Math doesnt allow you to use raw concrete reality(reality/physical matter/observation of physical matter) to rebut or justify an axiom. This applies to definitions as well.

This arbitrary rule where you canot use raw concrete reality to rebut or justify an axiom in math effectively kills any kind of alternate math where its referents is grounded.

any attempt to create a "grounded math" that relies on physical objects/raw concrete reality for its truth gets completely locked out.

Math is used to model reality. if they kill off grounded math with arbitrary rules they effectively control perception of physics and censor anyone who attempts to ground it out.

You attempt to make a grounded math and youre locked out. You basically have to make a break away math civilization which is near impossible from how the system is set up and how people are indoctrinated into it.

They reversed cause and effect. Theyre mapping maps onto maps instead of mapping reality

Physics works within the constraints of maths axioms. This means physics is basically bottlenecked and controlled by math.

If you don't have the tool to describe communicate understand or replicate what you did, your ability to understand its place in your reality is limited.

Math is the gate keeper of perception.

Ive talked about all kinda supressed, censored and astroturfed conspiracies over the years, nothing has EVER come close to questioning maths foundations.

Math is the gate keeper of perception

If you control math you control people

Physics works within the constraints of maths axioms

Separating these two is massive deception.

Separating metaphysics from math allows self referential delusion. If you don't separate them, it exposes a massive fallacy: mathematical groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. Logic calls your starting foundational multiplication operation a fallacy because mathematical groups are untethered from raw concrete reality.

This is not just deceptive but a logical fallacy. Consistency and utility can still work and be found inside of a false axiom

TLDR: When the field of mathematics claims that formal proofs don't need metaphysical grounding, they can hide the fact that groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. That's deceptive.

Separating these two is massive deception.

Separating metaphysics from math allows self referential delusion. If you don't separate them, it exposes a massive fallacy: mathematical groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. Logic calls your starting foundational multiplication operation a fallacy because mathematical groups are untethered from raw concrete reality.

This is not just deceptive but a logical fallacy. Consistency and utility can still work and be found inside of a false axiom. And it doesn’t matter whether math claims to model reality or not because we treat math as if it models reality (physics,engineering)

TLDR: When the field of mathematics claims that formal proofs don't need metaphysical grounding, they can hide the fact that groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. That's deceptive.

Separating these two is massive deception.

Separating metaphysics from math allows self referential delusion. If you don't separate them, it exposes a massive fallacy: mathematical groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. Logic calls your starting foundational multiplication operation a fallacy because mathematical groups are untethered from raw concrete reality

TLDR: When the field of mathematics claims that formal proofs don't need metaphysical grounding, they can hide the fact that groups, zero, and infinity have no concrete referents. That's deceptive.

you know somethings up when every single post questioning axioms of math across the internet are derailed and shut down by comments citing axioms.. lmao

I dont think thats real people. Thats literal bot behavior

Bots brigading and shutting down post questioning axioms by citing axioms.. This is suspicious as hell for astroturfing. It looks exactly like an organized effort to shut down questioning the foundation's.

Math is literally the most astroturfed subject known to man. These aren’t real people. No one dismisses post questioning assumed starting points outside of a system by citing assumed starting points. WTF. Not organic in any way.

It’s all over the internet. Every post questioning the foundations and axioms. Shut down with a comment citing axioms..

• A mathematical group exist no where in raw concrete reality (true)

• Logic says mapping an unanchored map is a major fallacy for modeling raw concrete reality (true)

• A mathematical group is unanchored to raw concrete reality, fully abstract. This is what logic says (true)

• It doesn’t matter if math claims to model reality or not, because we treat math as if it does model reality(physics, engineering) (true)

• Consistency and utility can still work and be found inside of a false axiom (true)

so here we have it, logic calling this a massive fallacy

• A mathematical group exist no where in raw concrete reality (true)

• Logic says mapping an unanchored map is a major fallacy for modeling raw concrete reality (true)

• A mathematical group is unanchored to raw concrete reality, fully abstract. This is what logic says (true)

• It doesn’t matter if math claims to model reality or not, because we treat math as if it does model reality(physics, engineering) (true)

• Consistency and utility can still work and be found inside of a false axiom (true)

so here we have it, logic calling this a massive fallacy

• The mental concept of a mathematical group does not exist in raw concrete reality. (true)

• 1x1=1 is mapping a map/mental concept in your head, and it transforms raw concrete reality in your head. (true)

• Logic says mapping a map and transforming raw concrete reality in your head is self referential and a massive fallacy (true)

• Its anti semantic games to point this out. Meaning you’re making sure 1x1=1 referent is grounded to raw concrete reality. Its literaly against semantic games and cutting through the noise (true)

• utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom, so you cannot use utility and consistency to defend (true)

• Whether math claims to model reality is irrelevant because we treat math as if it does, physics/engineering (true)

• To control a humans perception of reality you make them believe the map is the territory, their words and ideas, running around in a trapped maze of a false axiom (true)

These are all true statements. Pay attention to the last ststement. Copy and paste each individual into ai for check. Read in between the lines and expect downvote botting and derailments

Scroll through the sub. It’s a sea of fucking 0s. Every single post questioning the subjective foundation of math downvote botted into the negative.

Yet a post about aliens, on a philosophy of math subreddit is apparently not too much, but the second you question the foundation of math on a philophsy of math subreddit then that’s too much…

That’s very telling.

This is obviously not organic and getting astroturfed. You’re not allowed to question the subjective foundations of math anywhere. You’ll get censored and suppressed(already got valid epistemic arguments mod removed from several subs) (also other people like Karma penny just get straight removed from everywhere)

I already screen recorded and documented every single post of this subreddit for 10 pages straight so don’t even think of trying to undo it

-1x1=1 is mapping a map, its not mapping the territory. (true)

-in terryology multiplication is mapping the territory instead of mapping a map/mental concept. (true)

-Mapping a map is self referential delusion and a fallacy for modeling reality. (true)

Lets see you guys try to go up against standard logic. Will be interesting seeing the semantic games that will be played to try and defend this simple point.

>!You cant defend this with utility and consistency because utility and consistency can be found and work inside of a false axiom.!<

>!And you cant defend this by saying math doesnt claim to model reality because we treat math as if it does model reality(physics, engineering)!<

logic is calling your foundational multiplication operation self referential delusion and a fallacy

-1x1=1 is mapping a map, its not mapping the territory. (true)

-in terryology multiplication is mapping the territory instead of mapping a map/mental concept. (true)

-Mapping a map is self rerential delusion and a fallacy. (true)

Lets see you guys try to go up against standard logic. Will be interesting seeing the semantic games that will be played to try and defend this simple point.

>!You cant defend this with utility and consistency because utility and consistency can be found and work inside of a false axiom.!<

>!And you cant defend this by saying math doesnt claim to model reality because we trear math as if it does model reality(physics, engineering)!<

math is a language. numbers is vocabulary of that language

the problem becomes when you use language to describe language to model reality, and when its referent gets unanchored from raw concrete reality and arbitrary transformed in the mind. (1x1=1).

once you use language to describe language and once the referent gets transformed in your mind its no longer a model of reality/communication of reality, its self referential delusion

It’s like using a map to describe a forest, but then you start drawing new trees on the paper and believe the paper is the actual forest