My Formal Nihilism

This is a formal approach of my nihilism, but it is not my real nihilism, for my real nihilism is not formal and analitic.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• formal
• nihilism

[chutono123]

The higher echilons of the mathematic world finds those who argue that 2+2 is not and will not ALWAYS = 4. All in this life is disputable. However, to assume that because somthing is disputed it becomes meaningless or "non existent" is simply incorrect. For if all is disputable, and all that is disputable is without cause or purpose then thhey should not exist. All Does exist. the meaning if disputed or unkown does not mean it does not exist but rather points at ignorance in us to comprehend

[maksiiiskam2]

Sorry, I should have used the word "uncertain" instead of "disputable".

I don't remember talking about maths (and I'm not sure of what you mean, since you did not finish your sentence).

I never said anything was nonexistent for being meaningless.

I'm not sure we mean the same thing by "meaning".

Though I'm happy to know that you took time

to watch and comment, I'm not interested in debating.

Keep in mind that this video is months old and might not reflect my present opinions.

[pugnaciousboxer2]

Have you ever read Peter Wessel Zapffe? You should check him out. He's a real nihilist.

[chutono123]

i ran out of room so i had to rewrite a few times until it fit. i guess reading it again its kind of an odd comment

[maksiiiskam2]

Oh, this is different. think about these: What is the ground for mathematics? What is the historical reason we had to assume there had to be a ground? What is the difference between "1+1=2" and "one apple and another make two apples"? What is the difference between "1+1=2" and "all bachelors are unmarried"? What is true in a "mathematical truth"? What is self-evidence?

The answers to these questions made me re-consider maths, but I sure can't tell what you will conclude.

[thewildwilli]

aah... Now i get it...

Your argumentation:

meaning doesn't exist => meaning does't exist

meaning does exist, it cannot => meaning does't exist

I totally agree...

I still think that mathematics is self-evident and undisputable, though...

[thewildwilli]

My examples have nothing to do with "reality"...

I am merely trying (poorly) to prove that (most)mathematics are self-evident and undisputable.

[maksiiiskam2]

Wait, I do NOT accept your example: I was disputing it!

I think you confuse the notion of logical truth with the metaphysical concept of the correspondence theory of truth. What fact of reality does your example _correspond_ to?

[maksiiiskam2]

I don't understand your example, how does thinking something is meaningful is meaningful? I think you presuppose these things humans do to be meaningful.

In any case, I do not mean to say "start" in a temporal sense, but in a reasoning.

[thewildwilli]

ahh.. so you agree that it is correct. Doesn't matter that about the information yet.

We can make "if => then"-statements, that are correct.

We can thus make those statements both for if and if-not. Thereby building up rules and proofs and developing the undisputable mathematics.

When we take into account both the if and the if-not situation, we have the two possible outcomes. These outcomes, we can then build on, allowing us to reach information, that is undisputable.