Be honest. How much do you really think about climate change on a daily basis?

[Anonymous]

Every day you wake up in the morning and get ready for school or to go to work

You have breakfast, get dressed or do whatever before heading to your next destination

You either drive, ride, walk or take public transport there

Maybe you drop the kids off to school somewhere in between

Then you're at work either working or socializing or procrastinating before going home

You go home and now time is your own, maybe you have a feed, watch TV or a movie

Perhaps you'll go on GAG to see questions pertaining to dating or sex or politics

And finally at the end, you get ready for bed, you get in bed and go to sleep

So how much of that time did you use to think about climate change?

[Syntosi]

Every day, at least once. It is pretty fundamental to my future such as increase in cost due to inflation, the cost of energy, political instability around the country etc.. It is also a nice litmus test for how screwed we are as a society. If someone dont believe in climate change or is against actions taken to try solve it like green energy then they are quite frankly idiots on the levels where they would destroy the world like a cartoon villain.

Most things I see around the world as I walk around or think about on a daily basis can in one way or another be tied back to climate change.

[Asker]

does it keep you up every night?

[Syntosi]

No. Its a fact of life, it does not trouble me or worry me.

[Asker]

then why do you believe we are screwed as a society if it doesn't worry you?

why do you think others are idiots for not believing it if it doesn't worry you?

[Syntosi]

What would worrying about it do? Its not productive. If you had a crystal ball that told you the day you would die, would you go around and worry about it for the rest of your life even though you can't change it?

[Asker]

it shows how serious you treat something to be

[Syntosi]

That is just your incorrect analysis. I can treat something very serious without freaking out over it. Like I for example can note that a storm is inbound and spend the time playing games inside. My "unserious" reaction or attention to the storm does not mean I respect the storm any less or dont understand what it is capable of.

[Asker]

did I say you had to freak out about it?

that's not you being unserious when you decide to go indoors. yes if you stayed outdoors

what's next? you're unserious about your car being stolen but you lock the car doors anyway?

[Syntosi]

So why should climate change keep me up at night?

[Asker]

because the world would be destroyed?

[Syntosi]

And what am I gonna do about it?

[Asker]

that's a great question. what are you gonna do about it?

[Syntosi]

Climate change can't be stopped now. Even if every government and every person joined hands to try put the genie back into the bottle, it would be impossible. My choice is simply how to best position myself in a world that is ruined. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Asker]

if it can't be stopped why are you thinking about it everyday like you're worrying about it?

[Syntosi]

Because its going to happen and knowing about it means that I can make decisions based upon it. For example, I am not that inclined to buy a coast line property in Florida considering half that state is going to be under water soon. Likewise, I want a private well since I know that fresh water might become scarce in the future and thus expensive. I am also keeping en eye on the economy to see if I can make any good investments, knowing what is going to fail in the future and what will succeed. Furthermore, I am very averse to do something like join the army since there is very likely going to be a lot of wars that will start because of climate change and I have no desire to throw my life away for those stupid reasons.

Just knowing that climate change is inevitable and what it is going to change means that I can take better decisions than previously. That is all.

[Asker]

then why did you say it doesn't worry you?

[Syntosi]

Because its not based on emotion. I am just making the same kind of decision making I always do, I just take into consideration another variable.

[Asker]

why does it have to be based on emotion for to worry about it?

[Syntosi]

Worry:
To feel uneasy or concerned about something; be troubled. synonym: brood.

Worry is a feeling. Feelings are emotions.

[Asker]

if you're not concerned, then why call it a litmus test for how screwed we are as a society? why call others idiots for opposing actions if you're not concerned?

[Syntosi]

There is evil, and there is stupid evil. There is greedy, and there is stupid greedy. Putting aside how serious Climate Change as a problem is by itself, you can judge people by their understanding and actions on climate change to uncover their character regardless of how much or how well they lie. Actions speaks louder than words after all.

The world is no stranger to greedy or evil people. History is absolutely full of them in fact. However, when it appears that everyone at the top of power, wealth and authority is not only evil or greedy but also stupid.. Well lets just that that it does not bode well for the rest of us.

