here's an intangible claim that is false. alephnull = alephone.
No. Here is a claim that following on from a series of axioms, is defined as false. But no objective way exists to talk of the validity of the axioms themselves, unless we give the statement tangibility by stating that 1+1 =2 etc and all the statements that build up to it are representative of some element of reality. Otherwise, my concept of alephfoo may be different from yours, and so the debate collapses.
this disproves your statement that nothing intangible can be falsifiable.
No. In fact, what you have done is to confuse the scientific idea of falsification. Falsification does not mean the declaration of falsehood, but the proof by means of reference to reality.
in that sense, everything in science is indeterminate.
True! Look up for a very interesting article on "Why does science work?", somewhere. Indeed, perhaps the biggest miracle in the universe is that maths and science are actually effective.
But there are degrees of indeterminancy. We can never declare absolutely something as true. (Including this post, paradoxically as it seems) We can however make the statement that somethings are more indeterminate than others, and we do that by trying to minimise our assumptions/axioms, and placing reference to tangible events. The nature of knowledge denies us pure determinancy, but there is a word of difference between something that is not determinable by the limitations of the universe, and not determinable by neccessity of the argument.
The sleep of reason does nightmares make.
therefore, reason has to be abandoned if one is to accept the statement 1+1=2 as being true. and if this is true yet reason doesn't prove it, what else is out there that is true that reason doesn't prove?
No, reason is not to be abandoned - as this brings the question, abandoned in favour of what? Deductive reasoning, by definition, cannot bring new knowledge. But a test is useful, as it shows up flaws.
you could say that "god exists" is an axiom as well as "there is a set with no elements."
But on the basis of maths we can build things. We can show the apparent inconsistency that would arise if maths were not true, and hence we are persuaded into assuming maths in correct. Maths in general is a vulnerable axiom - it is an axiom that leads to implications, that should be reflected in the real word. God, can give either tangible implications or intangible ones - tangible = vulnerable, and useful, intangible = invulnerable, and opinionated. There is a sharp divide now between platonic mathematics and formalistic mathematics.
By Formalistic mathematics, true. Maths is immune to scientific study, and is a network of tautologies only, and so as a whole has no truth value. By Platonic mathematics, false, because the whole of maths represents something tangible and experiencible in the real word. In this case, maths is neccessarily a science, and can be shown to be true or untrue.
what i'd like to point out is that 1+1=2 is believed to be true yet there is NO PROOF FOR IT!
Yes. But its belief is not the reason why 1+1=2 can not generally be dealt with. It is in the nature of the statement. Unless we make it a statement regarding the real world.
so why are religious people looked down on (i hear words like "sheep") so much for believing in God?
It's a fun sport people try out now and then. Theists call atheists sinners, evil, etc etc, and atheists call them back. Ok, to make the real point... The major bad point of all religions (from the perspective of an atheist/agnostic) is the emphasis on
faith. Faith involves the striving for invulnerability of an argument. It is not the belief itself, but the fanatical aspect and lack of skepticism which accompanies it. Maths is sufferable because it is useful, it provides a rigid set of implications with which we can deal with. Religions on the other hand most insist on intangibility, and lack of usefulness. And there is a practical alternative to religion, whilst insisting 1+1!= 2 is rather non-useful.
But in general, it is more a case of religious people attempting to patronise non-religious people. (Count the percentage population gap!)
