It's understood there is no universal truth, so the news here is not that these platforms are becoming distorted where they were not before. It's that social media platforms in the democratic US are increasingly moderating content to align with dictators for, one assumes, money. Perhaps it's to increase platform reach in those countries, but what is the side-effect going to be on US politics with an online media landscape that now skews more heavily toward #dictator? Will US states legislatures begin to request the same 'moderation services' to support their own anti-democratic agendas? If so the country will change, the economic environment will change here, and not for the better.
Write a book and share this universal truth, translate it into all the languages, you'll make a fortune. Last I checked, a half-billion authors are still trying to establish it.
EDIT: I see you edited your comment about 'universal truth' after I answered it. I love the irony. Hail to the internet.
I see. You are asserting axiomatically consistent systems are 'universal truths' in the context of things that people say online. However, math is about processing statements, and does not make an assertion about the truth of those statements in the real world, just on whether they were processed correctly.
Not quite, I am saying universal truths aren’t inherently something you are going to make a great deal of money from.
A list of previous baseball games listing just dates and teams isn’t particularly interesting even if it’s absolute truth. Meanwhile a less accurate list of future games with teams and dates is something people might actually care about.
I have never understood the relativism about math fundamentals. What does it matter what we "agree to" or not? Either it is true or not. There is like no room for "kinda true but really it ..." in '1 + 1 = 2'. And I am not talking about notation semantics here.
This isn't what I'm talking about. The agreement means it's not "universal". It's only true because we agree it's true. Can you prove that 1 = 1 or do we have to agree that 1 = 1? If you can't prove it, is it a "universal truth"? I'm asserting that a truth which requires an agreed context[0] is not "universal".
The universal nature of mathematical truth isn’t dependent on agreement. Instead it’s only universally true when you include all those seemingly unspoken “agreements.”
I'm not sure what you mean by this, particularly this phrasing: "sets of axioms where 1 = 1". 1 = 1 is an axiom, not something that's proven by any set of axioms.
But I'm willing to believe I'm simply naive here. You say there is some set of axioms which prove that 1 = 1. Are those axioms not agreements? Since you seem to be familiar, what are those axioms?
The foundations of mathematics are deeper than that basic assumption. I can for example say 1 + 1 = 10 in base 2, but people imply the base when when saying 1 + 1 = 2 as well as a great deal of other details few people actually care about.
This is the agreement that happens and why it's not universal. We have to agree that "1 = 1" for any statements like "1 + 1 = 2" to even make sense, let alone be true. Per your point, we have to agree that we're talking about something other than base 2 in order for "1 + 1 = 2" to be true, despite my intentions for it to be a potential example of a universal truth. Even "math" isn't universally true.
The above is false, math isn’t independent of axioms so there is nothing to agree upon beyond conventions where Math is simply the result of axiom choices.
= 2 @ + 1 1 is a different notation, but the underlying math is unchanged. So if you explain the notation difference an alien that might use = 2 @ + 1 1 they would also agree that in an our notation 1 + 1 = 2. The same relationship is true of the choice of axioms.
> math isn’t independent of axioms so there is nothing to agree upon beyond conventions where Math is simply the result of axiom choices.
> 1 = 1 isn’t inherently true on it’s own
This sounds a whole lot like "math isn't a universal truth". I guess we need to take a step back, since it seems this is where the disagreement lies: what does it mean for something to be a universal truth?
My position is that a truth is universal if it is self-evident; that is, it does not require an agreement between observers. These axioms are that agreement and therefore Mathematics, which stems from such axioms, is not universal truth.
Axioms are just another aspect of Mathematics and changing them has utility for mathematicians. Euclidean geometry for example uses one set and a wide range of non Euclidean geometry systems use different sets.
The universal truth that in Euclidean geometry the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees is not diminished because the interior angles of a triangle can add up to different numbers in spherical geometry. It’s just two different systems but they all fall under Mathematics.
This is a mistaken understanding. Axioms define the logic of Mathematics.
E: I guess I may have misinterpreted. I mixed up “supersede” with “precede” in my head. I mean to say axioms are a precursor to logic systems. The axiom has to be agreed upon before any truthful statements can be made.
No, axioms are part of any truthful mathematical statements.
If A, B, C … then Y is a self contained true statement. You can’t simply say Y alone is true because without A, B, C, … it’s not true.
People tend to assume A, B, C etc when they say things like 1 + 1 = 2 but that’s just a quark of language. Words like him or they work because people can work out the specifics from context.
Maybe. Post it somewhere highly visible online, to check if everyone agrees with it. Make other statements like it. See how many you can make that remain disagreement free. I'll save you some time. As long as people engage with what you say, you'll just keep finding alternative ways to view things, no matter what you say.
