meaninglesness of mathematics and science and all views

[pam699]

it is claimed that mathematics and science are meaningless in that they entail or collaspe into self-contradiction and paradox. It is claimed that there are paradoxes at the heart of mathematics and science that make them meaningless. The mystry become that even though work and creats a pc or rockets to the moon they are logivally not true . So how can they create usaefull things when by the laws of logic they are false


This author argues
Epistemological meaninglessness is different to and undermines skepticism and nihlism and claims these views entail meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness has its greatest advocate in the philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. According to Dean's version epistemological meaninglessness entials logically via the rules of logic that all our concepts, all morals all relgions, ideas of good , evil, notions of freedom, democracy all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses all philosophies all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, skepticism, nihlism, all metaphysics, even logic itself etc in other words all views, are meaningless, epistemologically- as they all logically entail meaninglessness ie self-contradiction and paradox.


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...essthought.pdf Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views].

The logic reduces all views to meaninglessness even mathematics and science

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views)

. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling.]" Even meaninglessness entials meaninglesness logically. Logic when turned back on itself and investigates itself parodoxicaly entials meaninglessness or self-contradiction

(http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ntrismbook.pdf Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views).

Epistemological meaninglessness goes beyound nihlism and skeptcism in claiming even these views ential meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness paradoxically even claims that logically epistemological meaninglesness entials meaninglessness. Logic demonstrates that every thing including itself ential meaninglesssness or self-contradiction.

In Dean's version of epistemological meaninglessness Logic cannot prove or disprove anything all that it does is reduce all views to self-contradiction- including itself. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness [ self-contradiction]of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling

(http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com.../dialectic.pdfThe dialectic reductio ad absurdum argument: a method of philosophical argumentation or analysis demonstrating the meaninglessness of all views)

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE CLAIMS



http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf

[Athena]

Quote by: pam699 it is claimed that mathematics and science are meaningless in that they entail or collaspe into self-contradiction and paradox. It is claimed that there are paradoxes at the heart of mathematics and science that make them meaningless. The mystry become that even though work and creats a pc or rockets to the moon they are logivally not true . So how can they create usaefull things when by the laws of logic they are false This author argues Epistemological meaninglessness is different to and undermines skepticism and nihlism and claims these views entail meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness has its greatest advocate in the philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. According to Dean's version epistemological meaninglessness entials logically via the rules of logic that all our concepts, all morals all relgions, ideas of good , evil, notions of freedom, democracy all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses all philosophies all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, skepticism, nihlism, all metaphysics, even logic itself etc in other words all views, are meaningless, epistemologically- as they all logically entail meaninglessness ie self-contradiction and paradox. http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...essthought.pdf Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views]. The logic reduces all views to meaninglessness even mathematics and science http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views) . What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling.]" Even meaninglessness entials meaninglesness logically. Logic when turned back on itself and investigates itself parodoxicaly entials meaninglessness or self-contradiction (http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ntrismbook.pdf Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views). Epistemological meaninglessness goes beyound nihlism and skeptcism in claiming even these views ential meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness paradoxically even claims that logically epistemological meaninglesness entials meaninglessness. Logic demonstrates that every thing including itself ential meaninglesssness or self-contradiction. In Dean's version of epistemological meaninglessness Logic cannot prove or disprove anything all that it does is reduce all views to self-contradiction- including itself. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness [ self-contradiction]of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling (http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com.../dialectic.pdfThe dialectic reductio ad absurdum argument: a method of philosophical argumentation or analysis demonstrating the meaninglessness of all views) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE CLAIMS http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf

May I suggest "meaning" is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Democracy is away of developing individuals and social agreements. These social agreements are not empirical facts or unquestioned truths. They are a consensus on the best reasoning and nothing more. As reasoning improves so does the consensus of the best reasoning, so democracy increasing the pool of intelligence, moving humanity to its full potential.

Meaning is not just about thinking. It also involves thinking. A person may know many facts and they will be meaningless to that person, unless the person feels a sense of meaning, which necessates some kind of an experience with which the person can relate to the facts. Without experience, that generates feeling, all facts are meaningless. It doesn't matter how right those facts are, they are meaningless, and not very useful to the person who has memorized them.

This is why we thought age 30 was still youth. By 30 years of age, a person still doesn't have the experience to grasp the meaning of much of anything. This person can be college educated, and know a lot of facts, but lack a sense of their meaning. Heck, the person can even be the dean of the department and still not know the meaning of the concepts that are suppose to be his area of expertise. I have had a couple of professors like this. Knowing facts this does not equal having a sense of meaning or having a true knowing. One of the worst problems a civilization faces is when people in the seats of power, are technologically correct, but do not have real knowing. This can cause civilizations to fall.

Meaning is our human experience of things.

[pam699]

but that meaning of the experience of things will entail meaningles or self-contradiction or paradox according to deanWHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAST

[rez]

Quote by: pam699 it is claimed that mathematics and science are meaningless in that they entail or collapse into self-contradiction and paradox. It is claimed that there are paradoxes at the heart of mathematics and science that make them meaningless. The mystery becomes apparent when such subjects provide inventions such as personal computers, new discoveries, and predictions that have been found true at a later time. The question then becomes, how can science and math create useful things when by the laws of logic they are false?

As you can see, I kinda tweaked your opening paragraph. Do you agree with my revision?

Edit to Add: I just edited it again because it really sucked.