[Asker]

what the hell is "stupid evil"? evil requires intent which means knowingly committing something wrong

and where do you get this idea of "evil" from?

[Syntosi]

There are plenty if examples of corrupt, greedy or malicious rulers in history for example. Rulers who stole money from the budget or genocides minorities. However, they can at the same time be very competent people and for example build a strong economy or country which in turn would help them to for example siphon off even more wealth for their greed or even more power for them to abuse.

In other words, there is an entirely selfish incentive for them to be good at their job even if they only have bad intentions for being there. So we can look at this from the other side, when they prioritize their greed or selfish intentions above their own long-term goals, such as destroying the country through their own greed that is giving them money and by extension it can't give them any more money, then that is a sign of them being stupid.

Historically, we can easily suffer under competent evil leaders. People will suffer and die, poverty will be rampant, but society will stay strong and continue after that evil leader dies or resigns. A stupid evil person however is a self-destructive force. Be it through incompetence or malice, they just tend to destroy things and societies tend to crumble without competent people at the top to maintain society.

When stupid evil persons rise to the top, bad times are ahead. When stupid evil people rises to the top of both governments and businesses? Well, saying "bad news" is ahead is not doing it justice.

This is why Climate Change is a good litmus test, because it has a very obvious "correct" choice. Anyone in power who does not choose it is not competent enough for their position.

[Asker]

again, evil requires knowing you're committing evil

and even then you never specified where you get your idea of "evil" from

[Syntosi]

There are many ways to define "evil". I have left it mostly vague because there is no need to be specific. Regardless of your personal definition, there will have been historical leaders who qualify and who follows the pattern I have described.

[Asker]

ah so "evil" is a personal definition, right?

those people who don't believe in climate change are only "evil" from your POV, not because they're actually "evil"

[Syntosi]

No. There are multiple objective definitions of "evil". The problem is that I dont think you have thought very much about the concept of "evil" so I can't rely on your understanding of the topic The limiting factor here is not definitions of "evil" or my definition of "evil" but you.

[Asker]

what makes those definitions objective?

why do you think accusing me of having thoughts or lack thereof on this matter of "evil" makes you more reliable simply because I'm questioning you?

[Syntosi]

The point of an objective morality system is to independently determine if something is "good" or "bad" regardless of your personal feelings or biases. There are countless versions of this established over human history as people have been grappling with this question so you are spoiled for choice. For example, we could make an objective morality system right here and now.

Syntosi (tm) Absolute bestest and most objectivest moral system V 1.0
1: Anything that injure humans is bad.
2: Anything that does not injure Humans is good.

I can use this to reliably test if something is objectively moral according to this belief system and I would get the same results as you would if you independently tested the same things using this system. As such, its an objective morality system that defines what "evil" is.

And the fact that you are questioning me on basic things that you should already know and display a lack of basic understanding means that I can't rely on you to progress this conversation. We could have been talking about much more interesting things here but I am stuck trying to guide you through stuff that humans already solved thousands of years ago because you never gained a basic education on the matter.

[Asker]

"For example, we could make an objective morality system right here and now"

what makes it objectively if it's only being made by us?

"Syntosi (tm) Absolute bestest and most objectivest moral system V 1.0
1: Anything that injure humans is bad.
2: Anything that does not injure Humans is good."

so is Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny evil by your definition? how about the abortion doctors who rip apart babies in the 3rd trimester? or Luigi Mangione who shot and killed Brian Thompson? how about the people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder? what about someone who cheats on their partner without remorse since nobody is injured? are they evil by your definition?

if your logic held up well, you wouldn't be upset at me questioning you but here you are waving your finger of supposedly intellectual superiority

[Syntosi]

Dude. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You think a morality system means a bunch of things it does not. You dont understand what objective means and you clearly have no idea what "evil" means in this context.

I am not upset, I am just disappointed.

From the context of what you have said I assume that you are a believer in Christianity and by extension some version of morality derived from the Christian god. In other words, a system where morality flows from god and things are only moral or immoral in relation to that relationship.

First of all, that is a subjective morality, not an objective morality. Secondly, that is a retarded system and lastly, the philosophy of morality is infinitely larger and more complex than anything you apparently have ever considered. Your current understanding of morality is so inferior that quite frankly you dont even qualify to have an opinion on the matter and your ignorance is actively preventing us from even talking.

