Theme: Truth

YES, MATHEMATICS IS TAUGHT AS FICTION: “LET US TEACH EVERYONE A VERY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT LESSON VIA MR JOHN BLACK.” —“Mathematical fictionalism is more tenable than mathematical platonism.”—Melvin Davila Martinez “There are no such things as abstract objects? Prove it.” — John Black The verb ‘to-be’ = ‘exists’. (is, are, was, were, be, being, been) It is the most ‘irregular’ verb in the english language. Irregular means ‘fungible’. In other words, it is the least precise verb in the english language. It allows us to ‘cheat’, and save both thinking and words, and to claim authority rather than subjectivity, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. Example: The cat is black = i see a cat, and the cat looks like the color black to me. The first is both a verbal shortcut, a testimony of one’s honesty, and an appeal to authority by a definitive statement, which can only POSSIBLY be a subjective statement. The same applies to the use of the word ‘number’ which is an irregular NOUN – that like the most irregular VERB ‘to be’, allows us to ‘cheat’, and save thinking and words, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. the natural numbers refer to a set of names for quantities of anything we choose to categorize. But everything else we call a ‘number’ is, like the verb ‘to-be’ a pretense, since a number, including fractional representation using numbers, refers to the name of a quantity, whereas all other referents are the result of operations: FUNCTIONS, not numbers. So let us scientifically test this statement: “There are no such things as abstract objects.” …. which translates to …. “There [exist] no such [referents] as [non-existent] [referents]” To which the answer is: “There exist constant relations between constant relations.” which is a tautology. In other words, its meaningless. Why? Because what is a measurement? A measurement is a unitary quantity of constant relations. And what is a number? the name of a constant relation of quantities. Do constant relations exist? Yes, we call this ‘determinism’ in the scientific ( not philosophical) sense: that the universe operates by a set of constant relations we call ‘laws’ that we must only discover. If the universe did not operate by constant relations thought would be impossible, since that is the function of memory: to identify constant relations, and test inconstant relations. So do constant relations exist? Yes. We name those constant relations by the use of names that we call numbers, and functions that we reduce to the symbolic equivalent of numbers. But all that ‘exists’ are constant relations. Mathematics currently consists of a large set of verbal myths and parables by which we reduce complex sequences of consistent operations upon a unitary measure of constant relations. In other words, when we say Christianity or Aristotelianism, we give a name to a complex set of undefined operations. When we speak in much of mathematical language we do the same. Why? Because the human mind uses mathematics as a symbolic store of constant relations beyond which our perceptions are able to discern, and beyond which our short term memories are capable of holding. So we speak in the language of manipulating the symbols and begin to treat those symbols as existential rather than as names for the set of constant relations and constant operations that they refer to. ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT (ANY STATEMENT IN WHICH YOU CLAIM TO CONSTRUCT A TRUTH PROPOSITION) THAT CONTAINS THE VERB TO BE, MUST BE TESTED AS A POTENTIAL ACT OF FRAUD, BECAUSE EACH SUCH STATEMENT IS A FRAUD CANDIDATE, SINCE ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT CAN BE STATED WITHOUT THE VERB TO BE WITH GREATER DEFENSE AGAINST CONFLATION, SUBSTITUTION, SUGGESTION, AND DECEIT. Almost all philosophical questions that we normally find irresolvable are dependent upon the use of the verb to be to create appeal to authority through the use of confusion and incommensurability by acts of polymorphism by the use of conflation, substitution, suggestion, loading (moral distraction) and deceit (counter-factual loading). In other words MATHEMATICAL FICTIONALISM truthfully and scientifically describes the ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ of mathematics. When we speak in the names of heroes, and refer to myths and legends, and use these parables as methods of decidability in the face of a kaleidic universe, we are ‘calculating’ using symbolic referents and operations. Just as when we claim that the square root of two exists, when it cannot, since we refer to a constant relation that cannot be reduced to a constant relation without a context to provide the information supplied by context: what mathematicians call ‘limits’ or ‘decidability’ or ‘the axiom of choice’. Mathematics is to Programming, what Rationalism is to Empiricism: a smaller set of properties. Mathematics functions as a language for the expression of constant relations greater than the constant relations we can express by other means. Mathematics is spoken in terms of mythology, but computer science is not. This is what separates the imaginary and mythological, from the existential, and computable. Programming tests mathematics. Because functions exist, because operations exist. Everything else refers to some complex set of constant relations we give a name to: a function: a sequence of existentially possible operations. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

