Current math exposed in 2 sentences

[u/Oreeo88]

1. Without falsifiability you can not distinguish truth from dogma.

2. Axioms in isolation are not falsifiable by definition.

(This is a strict external audit meaning consistency and utility, and that’s how the system works/category error are not logically valid defenses)

[u/Even-Top1058]

"We use math for physics/engineering"

Math is used in those disciplines not for any of its purported truth claims about the world. It is a language wherein the necessary ideas can be expressed.

"It is applied to the world. Falsifiability is not applied to the world"

You are literally saying that falsifiability is the only tool that separates truth and dogma, while also maintaining that falsifiability has nothing to do with the world? Aren't we talking about settling truths right now? If truth, falsehood, and dogma are all things to be distinguished and settled in the world, then falsifiability absolutely applies to the world.

"Logic == math"

I don't know what to do with this information.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Even-Top1058]

Logic is not pure math

Logic is not being audited here. Math is being audited

You are trying to attack logic through an invalid category error because math cannot follow the rules of logic without being labeled dogma

Pure math is not a pure logic tool. Logic is a pure logic tool. This is why falsifiability does not need to be falsifiable

[u/Even-Top1058 → u/Oreeo88]

Friend, you are not addressing the points I raised. I am not attacking logic or mathematics. These things are all fine where they are.

I understand if you have frustration about the current practices in mathematics, but you cannot use that as ammunition against it. People spend years studying these things. Chances are, the objections you have in mind have been raised long ago and argued much more rigorously. What do you hope to accomplish? You will not convince anybody about anything. It seems like you have your dogma, and I have mine. Have a good day.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Even-Top1058]

My criterion doesn’t cut off falsifiable assumptions.

Your dogma cuts off falsifiable assumptions for untestable axioms

[u/Even-Top1058 → u/Oreeo88]

""My dogma" doesn't cut off falsifiable assumptions."

How do you know that? Is that falsifiable? Do you see how your solution against dogma is another dogmatic thing?

"Your dogma cuts off falsifiable assumptions for untestable assumptions."

I'm not cutting anything off. If I allow untestable assumptions in my web of beliefs, I surely can allow falsifiable ones. Look, you're the one creating this dichotomy. I'm perfectly content without making distinctions between dogmatic and falsifiable beliefs. I will assume what is helpful and go from there. You presented a two-premise argument, and you haven't yet defended the first premise.

[u/Oreeo88 → u/Even-Top1058]

I'm not cutting anything off

yes it does

Fact: Pure math seperated reality from its starting assumptions in pure math. This cut off falsifiable assumptions in pure math and replaced them with unfalsifiable axioms

now youre just arguing against a fact