[Asker]

lol you claimed you could make morality objective and now you wanna claim other versions of morality are subjective. what makes your version of morality more objective than others? because you said so?

and no I'm not Christian either but I love how you jump straight to attacking Christianity to validate yourself

why are other versions of morality retarded but yours isn't? what makes your version of morality not retarded? because you said so?

it's obvious you don't understand what objectivity and subjectivity is anymore than your arrogant sense of intellectual superiority. you wouldn't even be able to objectively explain why I don't qualify to have an opinion but you clearly do

you can't even explain why anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is evil. it's nothing more than your own personal preferences

and now you just want a cop out and an excuse to avoid having me expose you for declaring yourself the arbiter of all morality

[Syntosi]

And here you go again, being surprised that there is subjective morality as opposed to objective morality or that there would be multiple systems of morality that is completely independent of each other and function in entirely different ways. And this is even after I literally created a system of morality right in front of your eyes no less.

You want to know why you are not qualified to hold an opinion in this? Because you dont even understand your own position or the words you use and your only argument against mine is that you dont understand what I am saying. Ignorance is your shield and ignorance is your sword. You got nothing and yet you are here trying to pretend that you stand for something.

[Asker]

yeah we both know you created a system of subjective morality yet you're trying to claim it to be objective

you have no metric to define anyone who doesn't believe in climate change as evil yet you insist they are evil simply because you said so

nope. the reason you believe I'm not qualified is because I have the audacity to question the arbiter of all morality aka "you"

I understand both our positions very well. you on the other hand are in complete denial

other systems of morality are retarded according to you but your system of morality is truly made of gold, isn't it? justify why YOUR system of morality is objective regardless of anyone's personal feelings or biases

[Syntosi]

The morality system that I created is objective. I can prove that something is good or bad using it by applying the two rules that I made up, thus making it objective. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently superior to either a subjective morality or objective morality.

You are again showing that you have no idea what you are talking about and your attempts to argue against me is wasted breath. Nothing you say makes any sense and is usually contradictory. You use words you dont understand and talk about stuff that you probably heard for the first time mere hours ago.

You are the definition of a Dunning Kruger effect. Congratulations.

[Asker]

"I can prove that something is good or bad"

who are you to determine what's good or bad?

"by applying the two rules that I made up"

ah yes, you made it up so therefore it is objective according to you

"nothing inherently superior to either a subjective morality or objective morality"

how the fuck are you or anyone suppose to determine what's good or bad then if neither subjective or objective morality are superior to the other?

using your logic, objective morality wouldn't even exist. do you even know what objective and subjective means?

"your attempts to argue against me is wasted breath"

haha nothing screams fake intellectual superiority more than your pseudo-intellectual posturing

"you are the definition of a Dunning Kruger effect"

lol nice projection mate. quit pretending you're frustrated here to cover up your denial

[Syntosi]

Who am I to determine whats good or bad? Dude, I provided an objective morality system. What part of "Objective" dont you understand? If I supplied a subject morality system then yes, that would be determined on an individual basis but I specifically gave you an objective morality system because I foresaw that you would struggle with this.

And no, just because I made up those two rules does not make it a subjective morality system. Once the system is established then it becomes objective.

How is anyone supposed to determine whats good or bad? Welcome to the philosophy of morality. You are probably not going to enjoy your time here and you are probably not smart enough to understand the answers either.

Again, you are swinging in the air because you dont understand literally anything about this conversation.

[Asker]

look up the definition of "objective" first before you make a fool of yourself

something that is objective is based on facts independent of anyone's mind, feelings or biases

Shaq being taller than Kevin Hart is objective. Shaq being funnier than Kevin Hart is NOT objective. it is subjective

your "objective" morality can not be objective as it's still influenced by yourself

again, your reasoning for your system of morality being objective is because you said so. it's just your personal preferences which is no more valid than anyone else's personal preferences

"welcome to the philosophy of morality"

this doesn't answer the question. objective morality can not exist if it's not superior to subjective morality as you already claimed

"you are swinging in the air because you dont understand literally anything about this conversation"

lol I'm not the one here pretending to be frustrated by this conversation. keep up the damage control so you can expose yourself further

[Syntosi]

... Yes... "facts independent of anyone's mind, feelings or biases".

