>>14401593I’m going to copy paste this statement I made in another post:
“ I understand we must have trust in some systems, but to dismiss the idea that it’s faith based seems biased and dumb. It very much is, we trust and have faith in our understanding of the abstract and the real world based on our subjective mind. And this mind may be correct, but you cannot ever prove it is. It’s impossible. You must trust the consensus of logicians and scientists. Which is like a scientific faith in a priori ideas, or axioms. Axioms are unprovable by definition, and cannot be disproved, nor proved. We only trust they work because as we go from a proposition like “2+2=4”, and work our way down. We find that 2+2=4 is not an axiom, because we can deconstruct it further. We can deconstruct it all the way down to the ZFC axioms. However, it doesn’t mean the ZFC axioms are the fundamental truths of the universe, it just means we cannot go any further. So we just accept them as fundamental truths, by only necessity rather than in light of concrete evidence. And even empiricism has its flaws. So I think he’s misguided in calling it “understanding”.”
I mean that we are taking faith that our senses and perception of fundamental properties of reality are indeed properties and fundamental. We are guided by our senses and mind’s own logic. Most axioms come from the attempt to deconstruct propositions/ideas we think to be true to the most bare minimum idea that we also think is true, and cannot be proved under other systems. We also assume it’s consistent, or hope.
The logic used is intuitional logic, it seems, of our minds intuitions that:
The empty set exists, or the axiom of infinity is true, etc.
At this point we only trust that our mind is correct. A kind limited by a finite amount of neural connections, neurons, lobes, whatever. Stuck in a universe. We certainly can guess what reality is, and maybe correct. But it is really limited. And we must trust.