[pam699]

yes you are spot on thanks very to the point wish i had written that - a bit tied but no excuse really

[Praxius]

Anything can happen at anytime, anyway.... Nothing is 100%..... why, I'm probably not even 100% straight *flicks wrist* *tisk*

[pam699]

but logic shows all our views of the universe end in meaninglessness acorrding to dean WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Praxius Anything can happen at anytime, anyway.... Nothing is 100%..... why, I'm probably not even 100% straight *flicks wrist* *tisk*

Not true.. only one thing will happen at one time, and that one thing will happen because of causality.

Do you mean to say.. WE don't know for 100% what will happen?

[Zinkovich]

. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.

Logic is not a philosophical condition based on truth, but based on the regularity observed throughout all perceptive realities as far as the ones who apply such logic are aware.

Logic does not prove logic- the observances we all see and thier conformity to properly applied logic prove logic- thus, the reasoning is not circular.

In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption.

Absolutely untrue. Metaphysics supplies no additional objective meaning into reality, but rather implies something higher we have to look forward to- this "higherness", according to the proposed nature of such metaphysics, possesses as much problems with meaning as our current objective reality- there's still the issues with might and right, selfishness,versus selflessness on the basis of benefit when put to terms with one's own frame of reference, etc., etc.

The philosophies that remove self, however, are in and of themselves detrimental to meaning, because without a singular point of reference there is no flux in perception or goals.

Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness

This seems to come to the conclusion that the objective universe lack his version of meaningless, whatever that may be or how it is defined(I have yet to see his version defined for me in your quotes). Of course, he does not realise that there are other forms of meaning proposed by many philosophers, stemming from such variables as cause and effect and long-term extenuation of one's livelihood, etc., etc.

Even meaninglessness entials meaninglesness logically. Logic when turned back on itself and investigates itself parodoxicaly entials meaninglessness or self-contradiction

How? I see no VALID logic-based argument using premises that conclude that meaninglessness must be at the base of the universe if it is not metaphysical. The only ones I've seen so far that even attempt such a thing use a metaphysically-biased version of the definition of "meaning" that somehow entails a god-centric or eternity-centric version of the word- none of them seems to explain why the time in which a meaning lasts should be the ultimate decider in what is meaningful.

Epistemological meaninglessness goes beyound nihlism and skeptcism in claiming even these views ential meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness paradoxically even claims that logically epistemological meaninglesness entials meaninglessness. Logic demonstrates that every thing including itself ential meaninglesssness or self-contradiction.

Where does logic state that? I have yet to see a statement beyond "logic makes the statement that <insert statement here>". Please give me better quotes, as I'm short on time.

In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness [ self-contradiction]of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption

If these "assumptions" are based on something manifest in one's own perceptive reality, then the meaning of his assumptions are based on something beyond logic- ergo, it is not pure "assumption" to take a logical position based on, for example, the premise of gravity as a result of the propery of seeing things fall every time you drop them, and the loss of this property farther away from earth.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE CLAIMS

He's using the assumption that all logic is as assumptive as his own to make the argument that logic destroys itself by being assuming in nature. In other words, he's gone far off into the realm of insanity all due to simple word games and his lack of realisation concerning the reality-basis of all linguistical forms of communication and reasoning.

[pam699]

no asumptive logic entails everything ends in meaninglessness or self contradiction including itself

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 no asumptive logic entails everything ends in meaninglessness or self contradiction including itself

I don't see an argument in this post.

I argue through reasoning based on the physical constructs and laws we observe in our world. While pure logic might be assumptive, that is becasue logic is a tool used for one to predict something within a closed, cause and effect system. Anyone can make up a system and apply logic onto it- what distinguishes certain forms of logic with others in terms of realistic validity is how they conform to one's own observed reality.

Put it this way- there are imgained systems and there is one real system we are currently in the process of studying. The logic science uses is based off of this realistic extension, which is not a circular argument as it is a physical/perceptual construct seperate from logic on which logic is applied, not derived- get what I'm trying to say?

[pam699]

observed reality. is theory laden we only see reality through a theory or view dean cliams these theories or view end in meaningless by logic and logic end in meaningless

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 observed reality. is theory laden we only see reality through a theory or view dean cliams these theories or view end in meaningless by logic and logic end in meaningless

We communicate the differentiations of objects through our language, but that does not mean our language has created the objects we have differentiated in our minds as well as created thier functions.

In a lawless, unformed world(the MAYA he keeps on referring to?), how would one individual(or nonindividual) form or commit differentiation and structure in the first place?

[pam699]

hume showed 200 years ago the law of causality was no law but a figment of our minds- lok at "the treastise of human nature"

the language we use to interpret the world will via logic end in meaninglessness all attempts to understand lthe world througfh langauge will end in self-contradiction. We contruct the world through our theories our theorys are in language and logic will show this lanaguge based view of the world ends in self-contradiction -just like logic does

i suggest you read some of deans books it will make the points clear a little bit -

language assumes an essence ie thhe word "horse" signifies something " but when it is shown by logic that there is no essences then the word "horse" signifies nothing becasuse with out an essence that thing in front of you could be anything..Logic requires an essence to work ie the law of idenity but when logic shows there is no essence then it has destroyed the very thing it needs to exist ie the law of identity- thus logic has shown it ends in self-contradiction or paradox and that our words dont signify without significastion every thing can be anything With out going into it for some demonstrations of there being no essence just lok at some anti-essentialism arguments in philosophy

[Jack]

Other than being a self-published writer at gamahucherpress, what are Dean's qualifications for addressing these subjects?

[pam699]

hey how would i know what his qauilifications are but on some of his books he lists his degrees 9 i think with 4 masters degrees inculded

[pam699]

well any other views hahaha see my irony about the meaninglessness of all views