(I’m going to abrasively emphasize the conjunctions more, because I feel they’re being glossed over)
IF the truths of our universe are completely mathematically and axiomatically bound, then any proof derived within it might have a chance of upsetting a given axiom given the either incomplete or inconsistent nature of mathematics as declared by Gödel.
I’m NOT saying the universe IS mathematically bound. I actually believe that maths merely describes our reality at varying scales.
(I’m going to abrasively emphasize the conjunctions more, because I feel they’re being glossed over)
IF the truths of our universe are completely mathematically and axiomatically bound, then any proof derived within it might have a chance of upsetting a given axiom given the either incomplete or inconsistent nature of mathematics as declared by Gödel.
I’m NOT saying the universe IS mathematically bound. I actually believe that maths merely describes our reality at varying scales.
Yes, we understood what you were saying.
But your IF is followed by a nonsensical statement.
It’s a precondition that can’t be true.
Ah okay. Why not though? I thought mathematics as a whole suffers from a lack of proof of some of its axioms, which if disproven could spell trouble.