YES, MATHEMATICS IS TAUGHT AS FICTION: “LET US TEACH EVERYONE A VERY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT LESSON VIA MR JOHN BLACK.” —“Mathematical fictionalism is more tenable than mathematical platonism.”—Melvin Davila Martinez “There are no such things as abstract objects? Prove it.” — John Black The verb ‘to-be’ = ‘exists’. (is, are, was, were, be, being, been) It is the most ‘irregular’ verb in the english language. Irregular means ‘fungible’. In other words, it is the least precise verb in the english language. It allows us to ‘cheat’, and save both thinking and words, and to claim authority rather than subjectivity, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. Example: The cat is black = i see a cat, and the cat looks like the color black to me. The first is both a verbal shortcut, a testimony of one’s honesty, and an appeal to authority by a definitive statement, which can only POSSIBLY be a subjective statement. The same applies to the use of the word ‘number’ which is an irregular NOUN – that like the most irregular VERB ‘to be’, allows us to ‘cheat’, and save thinking and words, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. the natural numbers refer to a set of names for quantities of anything we choose to categorize. But everything else we call a ‘number’ is, like the verb ‘to-be’ a pretense, since a number, including fractional representation using numbers, refers to the name of a quantity, whereas all other referents are the result of operations: FUNCTIONS, not numbers. So let us scientifically test this statement: “There are no such things as abstract objects.” …. which translates to …. “There [exist] no such [referents] as [non-existent] [referents]” To which the answer is: “There exist constant relations between constant relations.” which is a tautology. In other words, its meaningless. Why? Because what is a measurement? A measurement is a unitary quantity of constant relations. And what is a number? the name of a constant relation of quantities. Do constant relations exist? Yes, we call this ‘determinism’ in the scientific ( not philosophical) sense: that the universe operates by a set of constant relations we call ‘laws’ that we must only discover. If the universe did not operate by constant relations thought would be impossible, since that is the function of memory: to identify constant relations, and test inconstant relations. So do constant relations exist? Yes. We name those constant relations by the use of names that we call numbers, and functions that we reduce to the symbolic equivalent of numbers. But all that ‘exists’ are constant relations. Mathematics currently consists of a large set of verbal myths and parables by which we reduce complex sequences of consistent operations upon a unitary measure of constant relations. In other words, when we say Christianity or Aristotelianism, we give a name to a complex set of undefined operations. When we speak in much of mathematical language we do the same. Why? Because the human mind uses mathematics as a symbolic store of constant relations beyond which our perceptions are able to discern, and beyond which our short term memories are capable of holding. So we speak in the language of manipulating the symbols and begin to treat those symbols as existential rather than as names for the set of constant relations and constant operations that they refer to. ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT (ANY STATEMENT IN WHICH YOU CLAIM TO CONSTRUCT A TRUTH PROPOSITION) THAT CONTAINS THE VERB TO BE, MUST BE TESTED AS A POTENTIAL ACT OF FRAUD, BECAUSE EACH SUCH STATEMENT IS A FRAUD CANDIDATE, SINCE ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT CAN BE STATED WITHOUT THE VERB TO BE WITH GREATER DEFENSE AGAINST CONFLATION, SUBSTITUTION, SUGGESTION, AND DECEIT. Almost all philosophical questions that we normally find irresolvable are dependent upon the use of the verb to be to create appeal to authority through the use of confusion and incommensurability by acts of polymorphism by the use of conflation, substitution, suggestion, loading (moral distraction) and deceit (counter-factual loading). In other words MATHEMATICAL FICTIONALISM truthfully and scientifically describes the ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ of mathematics. When we speak in the names of heroes, and refer to myths and legends, and use these parables as methods of decidability in the face of a kaleidic universe, we are ‘calculating’ using symbolic referents and operations. Just as when we claim that the square root of two exists, when it cannot, since we refer to a constant relation that cannot be reduced to a constant relation without a context to provide the information supplied by context: what mathematicians call ‘limits’ or ‘decidability’ or ‘the axiom of choice’. Mathematics is to Programming, what Rationalism is to Empiricism: a smaller set of properties. Mathematics functions as a language for the expression of constant relations greater than the constant relations we can express by other means. Mathematics is spoken in terms of mythology, but computer science is not. This is what separates the imaginary and mythological, from the existential, and computable. Programming tests mathematics. Because functions exist, because operations exist. Everything else refers to some complex set of constant relations we give a name to: a function: a sequence of existentially possible operations. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine