Why you can't prove a single mathematical thing beyond a shadow of a doubt

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the philosophical argument that mathematics cannot be proven with absolute certainty. The key points include the notion that human perception shapes reality, which is subject to change with new information. The argument posits that conceivable counter-examples undermine the certainty of mathematical truths, exemplified by Descartes' thought experiment regarding a deceptive being manipulating perceptions. Ultimately, the discussion concludes that logic itself cannot be deemed 100% sound due to the inherent limitations of human understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of philosophical concepts related to perception and reality
  • Familiarity with mathematical axioms and their implications
  • Knowledge of Descartes' philosophical arguments and thought experiments
  • Basic grasp of logical reasoning and its limitations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Descartes' Meditations" for insights on skepticism and certainty
  • Explore "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems" for implications on mathematical proof
  • Study "Philosophy of Mathematics" to understand different interpretations of mathematical truth
  • Investigate "Epistemology" to delve into the nature of knowledge and belief
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, mathematicians, and students of logic who are interested in the intersection of mathematics and philosophical inquiry regarding certainty and truth.

leemarvin
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Oyez!

I'm an amateur philosopher and I'd like to start up an interesting debate. The topic will be mathematics (and, in general, everything) and how it is not logically possible to prove such a system. This is my informal argument:

1. Humans live in a "reality" governed by laws, axioms, and such.

2. This reality is defined as no more than our perceptions, for our understanding of it depends on our mental processes.

3. This reality is always changing as new studies, etc. change or break certain things.

4. All that is required to make something not 100% certain is a conceivable counter-example.

5. Since humans are not in a position to judge the truth of the world absolutely and without doubt, they must rely on themselves.

6. To borrow Descartes' thought-experiment, if a maleficent being is controlling the world and making sure things abide mathematically only when people are looking, or through some manipulation manages to make the "untruth" that 2+2=4 the truth, how are we to say that mathematics is 100% certain if this random counter-example is even conceivable?

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. Our own logic dictates that it is not possible to say our logic is 100% sound.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
This does not meet the minimum posting requirements for the philosophy forum. Please read the guidelines next time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
19K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
15K