What is the study of Existences' Entirety?

[ajb]

Could it be logic? I mean, every science is based on some sort of logical conclusions, on ability to find connections between a cause and effect, which is then written in mathematical form.

Depends on how you view logic. We have informal logic that everyone in science and mathematics uses everyday. Then we have formal or mathematical logic with is a branch of mathematics itself; related to this is model theory and other foundational mathematics.

 

Logic itself is okay as the very fundamental basic starting idea, however logical deductions are very much dependent on what statements you take to be obviously true as your starting point. The logic maybe sound, but the deduced statements may have no bearing on reality. Thus, I cannot see logic as the fundamental starting place, although it is very important. For science in its widest interpretation needs observations; in natural science this may be via experiments in the mathematical sciences this maybe examples.

[Mr. Laymen]

So it seems to me that ultimately the entirety of science or just human understanding in general, is mostly based on foundations that aren't 100% solid and are up for debate on whats more or less accurate about our approach or reasoning in the first place- on some levels. (I don't mean for that to sound like I'm discrediting logic or science or anything - just acknowledging possible vulnerabilities or kinks, even if insignificant)

 

And our history of learning is compiled in an almost tangled web of adjustments from all sorts of angles over time. So precise clarity and hierarchical categorization of foundational reasoning is difficult to assess and study as it requires quite a deep understanding of several (probably rather complicated) aspects of math, logic, and history from different points of view - just to start thinking serious about the all encompassing topic.

 

If this is somewhat accurate, it makes me wonder if there were something slightly inaccurate within our reasoning foundations and someone were to discover this, would we even socially and politically be able to untangle that web of everything logic & math to make the changes necessary for a more accurate interpretation. I mean how difficult or impossible would that be at this point in history?

 

For instance imagine tomorrow we discover something stupid like set theory is flawed because numbers aren't an accurate interpretation of whatever, and instead we could view things as something else...(I said its stupid). If something like that were to be discovered, first no one would consider it, and even if someone did how much effort would it take to then verify this new "foundation-changing" significance against everything we know that seems to work just fine already. It could take 500 years to do the research needed to convince the appropriate people that we should change our reasoning of such a fundamental aspect, regardless of the validity or simplicity of it. And on top of that, what if said inaccuracy, was all that was preventing us from a complete and simple understanding of "insert-topic"

 

Like I understand things being good enough to get the job done, but I'll always have a desire to understand whats the most accurate interpretation of nature, rather than just what works.

 

This has been a really great learning experience for me guys, Thank you! So many interesting things to add to my list of things to read about.

[ajb]

So it seems to me that ultimately the entirety of science or just human understanding in general, is mostly based on foundations that aren't 100% solid and are up for debate on whats more or less accurate about our approach or reasoning in the first place- on some levels. (I don't mean for that to sound like I'm discrediting logic or science or anything - just acknowledging possible vulnerabilities or kinks, even if insignificant)

There are issues with fundamental mathematics and what axioms you chose. You should also look up the incompleteness theorems; basically they imply that there is no complete axiomatic system for all of mathematics.

 

For instance imagine tomorrow we discover something stupid like set theory is flawed because numbers aren't an accurate interpretation of whatever, and instead we could view things as something else...(I said its stupid). If something like that were to be discovered, first no one would consider it, and even if someone did how much effort would it take to then verify this new "foundation-changing" significance against everything we know that seems to work just fine already. It could take 500 years to do the research needed to convince the appropriate people that we should change our reasoning of such a fundamental aspect, regardless of the validity or simplicity of it. And on top of that, what if said inaccuracy, was all that was preventing us from a complete and simple understanding of "insert-topic"

Modern set theory is based on the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms together with the axiom of choice. I don't think there are any real problems with this, the classical paradoxes of set theory are resolved. However, it is not 'perfect' and people do think about other axioms for mathematics to fix what they see as 'flaws'.

 

Now of course, you can be studying things that are not set theoretical.

 

Like I understand things being good enough to get the job done, but I'll always have a desire to understand whats the most accurate interpretation of nature, rather than just what works.

I am not sure how much you can really disentangle 'what mathematically works' and 'most accurate interpretation'. The two should be deeply tied.

 

This has been a really great learning experience for me guys, Thank you! So many interesting things to add to my list of things to read about.

No problem, it has been fun.

[imatfaal]

...But aren't terms like "objective" and "real" strictly philosophical terms?

 

Is math not actually a science then? If its dictated by logic alone and no experiments, isn't that similar to the description of philosophy?

 

They are philosophical in their nature - and strict interpretation would be difficult for science. You might want to look at the concept of intersubjective verifiability which is what many people mean when they talk about objectivity.

[Mr. Laymen]

 

You might want to look at the concept of intersubjective verifiability which is what many people mean when they talk about objectivity.

 

This word "intersubjective" seems priceless in describing "general objectivity" accurately without committing to objectivity. And I've never heard of it before. Thanks again!

Edited March 27, 2015 by Mr. Laymen