For real. A few times, I’ve been like “What makes you think matter is more fundamentally real than consciousness?” and received an argument that you can measure matter and make mathematical proofs about it.
And I’m just… dumbfounded by the lack of awareness that they’re essentially using a mere mention of math itself to dismiss the significance of axioms.
my experience studying math has been that if someone uses the word “mathematical” when they’re trying to argue something, then there is a decent chance they don’t really know what they’re talking about. if they did, they would probably use a more specific term or cite a theorem or proof. math is not a monolith.
your anecdote is a pretty spectacular example of that. how nice it would be if we could “mathematically prove” that ZFC is objectively true. and also how nice it would be if we could “mathematically define” what it even means for something to be “true” or “objectively true”.
Side note, in my experience people often misuse the word “math” to mean "arithmetic, as in “I did the math” or “Your math is wrong” when they’re just adding up some numbers lol.
yeah that one can be pretty rough too. i think i’ve become a bit desensitized to it over the years, and paul lockhart’s lament has helped me cope a bit, but the pain is still there.
For real. A few times, I’ve been like “What makes you think matter is more fundamentally real than consciousness?” and received an argument that you can measure matter and make mathematical proofs about it.
And I’m just… dumbfounded by the lack of awareness that they’re essentially using a mere mention of math itself to dismiss the significance of axioms.
my experience studying math has been that if someone uses the word “mathematical” when they’re trying to argue something, then there is a decent chance they don’t really know what they’re talking about. if they did, they would probably use a more specific term or cite a theorem or proof. math is not a monolith.
your anecdote is a pretty spectacular example of that. how nice it would be if we could “mathematically prove” that ZFC is objectively true. and also how nice it would be if we could “mathematically define” what it even means for something to be “true” or “objectively true”.
Side note, in my experience people often misuse the word “math” to mean "arithmetic, as in “I did the math” or “Your math is wrong” when they’re just adding up some numbers lol.
yeah that one can be pretty rough too. i think i’ve become a bit desensitized to it over the years, and paul lockhart’s lament has helped me cope a bit, but the pain is still there.