>>13284161>all this massive cope about how math is divine knowledge or the study of existenceIs /sci/ just filled with undergrad math majors up their asses? This entire thread is filled with the most bullshit youtube-comment-tier cringe takes.
Math is just a logic game. There are a set of assumptions (axioms) that you assume are true, and then you use the rules of logic to derive new theorems; both the assumptions and the rules of logic you can use can change though. In this sense math, is more a branch of philosophy with a heavy focus on applying specific rules from a specific set of assumptions to derive results.
This is also why we always have wildberger threads, since his finitism is a perfectly valid (if not as useful) approach to math and is as mathematically valid as the current approach with infinite sets.
Now that is not to say math is completely pointless. In fact, the game is highly valuable and descriptive of our reality when the rules closely follow our intuitive assumptions of reality. For example, if we take peano arithmetic as our foundation, all of the axioms are natural properties that we'd expect about natural numbers (i.e. counting). From this, mathematicians (up until the advent of calculus which forced us to rethink things) did quite a lot of practically useful things.
And the people talking about divine knowledge/spirituality/properties of existence/etc. have probably drowned themselves in the platonist koolaid. No, there is no universe outside of our's with the set of natural numbers and no math doesn't say anything fundamental about our existence. There is no reason to believe our physical universe is constrained to a specific mathematical universe of sets while another physical universe is constrained to another, simply because sets themselves don't exist. They are figments of our imaginations (abstractions to be more precise), while we play the logic game of math.
