```Date: Mar 25, 2013 10:32 PM
Author: David Petry
Subject: Re: Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodern Thought

On Monday, March 25, 2013 2:19:09 PM UTC-7, Dan wrote:> On Mar 25, 7:14 pm, david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com>> wrote:> > Here's what I actually believe:  Falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of scientific reasoning, can be formalized in such a way that it can serve as the cornerstone of mathematical reasoning. And in fact, it's already part of the reasoning used by applied mathematicians;  ZFC, which is not compatible with falsifiability, is not a formalization of the mathematical reasoning used in applied mathematics.  Also, Godel's proof is not compatible with falsifiability.> > It is falsifiability that gives mathematics meaning.> Science originated from mathematics , not the other way around .I doubt there's any truth to that at all.We are born scientists.  Children seek to understand the world around them; they do science.  It's only later in life that they learn about the power of mathematics to help them reason about the world around them.> To attempt to apply the ridiculous constraints of science to mathematics> seems to me , frankly, ludicrous If we agree that the purpose of mathematics is to help us reason about real world phenomena, then it most certainly is not ludicrous.  > The principle of falsifiability says roughly this : you have this> mysterious entity , the world , like a black box , of which you don't> assume nothing about . Absolutely nothing .That's not really true.  You "assume" that you are part of the world, and you "assume" that you are capable of reasoning about the world.  Those are not trivial assumptions.> Why this asymmetry? Never to prove, only to disprove .  That is the> burden of falsifiability . Anything certain is non-falsifiable, by> definition . Certainty gives meaning , falsifiability erodes it.Science: first you observe the world, then you build up a conceptual model of the world, then you consider the implications of that model, then you experimentally test those implications. > Rather than attempting to extent falsifiability to Mathematics , we> should attempt to extent the adamant principles of Mathematics to the> World, thus freeing it from falsifiability . Religion already does that.> Godel's theorem is incompatible  with falsifiability , but that is not> an argument for its falseness ,It's an argument for its silliness.
```