you like it or not logic points more to deception

please do not derail this with heavy jargon, reframing, semantics or other shenanigans. the point of the post is clear. There is no justification and were cutting through the noise here

1. utility and conistency fallacy to defend. But utility and consistency can still work & be found inside false axiom.

2. use the “math doesnt claim to model reality” fallacy. But we treat and use math as if it models reality(physics, engineering) so its irrelevant whether math claims to or not.

3. Say talk to the physics community fallacy. But the field of physics works within the constrains of maths axioms so thats circular reasoning.

thats pretty much it. intentionally or not these people have been indoctrinated to use deceptive fallacys to defend this dogma of ungrounded assumptions.

>!Now why groups 0 and infinity are ungrounded: They are abstractions pointing to other abatractions. Completely untethered from objective observable physical matter. Not all abstractions are ungrounded though. A number of physical object is grounded!<

>!-one: mental group of physical matter (1 abstraction)!<

>!-zero: mental concept of mental group (2 abstractions ungrounded cut off)!<

>!-group: mental group of mental group (2 abstractions ungrounded cut off)!<

They must eventually map back to objective physical reality to be "grounded." This breakdown accurately captures why numbers like 1 are concrete, while 0, groups and infinity break this chain of physical reference.

subjective = (opinion)

objective = (empirical fact)

physics is going to have to break away from math and invent objective language

but you see this doesnt exist

because they dont allow it to exist

Fact: Math does not allow you to justify or rebut an axiom(assumption) with objective physical observable reality. You can only replace a subjective one with another subjective one..

this locks out any attempt to make an objective math.

You build on a subjective system and you can twist and bend the rules to your liking, add and remove things that don't actually exist (0, infinity, groups), control peoples perception of reality, and control the narrative.

Math is the gatekeeper to physics. It constraints bottlenecks and limits the field of physics. The limits of my language are the limits of my world. Math is the language. The limits of my math are the limits of my physics.

• 1984: The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command

• Math: Math says you can not use concrete objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom (starting assumption)

Remove the malicious intent, the statements are the same. Now this rule in math, it’s not a technical limitation. It’s a choice

Its right infront of your faces.. the catch 22 is right here. Please understand how this is the biggest conspiracy to exist. Its pointing out a fact, the only thing stopping it is subjective intent.

If it gets buried you know its not organic

Statement: The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Fact: In math we started with "Reality exists first, and descriptions of it should come second" and then they switched it around. Math now says can not use objective observable reality to justify or rebut an axiom(foundational assumption)

Instead of building the foundation of knowledge on objective observable reality, they built the foundation on subjective abstraction. (maths assumptions)

This is completely backwards in everyway

Reality exists first, and descriptions of it should come second. Not the other way around..The order is in reverse

Its the same exact thing as reversing cause and effect

Assumptions about reality must be directly traceable to observable referents

You build on an abstract system and you can twist and bend the rules to your liking, add and remove things that dont actually exist (0, infinity, groups), and control perception.

Please do not overlook this. Questioning assumptions (maths axioms) and demanding objective concrete evidence over abstract subjective assumptions should be your primary goal if you’re looking for truth.. you don’t enter a system without making sure it refers to objective reality or without questioning its assumptions. This is common sense