Facts like 2 rules previously established.

Rules like:
1: Anything that injure humans is bad.
2: Anything that does not injure Humans is good.

But by all means, continue to make a fool out of yourself.

You dont think that something that we create can be objective because its "still influenced by ourselves"?

How tall is Kevin Hart? According to wikipedia, he is stated to be around 5'5". Is this objective? After all, the United States customary system which defines what feet and inches are is defined by us through a set of rules. We completely and arbitrarily defined what these things means based on our "mind, feelings and bias". I mean, its literally called "FEET" for starters so its clearly not something that exists naturally in the universe independently of us.

So why is the United States customary system objective and not subjective? Try to use your noodle for a brain and figure that one out will you?

As for your beliefs and opinions on subjective or objective morality... Yeah, I am just gonna put those in the trash where they belong.

[Asker]

"Facts like 2 rules previously established."

which YOU claimed YOU made. this isn't independent of your mind, feelings or biases

"Rules like:
1: Anything that injure humans is bad.
2: Anything that does not injure Humans is good."

it's glad to see that abortions and shooting Charlie Kirk is bad

and it's glad to see that consensual incest, taking a shit on the floor and damaging someone's car is all good according to your rules because you said so

"You dont think that something that we create can be objective because its "still influenced by ourselves"?"

what did we create that is objective? mathematics? gravity? dinosaurs? nope these things existed long before we ever discovered them. 2+2 would still equal 4 whether you or I exist or not. now do you understand what objective means?

Shaq is still objectively taller than Kevin Hart no matter how you redefine the numerical system being used. Shaq is still objectively taller than Kevin Hart whether we believe it or not. that's what objective means.

"why is the United States customary system objective and not subjective?"

gee... maybe because math itself is based on fact not feelings? 5'5" still has the same length as 165 cm even if you change the metric system. your personal feelings don't matter here thus is independent of your mind

"Yeah, I am just gonna put those in the trash where they belong."

because you have no answer and got exposed for your inability to differentiate truth and facts from feelings and opinions

[Syntosi]

*sigh* Its like talking to a brick wall made of stupid.

Yeah sure. 2+2=4 until 2+2=11 because we invented numbers and not every number system is base 10.

Again, you are clearly too ignorant to know what you are talking about.

[Asker]

"Its like talking to a brick wall made of stupid."

the feeling is mutual

"Yeah sure. 2+2=4 until 2+2=11 because we invented numbers and not every number system is base 10."

you do realize that numbers are only representations of values, right?

10 in decimal would still have the same value as 1010 in binary, 12 in octal, A in hexadecimal, X in roman, (+) pronounced shi in chinese

it's no different to language being used to describe things. did we need to invent the word "fish" to know fish exist even though they've been on Earth before humans?

"Again, you are clearly too ignorant to know what you are talking about."

ouch, that really hurts when you can't differentiate truth and facts from feelings and opinions

[Syntosi]

Oh no. You dont get to pull the "numbers are only representation of values" when you have spent this entire conversation ignoring this distinction. Furthermore, since I dont like you, math does not really exist without this representation either.

The world just "IS". Mathematics is our attempt to "represent" these things and we do it very successfully but its not actually an inherent property of the world. Its not "objective" in the retarded way you want to phrase it. It is a human construct that we invented to represent and visualize the actual laws of the universe that we see.

So yeah. Fuck you and your petty ignorant bullshit.

[Asker]

"Oh no. You dont get to pull the "numbers are only representation of values" when you have spent this entire conversation ignoring this distinction"

lmao stop projecting your idiosyncrasies onto me

"Furthermore, since I dont like you, math does not really exist without this representation either"

aww that's too bad. your personal vendetta won't change the fact math is still objective

"It is a human construct that we invented to represent and visualize the actual laws of the universe that we see"

the language is the construct, not the actual math itself. what's next? gravity is a human construct because we invented the word "gravity"?

