How is mathematics as something that is free of contradictions able to reliably describe the material world that is inherently founded on contradictions, as dialectical materialism claims?
The development of mathematics is constrained by the extent to which man can interact with matter.
Mathematics is the 'Queen of Sciences' and the 'scientific language' par excellence. It is also simply a model by which we communicate and explore our understanding of matter, of the Real. But make no mistake in thinking mathematics takes primacy over matter and that it is the real.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
>>2609074Didn‘t explain how something that is inherently free of contradictions is able to explain things that are allegedly inherently contradictory.
what is proof by contradiction
>>2609083your angle of attack itself 'free of contractions vs full of contracdictions' is wrong. You are going down a path of confusion, obfuscation and eventually
reaction.
>>2609088>your angle of attack itself 'free of contractions vs full of contracdictions' is wrong.How so
>>2609070I would argue it's the opposite; dialectics are algebra extended to cover qualitative relationships in addition to quantitative ones.
>>2609093Think about it, burger boy.
>>2609099You are free to prove that you aren‘t an obscurantist pseud, bud.
why is a map able to reliably describe the territory without contradiction?
>>2609147maybe it is a magic map like in harry potter
>>2609158troll. there aren't even numbers, how is this math
>>2609083you have a very mechanistic view of what contradiction is, if you think there is no contradiction in math. Or you are confusing mathematical (logical) contradiction with what marxists understand with contradiction. I'm going to say it's the latter. A mathematical contradiction is some concrete contradiction within a particular system. So like, 1+1=2 is true whenever the characteristic is >2, and 0 otherwise. both are true, and neither contradicts the other owning to the fact that it is a different statement because of the different setting. A marxist contradiction in math would for example be how to bridge across two subjects that have something in common, or using methods from a different field in some other field. or explaining some glaring discrepancy that would be expected from the given theory, but doesn't happen. contradiction in the marxist sense should really be thought of as tension between many opposites.
>>2609070"Dialectical materialism", "the dialectical method", etc. are complete horseshit. Mystical garbage.
Insofar as Marx had a method, it was simply 'to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion.' You don't get an inch closer to this by starting with empty abstractions like 'internal contradictions'. Abstractions like 'contradiction' can only be established through a process of generalisation. At most, they are conclusions, results established after examination of the specific objects themselves. Maotards, on the other hand, reverse the whole thing, so that we are supposed to start from abstractions like 'internal contradiction' and then work our way from that to some sort of actually concrete content.
The general notion that everything contains both internal and external contradictions, for example, doesn't allow me to understand why ice cream melts in the sun. You would have to actually examine the nature of ice cream and of sunlight themselves, and their interaction. If you try to impose a pre-established method upon the subject-matter, naturally you will only produce a version of the subject-matter modified by your method, by the a priori principles you have forced the content to conform to, which is why Marx's method wasn't really a coherent 'method' or set of steps, but rather the simple observation that one must study each object in detail, and allow it to 'speak for itself', as it were. It is, if you want, a critique of 'method'.
>>2609083You can consider protons and electrons to be two poles of a contradiction. So what? How does that knowledge help you progress in your investigation of these things? People spend way too much time bloviating about shit that has zero practical application. Stop reading philosophy and read some actual books.
>>2609179yeah physicists and chemists are absolute idiots for studying stuff like atoms and protons and electrons. they should read books and do real stuff.
wtf is this bullshit
>>2609183>drop the abstractions and pointless philosophizing and do actual research<WTF so you want them to fucking do actual research?????????? huh?? huh?????Cool reading skills. 👍
>>2609177>naturally you will only produce a version of the subject-matter modified by your method, by the a priori principles you have forced the content to conform toBut that is always the case unless you want to claim there is an objective perception and information gathering process from the get go. This couldn‘t be the case because our means of making sense of the world are insufficient at first and develop as theories themselves.
>>2609179It does but in a more general sense, while you make an example where you already have an answer that overlooks what makes such philosophical discussions useful. It‘s a metaphysical stipulation based on which you make sense of the world and how you construct your models and theories. A metaphysical stipulation that posits that the world is free of contradictions would in its attempt of making sense of atoms have rejected the idea that sub atomic particles exist that act as two poles of a contradiction that makes up a whole. You would conceive of it in some form that is free of contradictions, which wouldn‘t yield a suitable answer, but you wouldn‘t know that because you skipped the philosophical discussion and took current scientific knowledge for granted that actually necessitated certain philosophical stipulations beforehand to arrive at these material conclusions.
>>2609184Modern technology is heavily dependent on our knowledge of physics. I'm sick of people conflating "practical" with "immediately gets results in the short term".
>>2609172>you are confusing mathematical (logical) contradiction with what marxists understand with contradictionits this, they arent t he same kind of contradiction
>>2609070Mathematics are a language to describe logical elements. Saying that mathematics is free from contradictions is like saying that English is free from contradiction, it’s simply an absurd claim.
