How do we even know if our beliefs are really true?

[imontheloose]

Tautology is just a subset of language

You've described language here

ie in the case where 1+1 != 2. When 1 raindrop combines with another (1) raindrop it creates ... 1 raindrop (in most, if not all cases). In order for the statement 1 + 1 =2 to be tautological, then in every ontological case 1 + 1 must equate to 2, however it doesn't. And there are many other obvious flaws in math (and basic arithmetic for that matter), thus really making math no different to a descriptive (and most importantly, subjective) language.

No, it's logical and totally correct (lol)

It's impossible to produce an objective (true/not true) output with a subjective input (human brain) - It's really that simple.

Math being the product of a subjective interface (the human brain) -> It can only produce subjective descriptions.

I know you’re being ironic with your claims of it being logical and correct, but that’s the precise problem. If you hold this ludicrous position, then everything is absurd. Why are you even explaining this to me then if it isn’t correct and neither is mine, despite you saying you’re correct? Declaring every sentence truth-valueless leaves you unable to state this very thesis. Life is useless under this very silly view.

You’re word-for-word quoting Kim Jong-un’s disproof of mathematics with that rain argument. It’s a laughable category error. If you studied mathematics to any deep level, you’d understand this is counting vs. chemistry. If you let two objects chemically merge, you’re no longer counting the same thing. You’ve changed the physical scenario, not the arithmetic. Unless you disagree with Peano axioms, I can show you from set theory that 1+1=2. Any computer will verify it step by step. Kim Jong-un-approved physics doesn’t prove arithmetic is subjective.

Counting distinct drops -> cardinality (requires disjointness). Whether you choose to swap mid-calculation from count drops to count aggregate, doesn’t change if arithmetic is true or not.

By language, I’m taking it as a given you realised I was speaking about natural language. But I’ll specify now. Unlike mathematics, a formal language, natural language has subjective grammar relying on context, idiom, speaker, blah blah blah. And meaning is negotiated nonstop. It’s incredibly ambiguous. Arithmetic has a finite rule set, each closed sentence is assigned a truth-value in its model, and there is zero ambiguity. To claim there is no difference is ridiculous.

LEM is built into orthodox arithmetic. To reject LEM, you would need to commit a intuitionistic or paraconsistent logic explicitly. You never did, you just asserted a conclusion. Even in HA, the statement 1+1=2 is constructively provable.

Confusing origin with status is terrible stuff. Objectivity lives in the publicly inspectable artefact, not who typed it. The scientific method declares anything which can be verified by a separate, competent agent is objective.

Am I missing something? Please tell me if so. I’m not trying to be rude at all. But this really seems insane.

 

[neurosis]

Am I missing something? Please tell me if so. I’m not trying to be rude at all. But this really seems insane.

Your entire interface of reality is subjective, how can you be sure of that literally anything is objective (true/not true) when you only have your objectively subjective axiom (brain/consciousness) to base anything 'objective' on - It's such a simple paradox yet math believers think otherwise

 

[neurosis]

Logic and truth debunked by the statement 'this statement is false'

Math btfo