"So yeah. Fuck you and your petty ignorant bullshit."

go ahead. there's nothing more pathetic than you insulting your way out of your own stupidity

[Syntosi]

Sucks to be you but Mathematics is just as objective as the system of morality that I constructed previously. You are just too dumb to understand why.

And yes, mathematics itself, is constructed by humans. The universe does not run on "actual math" and logic (for lack of better words) does not run on "actual math". But again, you are probably too dumb to understand this too.

[Asker]

"Mathematics is just as objective as the system of morality that I constructed previously. You are just too dumb to understand why"

no it's not. math is MORE objective than YOUR system of morality. you didn't invent math. nobody invented math. YOU invented YOUR system of morality. it is not independent of your mind and therefore can not be objective. it is nothing more than YOUR personal preferences because YOU said so

"And yes, mathematics itself, is constructed by humans"

humans didn't construct 2+2=4. 2+2 will always equal 4 whether we exist or not. we constructed the language to define it for our understanding not the actual math itself

changing the language doesn't change the value

"The universe does not run on "actual math" and logic (for lack of better words) does not run on "actual math"

no shit Sherlock because math is metaphysical, not a physical power source. even then the universe and logic absolutely uses mathematics

ever heard of the speed of light, Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? absolute zero? sure you can look them up right now but they all use mathematics

and as for logic, it absolutely uses mathematics

the Law of Identity states something that exists has an unchanged identity X=X

the Law of Non-Contradiction states X can not be both X and not X at the same time

the Law of Excluded Middle states there are no third options in objectivity e. g. either X>Y or Y>X

the Law of Justification states every truth has a reason. 1+1+1+1 = 4 because 1+1 = 2 and 2+2 = 4

the Law of Causality states if Y=2X then the X variable determines the value of Y

"But again, you are probably too dumb to understand this too"

smh I've been more than generous to you this whole time and every time you open your mouth, you spew dumb shit like this on top of your stupid takes

math absolutely is the foundation of the universe and logic. YOUR feelings and preferences are NOT the foundation of the universe and logic

[Syntosi]

Ahaha! You dont think anyone invented math? You do realize that we invent new things in maths all the time right? For example, the concept of zero was invented in the 7th century. We also have the invention of statistics, algebra, trigonometry etc..

But perhaps the most damning evidence against your childish understanding of the foundation of our reality is that mathematics can't be applied to our world perfectly. It will fail to properly represent reality in all aspects. Mathematics is still a human invention. Its a really GOOD invention that applies almost always... ALMOST always. Once again you prove yourself to not understand subject or its history, in this case math.

How less foolish you would have been seen if you had just watched this video, as an example, before posting your latest reply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo

Congratulations on being wrong yet again on something you deeply believed in.

[Asker]

lmao what's next? we invented gravity and dinosaurs too? no, we discovered math, not invent it just like we discovered gravity and dinosaurs, not invent them. know the difference

the concept of zero is not the value of zero. 1-1=0 is still true even before the concept of zero was invented. I don't why you can't wrap your head around this

"How less foolish you would have been seen if you had just watched this video, as an example, before posting your latest reply:"

did you even watch your video or did you just look at the title, post the video and pretend you understand what the hell is going on in the video?

if you actually watched the video, the "flaws" were redefining definitions, using the concept of infinity against definitive proofs and axioms having no prior proofs despite being true

maybe Pythagoras theorem is incorrect eventually with certain values if we were to test an infinite number of them but that's like saying counting to infinity is flawed because it's impossible to count to infinity

but if you watch the video itself, nowhere did it say math is untrue and false. posting this video isn't proving your point. it's proving mine that math was discovered, not invented

iPhones are an invention, Teslas are an invention, Google is an invention

gravity, dinosaurs and mathematics are not an invention. they are discoveries and your lack of understanding does not make them human constructs

[Syntosi]

If we "discovered" math then why is it fundamentally wrong and/or fundamentally without basis? Math is just as much of a "discovery" as lego is. "Sticking two lego pieces together is still true even before the concept of lego was invented!"

