> There is very little about the universe that is axiomatically true and correct in and of itself. Math is about the only thing I can think of, and really that's in a different category.

My thought is that math (broadly speaking) possesses correctness because of axiomatic decisions. The consequences of those decisions lead us to practice math that can't express everything that we can imagine (e.g., see axiom of choice/ZFC).

The math humanity practices today is a result of tuning the axioms to be: self-consistent, and, useful for explaining phenomena that we can observe. I don't believe this math is correct in a universal or absolute sense, just locally.

▲

ironSkillet 5 days ago | parent [-]

It seems like there is a universal sense in which statements like 1+1=2" or "7 is a prime number" are true, no?

▲

visarga 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I disagree, it is not universal. 1+1=2 is just a specific system of notation with consistency. There was a time when no human conceptualized this idea of 1+1=2, they did not have numerals or know about addition. Before you get to 1+1=2 you need a bunch of prior concepts that are themselves contingent on culture and history.

	▲	dragonwriter 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> 1+1=2 is just a specific system of notation with consistency. So, that that is system of notation which has consistency is itself a truth, isn’t it?

▲

psychoslave 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If by "universal" we mean median adult human which are apt and willing to engage in basic mathematical thoughts, yes. That’s certainly already a very greatly reduced set of entities compared to everything in existence, though.

▲

card_zero 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mathematics does its best, but it's still a language, and fallible. It's trying to explain things, and the concepts like "prime number" and "one" can be shaken by later improvements to understanding.

▲

postmodern100 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]