the problem of induction breaks math

[mogger123]

just because 1+1=2 the last time you thought about it, doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the future

but muh axioms say that 1+1 must equal 2 by definition!

that may be so, but you need to remember that these axioms have been shrewdly constructed in such a way that they reflect the physical world around us. this is important. think about it - if my math doesn't correspond to something tangible at it's very core then there is nothing differentiating it from a load of nonsense

hence, if the laws of nature are not invariant then everything begins to break down because the robustness of this ontological tether is not a given. math must adapt to the environment it is describing, the trajectory of which is impossible to predict

 

[JBcollector]

Yes I read and understood everything

 

[JBcollector]

Didn't they use maths to predict black holes back in the 1920s

 

[mogger123]

Didn't they use maths to predict black holes back in the 1920s

idk probably

 

[Alexanderr]

It's important to acknowledge that mathematics is not a perfect representation of the world and that there is always a degree of uncertainty involved in our understanding of the universe. This does not mean that mathematics is not valuable, but rather that we need to be aware of its limitations and utilize other sources of information, such as scientific experiments and observations, to help validate our mathematical models.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

just because 1+1=2 the last time you thought about it, doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the future

but muh axioms say that 1+1 must equal 2 by definition!

that may be so, but you need to remember that these axioms have been shrewdly constructed in such a way that they reflect the physical world around us. this is important. think about it - if my math doesn't correspond to something tangible at it's very core then there is nothing differentiating it from a load of nonsense

hence, if the laws of nature are not invariant then everything begins to break down because the robustness of this ontological tether is not a given. math must adapt to the environment it is describing, the trajectory of which is impossible to predict

As somebody who enjoys programming but is shit at maths I can say much of the issues and stuff revolving around mathematics cannot be used to conceptualise and understand the weave that is reality to its fullest. However mathematics does have many methodologies (advanced) to in a sort of logical but convoluted way explain the current circumstances of reality.