[Asker]

math isn't fundamentally wrong. its axioms are discovered through trial and error

"Math is just as much of a "discovery" as lego is"

bruh, lego didn't exist before us and it doesn't exist in nature

"Sticking two lego pieces together is still true even before the concept of lego was invented"

those two pieces only stick together if the size and shape correctly align hence it still uses math not because of the lego itself

[Syntosi]

Dude, you just said that math is discovered through trial and error which is very funny because we were just talking about how there are limits to what you can discover about Math and the fact that it can never be a "complete" system. Furthermore, it very likely contradicts itself, meaning that something could be "true" and "false" at the same time according to math.

So yeah. Math is not fundamental and very much a product of humanity. As you yourself just admitted by saying "its axioms are discovered through trial and error"

[Asker]

I said axioms were discovered through trial and error, not the math itself

the limits on discovery are all limitations from our human selves. did you know Mars exists but humans have never set foot on Mars?

" Furthermore, it very likely contradicts itself, meaning that something could be "true" and "false" at the same time according to math."

what? math doesn't contradict itself. 2+2=4 is true. it can't be true and false at the same time

"So yeah. Math is not fundamental and very much a product of humanity. As you yourself just admitted by saying its axioms are discovered through trial and error"

math would still be true without humanity. it's not a product of humanity. 2+2 would still equal 4 if we went extinct. is gravity also a product of humanity according to your logic?

[Syntosi]

If "math itself" is incomplete, unprovable and possibly contradictory, what makes you think it even exists in the first place? You are starting to sound like someone who believes in an unprovable god. Also, this is not "limitations from our human selves" but rather the actual limitations in mathematics.

And yes. It is entirely possible that we will discover contradictory mathematics. In fact, we have done so multiple times already but we have always tried to rationalize it away such as the set theory.

It is entirely possible that we will find mathematical proof that 2+2=4 is true and that 2+2=4 is false.

[Asker]

math isn't unprovable nor does it contradict. saying math doesn't exist because it's incomplete is like saying insects don't exist because not every single species of insect has been found

there is no limitations to math. bruh, you can't even count to infinity for fuck sakes, not even if you lived forever. that is a human limitation not a limitation on math

multiple times already? like what exactly? your personal feelings?

"It is entirely possible that we will find mathematical proof that 2+2=4 is true and that 2+2=4 is false."

lol this is entirely possible but God isn't? and you wanna talk about shit that is unprovable?

[Syntosi]

You should watch that video some more then because they specifically provided proof that not all statements has a proof and that it is not decidable as well as hints that it might be internally contradictory.

And no, calculations using infinity has been part of modern math since the beginning. It is not as mysterious nor as difficult to calculate as you appear to think. Again, we are hitting the edges of your understanding and you are failing to understand what we are talking about.

As for 2+2=4 being both true and false at the same time according to math? It is possible. Why? Because math as a system is inherently flawed. As for the existence of a god? Every instance of a god that we have envisioned is either untestable or outright disproved. Every modern religion has been proved to be the construct of humans over the history and their flawed beliefs put in religious doctrine is easy enough to shred apart with modern understanding.

As for finding contradictions in math? I did mention the set theory where they had to redefine the definition of what a set is to avoid the contradiction of creating sets that both is and is not part of itself.

[Asker]

"You should watch that video some more then because they specifically provided proof that not all statements has a proof and that it is not decidable as well as hints that it might be internally contradictory"

you do realize the video you posted is all theory based, right? it's Godel's own theorems that have no proof. Pythagoras theorem for example is proven, the quadratic equation is proven, many others are proven and have no contradiction

" It is not as mysterious nor as difficult to calculate as you appear to think"

this has nothing to do with your original point of math itself having limitations

"As for 2+2=4 being both true and false at the same time according to math? It is possible. Why? Because math as a system is inherently flawed"

this is just stupid mumbo jumbo. even IF math were flawed, it wouldn't be for a stupid reason like 2+2=4 is false

"Every instance of a god that we have envisioned is either untestable or outright disproved"

disproved how? what was the scientific method used to disprove God? just denials?

