Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q38,59: Difference between revisions
Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing ; created today |
m Kantianism is actually an IQ test |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Language is logic is math }} / Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing -> they're all steps in the process from basic signal-response instincts to [[EC:9k/RD/Q87|Idealism]] to Materialist models of reality. I know this sounds crazy at first but really, this proposition puts to bed the whole question of whether math is some sort of special thing inherently connected to the universe or the universe 'runs on math'. I've heard versions of that so many times and it's silly every time. when you realize that language is basically math but less efficient, you start to realize that it would be ridiculous (for somebody whose sense of irony hasn't been killed by the Bible talking about "the word") to say that physics and English are connected, or physics and German are connected, or physics and Japanese are connected. because, like, all languages contain ontological objects consisting of a word or phrase and a model of something that goes under it, and some ontological models can be more objectively accurate to a particular phenomenon, so if language was inherently connected to reality, then some languages would be inherently superior to others and there would be languages it would be worth getting rid of. you think about that idea for even five seconds and it's very difficult to imagine any particular language actually being the superior language everyone should have to use; which language would it even be when there are hundreds or thousands of languages and each language contains so {{em|many}} models of things? but there is no such thing as a language, literally referring to a language made of speech and words, which is universal and is not particular and is not connected to a culture, because even international auxiliary languages are spoken by particular groups of people who would become the "Esperanto culture". no human language can be generic, and no human language can be the most superior language, so no human language at all, by virtue of being a language, can be the inherent way that physics functions. but all natural languages are actually made of math, because all languages are made of a sort of crude second-order logic they use to express ontological models, and formal logic is a form of math which can actually be modified into many forms, conceivably even one broad enough to cover all the basic things language does. this does imply something people don't usually think about: that there is not just one continuous math, and that maths start out as separate plural bodies of math. however, math is different from natural languages in that {{em|the way things are defined is not subjective}}, and comes with objective rules; 1 + 1 = 2 for particular sets of reasons. plural bodies of math can be combined into larger bodies of math or even into a single large but technically countable body of math. this is how math can become the only "language" that is universal — because subjective cultural understandings that are arbitrary but required in a particular region cannot be mandatory, or at least cannot remain mandatory, in the process of how bodies of math are combined. so human beings start with calls or words associated with objects and then create language and then create Idealism as a bad explanation of how complex processes work and then create logic and then create math, and math is the final explanation not because there is anything special about it but simply because all the fuzziness in all the previous forms of communication about causality and ontology dropped out and communication about causal processes became maximally precise, to this point it was either exactly as precise as it needed to be or allowed for a lot more unnecessary levels of precision; the goal was met. mathematics was put together because people {{em|physically needed}} to communicate and understand causality and created a tool {{em|for}} that need, not because people simply desired to conquer and change reality. | {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Language is logic is math }} / Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing -> they're all steps in the process from basic signal-response instincts to [[EC:9k/RD/Q87|Idealism]] to Materialist models of reality. I know this sounds crazy at first but really, this proposition puts to bed the whole question of whether math is some sort of special thing inherently connected to the universe or the universe 'runs on math'. I've heard versions of that so many times and it's silly every time. when you realize that language is basically math but less efficient, you start to realize that it would be ridiculous (for somebody whose sense of irony hasn't been killed by the Bible talking about "the word") to say that physics and English are connected, or physics and German are connected, or physics and Japanese are connected. because, like, all languages contain ontological objects consisting of a word or phrase and a model of something that goes under it, and some ontological models can be more objectively accurate to a particular phenomenon, so if language was inherently connected to reality, then some languages would be inherently superior to others and there would be languages it would be worth getting rid of. you think about that idea for even five seconds and it's very difficult to imagine any particular language actually being the superior language everyone should have to use; which language would it even be when there are hundreds or thousands of languages and each language contains so {{em|many}} models of things? but there is no such thing as a language, literally referring to a language made of speech and words, which is universal and is not particular and is not connected to a culture, because even international auxiliary languages are spoken by particular groups of people who would become the "Esperanto culture". no human language can be generic, and no human language can be the most superior language, so no human language at all, by virtue of being a language, can be the inherent way that physics functions. but all natural languages are actually made of math, because all languages are made of a sort of crude second-order logic they use to express ontological models, and formal logic is a form of math which can actually be modified into many forms, conceivably