[ryugarden]

Yes, there are objective mathematical truths, but you cannot be sure there exists a physical reality or anything that corresponds to our experiences. You just know that there are subjective experiences right now. That's the only thing you can be absolutely certain about. So I see no sense in talking about "reality".

[0db532a0]

No, there are no objective mathematical truths. I am saying this as someone who has studied pure mathematics. We have long moved away from Plato. Godel long ago proved that no system based on a finite number of axioms is complete. This isn't just a comment on mathematics. It is a comment on language and human thought itself.

Of course, the debate remains of the "validity" of pure mathematics for its own sake. Many mathematicians, while not being religious in the common sense, have longed for a Platonic reality. Why do you think Hardy was so derided for his Mathematician's Apology?

Mathematics is simply another formal game of language, based on a number of axioms which can be either held to be true or not. Look at the differences between Euclidean and projective geometry. No one is asking which one is "true". Projective geometry helps for some lines of thought, Euclidean works for others.

[Scarblac]

Godel's proof doesn't imply that there is no mathematical truth. There is still an infinity of things that can be proven.

[0db532a0]

I know. I used him as another example that mathematics is not the be all and end all.

[sdegutis]

This is so incredibly confused. You live in reality. You exist. The things you can observe exist observably. People who choose to believe such existential nonsense remind me of the xkcd with the super soaker.

[0db532a0]

Maybe you should increase your scope beyond xkcd.

[sdegutis]

What kind of broken logic can conclude that this is the extent of my “scope” from what I said? An easier conclusion to arrive at is that I figure it’s one of the few memes we probably have in common, and chose it because memes are an excellent source of connotations.

[0db532a0]

You're right to an extent. I absolutely believe in the utility of humour and satire as ways of illustrating certain ideas and forcing people to think. People on HN especially are much too prudish. These forms can be a lot more effective than a long piece of text.

What I mean, though, is that there's only so much information that a piece of humour or a comic strip can convey.

Also, you have to consider the crowd that xkcd caters to, and the crowd that typical American geek humour such as Big Bang Theory caters to in general.

Existentialism/Nihilism are common themes in geek humour, but negatively: these ideas are quick to be dismissed as edge-lording, and as 8-chan-incelling.

Geek culture and morality relies wholly on the self-supporting idea of science as the one and only source of truth. The geek's first reaction will of course be to dismiss any claim to the contrary, in humour and otherwise.

[sdegutis]

Four other sources of truth I suggest you check out if you really like truth:

http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/index.html

http://www.newadvent.com/summa/

http://www.newadvent.com/cathen/index.html

http://www.newadvent.com/bible/gen001.htm

[0db532a0]

Have a look into Nietzsche's master-slave morality distinction, and how Christianity falls into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality. This page is a very short read.