"Every modern religion has been proved to be the construct of humans over the history and their flawed beliefs put in religious doctrine is easy enough to shred apart with modern understanding"

who says God needs religion? religion is just people getting together for worship. the Ancient Romans used to worship planets and named them after Gods. those planets would still exist whether the Romans worshipped them or not

"As for finding contradictions in math? I did mention the set theory where they had to redefine the definition of what a set is to avoid the contradiction of creating sets that both is and is not part of itself"

so where's the contradiction if it doesn't exist anymore? is information not allowed to be updated? it is a theory after all and theories are always subjected to change

[Syntosi]

Well it is awfully convenient if you get to pick and choose which mathematical axioms you wish to recognize and which ones you want to ignore. Sadly, you dont get to prove that the earth is flat because things always "falls downwards" and ignore the rest.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is directly connected to Pythagoras theorem and everything else in mathematics, as is the flaws it highlights.

And no. These flaws are not "theory based". They are logically proved using mathematical axioms which you so dearly admire for being "objective" and "fundamental". Furthermore, if we were to find a mathematical contradiction then we could very likely expand on that and build a whole new system based on that contradiction. One which would always contradict our normal model. One where 2+2 would not equal 4 for example and since both of these models would be connected through the contradiction then that would mean that according to math, they would both be true. 2+2=4 would both be true and not true at the same time and there would be equal mathematical proof for both sides.

This sounds very incompatible with reality if you ask me. Something that is "human made" rather than existing independently of us. It might be easy to re-create independently but that is besides the point.

As for infinity? It was you who brought it up as if the problem was that we could not count to infinity, which was never the issue.

[Asker]

it's not picking and choosing if the axioms are grounded in numerical foundations and the others are grounded in the unknown

"Sadly, you dont get to prove that the earth is flat because things always "falls downwards" and ignore the rest"

that's assuming I believed the Earth is flat and went looking for evidence and until I find that evidence I can be right and wrong at the same time. that's Godel's theorem in a nutshell which is just Schrodinger's Cat and honestly could be used to determine god too

"Godel's incompleteness theorem is directly connected to Pythagoras theorem and everything else in mathematics, as is the flaws it highlights."

oh really? show me how Pythagoras theorem is wrong then. go ahead

when dealing with the unknown, of course it's theory based. this doesn't absolve any objectivity. for example if you found a coin on Mars, you don't have evidence of who or what put it there but you at least know someone or something put it there

"we could very likely expand on that and build a whole new system based on that contradiction"

or we could use this "contradiction" to find god too since you wanna speculate that much

"they would both be true. 2+2=4 would both be true and not true at the same time and there would be equal mathematical proof for both sides"

and that would be easily debunked just by counting 2 and 2 together

"This sounds very incompatible with reality if you ask me. Something that is "human made" rather than existing independently of us. It might be easy to re-create independently but that is besides the point"

gravity exists independent of us, mathematics does too. religion does not but "God" may not be any god from any religion

"As for infinity? It was you who brought it up as if the problem was that we could not count to infinity, which was never the issue"

nope. I brought up infinity to demonstrate human flaws not mathematical flaws.

[Syntosi]

No. Godel's incompleteness theory is not that you could go out and look for evidence but never find any. It is that mathematical axioms can't prove "mathematics" is true and that it can't prove that mathematics is without contradictions.

If we use the flat earth analogy then that means you can't have a full theory of the shape of the earth and that it is possible that the rules which you do know, such as "something I drop always falls down" might not be true and that sometimes the thing you drop falls upwards or sideways or just stays there.

It is an indictment of the entire field of mathematics and is mathematically proved to never be solved by mathematics due to a limitation of mathematics and not because of a limitation by humans.

The example with the set theory, where they had to redefine what a "set" is to avoid a contradiction is not an example where the situation was somehow resolved by changing the definition, it was merely avoided. To avert their eyes from the problem rather than dropping the entire theory of set theory or to accept that mathematical axioms are wrong and contradicting each other.

And you clearly dont understand how serious of a problem this is. Picking up and counting 2 and 2 together will not solve anything. We are again reaching the problem that you simply dont understand enough to grasp the full seriousness of this issue. Your ignorance is once again holding back this conversation.