>inb4 why ?Contradictions, in the marxist context, simply refers to different opposing interests and needs from different classes. For instance, the class of proletariat need stable environments, but the bourgeoisie requires free trade. Thus, a contradiction is formed (stability of employment/free trade), and is caused by material factors.
Mathematics simply don’t apply here, because there’s nothing to « translate » numerically.
eagerly awaiting a maoist philosophical student to resolve the contradiction between quantum physics and general relativity into a unified field theory
>>2609322>Contradictions, in the marxist context, simply refers to different opposing interests and needs from different classes. For instance, the class of proletariat need stable environments, but the bourgeoisie requires free trade. Thus, a contradiction is formed (stability of employment/free trade), and is caused by material factors.bleak state of discourse(tm) where the main idea of contradiction comes from that retarded pamphlet mao wrote that was entirely apologia for class collaboration and nationalism lol
>>2609070Physics is only as valid as our measurements even if the math is right. Everything measured is really just an approximation. Math just describes relationships between variables.
Also math isn't perfect or free from contradictions.
I’m not a math expert, never studied beyond trigonometry but I’m positive the theoretical maths has similar contradictions to theoretical physics. Like Pi is a number but we’ll never be able to find the end .
>>2609358that's not an example of a dialectical contradiction in math. it's more like, our theory says X but our work till this point shows Y. so how are X and Y connected?
You are 100% wrong. Mathematics is science of contradictions.
+ and -
× and ÷
x² and x½
∫ and d/dx
>>2609177>The general notion that everything contains both internal and external contradictions, for example, doesn't allow me to understand why ice cream melts in the sun. yes it does, and I'll tell you why…
> You would have to actually examine the nature of ice creamthe "nature" of ice cream is its internal contradictions
> and of sunlight the "nature" of sunlight is its internal contradictions
>and their interaction. sunlight is part of the environment the ice cream is in, the sun light is one of the "external contradictions" of ice cream. i.e. it is something that affects the icream, from the outside, rather than from the inside.
> If you try to impose a pre-established method upon the subject-matter, naturally you will only produce a version of the subject-matter modified by your method, by the a priori principles you have forced the content to conform to, which is why Marx's method wasn't really a coherent 'method' or set of steps, but rather the simple observation that one must study each object in detail, and allow it to 'speak for itself', as it were. It is, if you want, a critique of 'method'.You're just describing dialectical materialism.
if you can find "dialectics" in any rock, in any living being, in any chemical and physical process etc. etc. then the formalism "dialectics" obviously does not tell you anything concrete at all. its like the spinozian religious cope of god being the universe
>>2609371>every physical entity has an interior and an exterior, therefore the terms "interior" and "exterior" are meaninglessdebate addicted logic
>>2609389>terminally online moron projecting with an allegory that doesnt even applylol ok. the way that term is used by you lot is meaningless and has no explanatory power
hegel
<things must be studied in their essential natures and dialectics is immanent in the results of a correct investigationmarx
<lassalle is stupid for trying to force his content into a ready made system of logical categoriesleftoidpol
<reality is dialectical dood! just apply dialectics and youll end up with the right answer!! contradictions!!!!!how tf do these people even read capital? lol
>>2609364So what I'm getting is that "dialectical materialism" is just ordinary science with a bunch of retarded terminology slapped on top of it.
>>2609560>We present two philosophical essays>Dialectical materialism leads to true resultsstopped reading there. fucking gigapseuds
>>2609070MATHEMATICS IS ABLE TO RELIABLY DESCRIBE THE MATERIAL WORLD, EVEN THOUGH DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM HOLDS THAT REALITY IS FOUNDED ON CONTRADICTIONS, BECAUSE MATHEMATICS DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF REALITY BUT IS AN ABSTRACTION OF STABLE QUANTITATIVE RELATIONS WITHIN MATERIALLY DYNAMIC PROCESSES; DIALECTICAL CONTRADICTION IS NOT THE SAME AS LOGICAL CONTRADICTION, SINCE IT REFERS TO OPPOSING TENDENCIES UNFOLDING OVER TIME RATHER THAN THE SIMULTANEOUS TRUTH OF A AND NOT-A IN THE SAME RESPECT, SO MATHEMATICS REMAINS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WHILE MODELING ONLY THOSE ASPECTS OF REALITY THAT ARE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED OR IDEALIZED; ITS SUCCESS DEPENDS ON AXIOMATIZATION, DOMAIN RESTRICTION, AND HISTORICAL VALIDATION THROUGH PRACTICE, NOT ON METAPHYSICAL CERTAINTY, AND IT BREAKS DOWN PRECISELY WHERE QUALITATIVE TRANSFORMATIONS, PHASE TRANSITIONS, OR EMERGENT PROPERTIES OCCUR, WHICH DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM EXPLICITLY TREATS AS LIMITS OF QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN LOGICAL PARADOXES; IN THIS SENSE MATHEMATICS WORKS BECAUSE IT IS A HISTORICALLY EVOLVED COGNITIVE TOOL SHAPED BY MATERIAL PRACTICE AND CONSTRAINED BY REAL REGULARITIES IN NATURE, CAPABLE OF CAPTURING LAW-GOVERNED MOTION AND ACCUMULATION WHILE REMAINING SILENT ON THE DEEPER ONTOLOGICAL PROCESSES OF BECOMING AND TRANSFORMATION THAT PRODUCE CHANGE.
