>>11363695>No matter what, your foundation is made of unprovable axioms. This opens the door to relative truth and alternative truth.Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that the mathematical truth is dependent on which axioms that we choose, thus relative to the axioms, and that we can get an alternative truth by changing the axioms? And because of second incompleteness thm these truths within axiomatic system would not even be meta-true within the system. Could one go on with this s.t. there are infinitely many layers of truth nested inside each other?
>I learned this about a decade ago, and to this day it's left me feeling a little unmoored from the reality I perceive.While Gödels results are metamathematical, mathematics seem to be extremely useful way to deal with reality, i.e. it seems be able to model reality quite well. In fact, our society has become dependent it. The possibility that worms are hiding the results we depend on is legitimately disturbing! That said, I don't readily see how Gödel's results generalize to reality itself, because I am not relevantly set on how I want to relate mathematics to reality. I am set on that mathematics is metaphysical, and that metaphysical models can align with reality to various degrees. I am also sorta set on that the many parts of metaphysical emerge from, or at least quite influenced by the physical. I am agnostic on if there are parts of platonic realm that can exist independent of the physical.