[Asker]

"it is that mathematical axioms can't prove "mathematics" is true and that it can't prove that mathematics is without contradictions."

this is only applicable because there's potentially infinite amount of knowledge on math and humans so far have discovered a limited amount of it. that's like saying we can't prove all species of insects have 6 legs because we haven't found every species of insect

"If we use the flat earth analogy then that means you can't have a full theory of the shape of the earth and that it is possible that the rules which you do know, such as "something I drop always falls down" might not be true and that sometimes the thing you drop falls upwards or sideways or just stays there"

this is only proving my point that humans are limited by what they know

"It is an indictment of the entire field of mathematics and is mathematically proved to never be solved by mathematics due to a limitation of mathematics and not because of a limitation by humans"

it is limited by humans

"The example with the set theory, where they had to redefine what a "set" is to avoid a contradiction is not an example where the situation was somehow resolved by changing the definition, it was merely avoided. To avert their eyes from the problem rather than dropping the entire theory of set theory or to accept that mathematical axioms are wrong and contradicting each other"

there's no contradiction shown in the actual math. it's just fancy word play

insect = { ant, beetle, fly } is a set. insect is not a species of insect. yeah we know

"And you clearly dont understand how serious of a problem this is. Picking up and counting 2 and 2 together will not solve anything. "

no, this is just you overcomplicating something simple. is playing doubles tennis impossible because 2+2=4 happens to be false? I get it, your whole gist is to somehow prove your morals are as objective as math because past mathematicians are fooling around with definitions until the math works or doesn't

[Syntosi]

No, it has nothing to do with there being potentially "infinite information". Godel found specifically 1 piece of information that mathematics can't prove and he proved that this was impossible to prove using mathematical axioms. Furthermore, if you could find a "proof" of what Godel found then you would have found a contradiction which is even worse so if I was you I would not hold my breath because things are not getting easier from here.

And once again, you are confusing yourself. This is not a limitation of human knowledge and that if only we could "calculate infinity" or "discover everything" then that would resolve the problems. It would not. These are limitations to mathematics that can't be solved by mathematics because the axioms won't allow for it.

And no, this is a problem with "actual math" and can be demonstrated with "actual math". The fact that you think its just "fancy word play" is just because you dont understand mathematics.

[Asker]

Godel's specific piece of information is based on the potential for infinity not an actual static number which math has proven correct time and time again regardless of what formula you use

Godel's theorem is not meant to find 100% proof due to it's paradoxical nature. This is equivalent to someone claiming to be lying about something. this doesn't disprove math at all when you can just test formulas and equations with inputs which you have yet to demonstrate

"These are limitations to mathematics that can't be solved by mathematics because the axioms won't allow for it"

show me an example where it won't allow using whatever equation and input that you want

"And no, this is a problem with "actual math" and can be demonstrated with "actual math". The fact that you think its just "fancy word play" is just because you dont understand mathematics"

then demonstrate to me how 2+2=4 is false

[Syntosi]

Again you are trying to hide behind "infinity". And once again the only reason you are doing this is because you are ignorant and refuse to learn.

Godels theorem is meant to find proof that first-order logic is incomplete and impossible to verify by producing a statement in its mathematical language built on the first-order logic of mathematical axioms that proves that it can't be verified.

Furthermore, since we are not working with a complete system of mathematics and can't verify this system we also can't mathematically predict if there is any contradictions. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. We dont know. We dont know if 2+2 always equals 4.

[Asker]

"Again you are trying to hide behind "infinity". And once again the only reason you are doing this is because you are ignorant and refuse to learn"

I don't need to hide behind infinity when you've failed to prove where math is incorrect or flawed or contradictory using various inputs

"we are not working with a complete system of mathematics"

thanks for proving my point as I've told you time and time again this is a limitation of humans who do not have complete knowledge of ALL mathematics that has ever existed

"We dont know. We dont know if 2+2 always equals 4"

we don't know if God exists or not either if we apply Godel's theorem here but you seem certain God doesn't exist

[Twodogs0525]

Rarely. I think half of the climate fanatic's are insane!

[exitseven]

The only time I think about it is when it gets cold out. I wish global warming was real and we would not have cold weather

[ProbablyClueless]

Not on a daily basis, but I think about it a fair amount.. Several times per week.

[In_Trance]

How can you tell which respones are honest?

[Asker]

if you let someone talk long enough, they'll reveal everything