>>2609350>Maoist metaphysics and Lysenkoism gigabased
>>2609371>its like the spinozian religious cope of god being the universeyes and thats based
Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts are about the contradiction in Calculus.
>>2609536>So what I'm getting is that "dialectical materialism" is just ordinary scienceno not quite
>>2609673Okay, then what is it?
>>2609070The “contradictions” described are not paradoxes. The “synthesis” is a result of two movements. It’s the summation of vectors in mathematical terms.
>>2609158>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/>It's not free from contradictions.Godel didn't show that the math systems of interest to us contain contradictions (are inconsistent). He showed that if they don't contain contradictions (are consistent), they're incomplete.
>>2609070>How is mathematics as something that is free of contradictions able to reliably describe the material world that is inherently founded on contradictions, as dialectical materialism claims?Deja vu? I'm pretty certain I've seen this thread before on here.
>>2609184do you even understand what an abstraction is? rhetoric question, you don't. you are a vulgar idiot posting incoherent schizo babble because you have a chip on your shoulder in regards to academics.
>>2609177I could kiss you right now
>>2609536no because ordinary science doesn't consider its own limitations withing class society. the scientific method is sound, but the scientific practice is limited by the mode of production. scientists study what the bourgeoisie will pay to study. They take grants from the bourgeoisie. They have trouble doing studies twice because the bourgeoisie won't pay for replication. And experimental results are filtered through bourgeois metaphysics and bourgeois rhetoric. if given the choice between inventing new vaccines and new weapons using the same knowledge, you can imagine which one the bourgeoisie will prioritize, so how experimental results get acted upon are also different because of the mode of production. dialectical materialism considers this while bourgeois science does not, and bourgeois science rebukes dialectical materialism as "pseudoscience" for daring to take class society into account when assessing the limitations of bourgeois science.
>>2609536why is "internal contradiction" retarded terminology to you? You study anything and you find that its "nature" is to have components which intreract with one another. in this way "internal contradictions" is actually more descriptive than "the nature of."
>>2611767Because the term "contradiction" was already taken by logic long before Hegel got to it. Also I'm not
>>2609177 a contradiction is a proposition held by opposing variables, which dialectics from the time of plato was given in the elaboration of a particular rational methodology; e.g. X = A or B? this is exactly comparable to formal logic, particularly algorithms, since they resolve operations with opposing functions.
i write about it here with citation:
>>>/edu/24881>>>/edu/25114kant also said that dialectic is simply another name for common logic. hegel's work itself is aspiring to being an act of logical deduction - please ignore the plebs attempting to authorise dialectics as an irrational and illogical doctrine of contradiction over resolution.
>>2611774>Because the term "contradiction" was already taken by logic long before Hegel got to itare terms not allowed to have more than 1 definition? Is context not allowed to dictate which definition is being used? If I say
>She sat on the river bank and checked her bank balance on her phone.There is no confusion between the two "banks."
>>2611909>please ignore the plebs attempting to authorise dialectics as an irrational and illogical doctrine of contradiction over resolution.it's not an illogical doctrine of contradiction over resolution. It's a doctrine that focuses on the process by which contradictions transform into resolutions.
nobody really needs philosophy
>>2612370maybe not needs in the present tense, but at one point philosophy was needed, to produce science. science is the offspring of natural philosophy.
>>2612370It's useless in the modern world. Zoology and mathematics are the most important sciences.
>>2612374Botany is at least as important as zoology if not more so
>>2612409is botany plant zoology, or is zoology just animal botonay? is mycology the synthesis? is a sock a foot glove? or is a glove a hand sock?
>>2612415Fungi are an entirely different kingdom from both plants and animals, they’re pretty wild
>>2612418please address the sock question
>>2612516They’re both forms of condoms
>>2612526based and topology-pilled
>>2609070Nice, comrade; all hope is not lost yet.
You are slow but you may get there in due time.
>>2609086It says that it's _false_ if it's contradictory. If anything, it directly refutes your analysis.
>How is mathematics as something that is free of contradictions
Unprovable statement, dummy
>>2611764truth nuke. perfectly put.
>>2612366he couldn't answer.
>>2609070Absolutely nothing in this world is free of contradictions
>>2612700only if you stop thinking immediately: it follows that mathematics is tautologically that which is not contradictory.
>>2614033even this statement?
Unique IPs: 35