### Math “Proves” Nothing, Except That Math Itself Is “True”

And unfortunately, our society believes that enough math can turn the world into a ball. It cant.

Math does nothing more than **describe** reality, the reality we see *first* with our senses. Mainstream science exalts math to an almost god like status, going so far to say things like: “reality IS math”. And from this supposedly infallible truth we are supposed to believe in things like a ball earth or big bang. I’m not saying the universe was divinely created, but the idea that it came into existence from an explosion is simply absurd. I would like to see the hard core followers of scientism (like Tyson or Nye) put a brick of c4 in their house and see how much order and physical complexity that “big bang” produces. But I digress…

Back to math.

Math can no more describe what reality is, than a painting can describe something real. Like a painting, math is in the eye of the beholder. I could craft eloquent equations that track the coming and going of the Easter Bunny, but they wouldn’t make the furry fellow any more “real”. Our senses are the primary means of understanding what is around us. I can “prove” the Easter Bunny with math, and never see it once. Every physicist looks at material reality with their senses, and describes what they see in terms of math. They take their sensation of reality (the closest thing to indisputable knowledge possible) and strain it through the filter of the mathematical process. I’ve seen some fine paintings of mountain ranges, but I can guarantee you that none of those paintings do the reality of actually experiencing mountains any justice. Like math, a painting can be beautiful, not because of its ability to faithfully recreate reality, but because it bears the uniqueness (and biases) of the individual artist.

Math, like painting, is a **secondary** construct of the mathematician’s *primary perception* of reality. And yet, as soon as intellectuals outside the accepted domain of academic thought propose common sense explanations of nature, they get laughed down “

**because math proves them wrong**“.

Or so they say.

The idea of a Flat Earth makes more intuitive sense than the complicated and confused notion that individual bodies can somehow stay glued to a ball spinning at 1000mph, while hurtling through space at 67,00mph. The horizon, however you look at with your own senses, is *always* Flat. But as soon as the lights dimly start to flicker in the minds of average people, math swoops in in the form of awe inspiring (Morgan Freeman narrated) tv specials showing pictures of the photoshoped cosmos, declaring confidently that “math proves these ideas as **indisputable**“.

The only thing “indisputable” about math is scientific dogma’s misconstruction of what math really is. **Math describes, it never proves**. A mathematical “proof” such as 2+2=4 only proves that *the system* of math is true. It is not a “proof” in the actual sense of the word. If I argue and say,

Math is not true

You will counter and say,

Yes it is, because 2+2=4 is true

But do you see the problem? Saying math is true because math is true falls into the trap of circular reasoning. And before you try and tell me that this argument is a straw man, please offer a reasonable explanation as to why math describes what reality is, without saying “because it works”. “Because it works” is no explanation, simply a statement of the obvious. Math works, but there is no reason to assume it does a better job of “proving” reality for that reason alone. Math stems from what we see. If the earth is Flat, then math “works” on the Flat Earth even if those using math believe the earth is round. Paintings “work”. My computer “works”. My senses also “work”. Arguably the best of all…

Pingback: Flat Earth Q&A | Flat Earth & Thought

holy shit this falls to a new level of stupidity

LikeLike

I could say the same about the idea that a ball spinning at 1000 mph and hurtling through space at 67,000mph is actually one of the most peaceful places we know.

LikeLike