EVERYONE IS THINKING BACKWARDS AND IT”S MATH’S FAULT? (important piece) (central

EVERYONE IS THINKING BACKWARDS AND IT”S MATH’S FAULT?

(important piece) (central theory)

You can deduce a mathematical answer, and offer a proof of construction of that mathematical answer, because mathematics consists largely of formal operations – even if we label them incorrectly for marketing purposes. (Functions as numbers so to speak.) And the operations that we deduce with are the same (mostly) that we construct with. So much so that they constitute tautological differences only.

But this emphasis on exploring with the same tools that we use for constructing proofs, has distracted us. The fact that we deduce something mathematically is irrelevant – it’s the fact that we can offer a proof of construction operationally that is the ‘proof’ – not the deduction. The deduction is what we take credit for, but it might as well be an act of accidental stumbling.

We face this same problem in logic – we can deduce, something however we want to – in some vague approximation of the mathematics wherein the process of deduction mirrors the process of construction.

But it is NOT the DEDUCTION that provides us with value, it is the proof of construction that has value – that tells us that a theory is testifiably true – as existentially possible.

***The better perspective is that the delta between our means of deduction and our means of construction simplifies the likelihood that we CAN at some point create a proof of construction.***

So here again, Popper is ALMOST RIGHT. It’s not the justification or the deduction that matters. But he fails to grasp that it is the proof of construction that tests a theory, then it is the proof of construction of an internally consistent description. That it is a proof of external correspondence. That we have limited the errors in that correspondence through falsification.

Of course justification of one’s deductions doesn’t matter! The question is whether your theory is demonstrably parsimonious enough that we can use it without harm (waste), and whether you warranty it as such.