even one broad enough to cover all the basic things language does. this does imply something people don't usually think about: that there is not just one continuous math, and that maths start out as separate plural bodies of math. however, math is different from natural languages in that {{em|the way things are defined is not subjective}}, and comes with objective rules; 1 + 1 = 2 for particular sets of reasons. plural bodies of math can be combined into larger bodies of math or even into a single large but technically countable body of math. this is how math can become the only "language" that is universal — because subjective cultural understandings that are arbitrary but required in a particular region cannot be mandatory, or at least cannot remain mandatory, in the process of how bodies of math are combined. so human beings start with calls or words associated with objects and then create language and then create Idealism as a bad explanation of how complex processes work and then create logic and then create math, and math is the final explanation not because there is anything special about it but simply because all the fuzziness in all the previous forms of communication about causality and ontology dropped out and communication about causal processes became maximally precise, to this point it was either exactly as precise as it needed to be or allowed for a lot more unnecessary levels of precision; the goal was met. mathematics was put together because people {{em|physically needed}} to communicate and understand causality and created a tool {{em|for}} that need, not because people simply desired to conquer and change reality. | ||
</li></ol> | |||
== Truth values, and signifiers as cultural prejudices == | |||
<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Kantianism explored race & IQ }} / Kantianism is actually an IQ test / When Kant speaks of "reason", what he is referring to is the concept that human actions do not have [[E:non-binary truth value|truth-value categories]] of Good or Evil, but Smart or Not Smart, which in turn unfortunately means that what Kant is trying to identify as "rationality" or "reason" is contingent on what surrounding clusters of people subjectively believe to be intelligent behavior, which is potentially contingent on people's own racist or xenophobic conceptions of which countable cultures and cultural practices seem intelligent or unintelligent to them / ({{9k|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -><br/> | |||
it hit me today. the concept of claiming that reason and ethics are the same thing is basically the same as the concept of trying to replace Good / Evil with Smart / Not Smart. it makes sense in light of a crude, Feuerbachian type of Materialism where you try to discredit the notion of Good and Evil being cosmic or universal starting by showing that the universe is regular and logical and doesn't really have 'opinions' as much as mindless patterns. surely anyone will stop doing bad things if only you can show they are Not Smart. only.... it's actually rather subjective what actions are smart and what actions aren't. it's a somewhat better way to define Truth or Falsity of human actions than the circular categories of Good and Evil in that you can actually debate it a while with real arguments and maybe come to a conclusion. but it gets thwarted by the existence of contradictory plural sociophilosophies forming and each thinking they're correct such as Stalin's Marxism versus Trotskyism. both of those factions think that they're on the side of Smart and will make the decisions that go down as the materially best decision in later history books, but they don't have enough information to know which one is actually better, so they senselessly fight each other [[E:The material resolves the immaterial|to reach an answer]] and in that conflict they both choose an outcome which is undesirable and could not logically be the Smart decision.<br/> | |||
so why does this happen? well, thinking of it as either Stalin versus Trotsky or center-Liberals versus anarchists, the two factions try to aim to have the Smartest statements in order to be the most legitimate regime, but they don't realize that Smart isn't really a fully objective truth value, it's largely cultural much like Good and Evil were, where some people will try to single things out as Not Smart just because they don't like them. the phenomenon of "Enlightenment rationality turning against brown people" does happen, {{em|but absolutely not for the reasons people think it does}}. it doesn't happen because people have "assumptions" or "aren't Inherently Multicultural enough" (which are both Idealist characterizations of what a racist is). it happens because Smart does not function well as a truth value — because {{em|the sign called Smart is stuck on subjectively as people arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment what it means}}. this is very inconvenient for fields like queer theory to recognize because they want to say that "subjectivity" creates cultures and marginalized identities are legitimate because people in a local countable culture defining signifiers nearly any way they want is legitimate. but you really can't just define signifiers however you want, not as an individual and not as a culture, because that is how people become prejudiced. think about it: you cannot create art and arbitrarily decide what Blackness is, to some extent you must represent Black history and Black experiences {{em|representationally}} and {{em|realistically}}, using [[E:historical materialism|a materially correct model of what happened]]. if there was such a thing as a moral vanguard, then the moral vanguard would never consist of people who think Subjects can define signifiers however they want; that process simply will never be moral, [[EC:9k/RD/Q86|speaking descriptively]] about whether [[E:people viewed in third person as material objects|people]] will ever definitively decide it is. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 26: | ||
<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | <ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/MD|Q= | {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/MD|Q=40,59|Q2=4059|h4= Math can save Trotsky}} / Mathematics can save Leon Trotsky, because morality never will | ||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Revision as of 00:15, 30 May 2026
Main entry
- materialist inversion and math -> gosh my rants on this topic got so long I think they need their own page just for them.
From Idealism to math
Language is logic is math
/ Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing -> they're all steps in the process from basic signal-response instincts to Idealism to Materialist models of reality. I know this sounds crazy at first but really, this proposition puts to bed the whole question of whether math is some sort of special thing inherently connected to the universe or the universe 'runs on math'. I've heard versions of that so many times and it's silly every time. when you realize that language is basically math but less efficient, you start to realize that it would be ridiculous (for somebody whose sense of irony hasn't been killed by the Bible talking about "the word") to say that physics and English are connected, or physics and German are connected, or physics and Japanese are connected. because, like, all languages contain ontological objects consisting of a word or phrase and a model of something that goes under it, and some ontological models can be more objectively accurate to a particular phenomenon, so if language was inherently connected to reality, then some languages would be inherently superior to others and there would be languages it would be worth getting rid of. you think about that idea for even five seconds and it's very difficult to imagine any particular language actually being the superior language everyone should have to use; which language would it even be when there are hundreds or thousands of languages and each language contains so many models of things? but there is no such thing as a language, literally referring to a language made of speech and words, which is universal and is not particular and is not connected to a culture, because even international auxiliary languages are spoken by particular groups of people who would become the "Esperanto culture". no human language can be generic, and no human language can be the most superior language, so no human language at all, by virtue of being a language, can be the inherent way that physics functions. but all natural languages are actually made of math, because all languages are made of a sort of crude second-order logic they use to express ontological models, and formal logic is a form of math which can actually be modified into many forms, conceivably even one broad enough to cover all the basic things language does. this does imply something people don't usually think about: that there is not just one continuous math, and that maths start out as separate plural bodies of math. however, math is different from natural languages in that the way things are defined is not subjective, and comes with objective rules; 1 + 1 = 2 for particular sets of reasons. plural bodies of math can be combined into larger bodies of math or even into a single large but technically countable body of math. this is how math can become the only "language" that is universal — because subjective cultural understandings that are arbitrary but required in a particular region cannot be mandatory, or at least cannot remain mandatory, in the process of how bodies of math are combined. so human beings start with calls or words associated with objects and then create language and then create Idealism as a bad explanation of how complex processes work and then create logic and then create math, and math is the final explanation not because there is anything special about it but simply because all the fuzziness in all the previous forms of communication about causality and ontology dropped out and communication about causal processes became maximally precise, to this point it was either exactly as precise as it needed to be or allowed for a lot more unnecessary levels of precision; the goal was met. mathematics was put together because people physically needed to communicate and understand causality and created a tool for that need, not because people simply desired to conquer and change reality.
Truth values, and signifiers as cultural prejudices
Kantianism explored race & IQ
/ Kantianism is actually an IQ test / When Kant speaks of "reason", what he is referring to is the concept that human actions do not have truth-value categories of Good or Evil, but Smart or Not Smart, which in turn unfortunately means that what Kant is trying to identify as "rationality" or "reason" is contingent on what surrounding clusters of people subjectively believe to be intelligent behavior, which is potentially contingent on people's own racist or xenophobic conceptions of which countable cultures and cultural practices seem intelligent or unintelligent to them / (9k) ->
it hit me today. the concept of claiming that reason and ethics are the same thing is basically the same as the concept of trying to replace Good / Evil with Smart / Not Smart. it makes sense in light of a crude, Feuerbachian type of Materialism where you try to discredit the notion of Good and Evil being cosmic or universal starting by showing that the universe is regular and logical and doesn't really have 'opinions' as much as mindless patterns. surely anyone will stop doing bad things if only you can show they are Not Smart. only.... it's actually rather subjective what actions are smart and what actions aren't. it's a somewhat better way to define Truth or Falsity of human actions than the circular categories of Good and Evil in that you can actually debate it a while with real arguments and maybe come to a conclusion. but it gets thwarted by the existence of contradictory plural sociophilosophies forming and each thinking they're correct such as Stalin's Marxism versus Trotskyism. both of those factions think that they're on the side of Smart and will make the decisions that go down as the materially best decision in later history books, but they don't have enough information to know which one is actually better, so they senselessly fight each other to reach an answer and in that conflict they both choose an outcome which is undesirable and could not logically be the Smart decision.
so why does this happen? well, thinking of it as either Stalin versus Trotsky or center-Liberals versus anarchists, the two factions try to aim to have the Smartest statements in order to be the most legitimate regime, but they don't realize that Smart isn't really a fully objective truth value, it's largely cultural much like Good and Evil were, where some people will try to single things out as Not Smart just because they don't like them. the phenomenon of "Enlightenment rationality turning against brown people" does happen, but absolutely not for the reasons people think it does. it doesn't happen because people have "assumptions" or "aren't Inherently Multicultural enough" (which are both Idealist characterizations of what a racist is). it happens because Smart does not function well as a truth value — because the sign called Smart is stuck on subjectively as people arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment what it means. this is very inconvenient for fields like queer theory to recognize because they want to say that "subjectivity" creates cultures and marginalized identities are legitimate because people in a local countable culture defining signifiers nearly any way they want is legitimate. but you really can't just define signifiers however you want, not as an individual and not as a culture, because that is how people become prejudiced. think about it: you cannot create art and arbitrarily decide what Blackness is, to some extent you must represent Black history and Black experiences representationally and realistically, using a materially correct model of what happened. if there was such a thing as a moral vanguard, then the moral vanguard would never consist of people who think Subjects can define signifiers however they want; that process simply will never be moral, speaking descriptively about whether people will ever definitively decide it is.
Related
Math can save Trotsky
/ Mathematics can save Leon Trotsky, because morality never will
Ideology codes
- (none)