No worries.

Thanks for the clarification. Meaning and intention is difficult for me to get across. Sometimes the ambiguity helps. Sometimes it hurts.

Does "Base 10 math" not make sense for mathematicians? Is that like saying "square circle" or something?

I thought it made sense but it very well could be one of those misunderstandings I have.

You reminded me of a shirt I saw once. It said:

"There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't."

I've read up a little on Platonism before so I understand where you're coming from.

To me it's more language, so you know where I'm going: black hooole...ahhh!

If you don't want to be in a black hole, avoid readings on Cantor and Gödel since you've gotten a bit into Wittgenstein already (but that probably peaked your curiosity, huh? I'm sorry).

You've been warned!! But if you do go in and come out, please let me know, and probably the world too. Humanity needs to push it's boundaries without going insane.

Edit: Schopenhauer might be the cure though, just in case.

To me, that's conceptually equivalent to the understanding that God doesn't need us (the conceptual/philosophical God. Not the religious one).

Without proof or evidence of Mathematics, can we really call it Truth? I think we can really only call it reliable then make the assertion that this reliability is evidence of Math's existence (in the Math-Realist way) but then I can't help but think this is a philosophical claim and that's Truth.

The closest I feel like we could get to Truth (without going philosophical, if that's even possible) is evidence. To me that's more true than Math as Math is used as evidence for factual claims (Like Algebra and Calculus is a subset of Math, Math is a subset of evidence) but then we run into "Facts", so it's not reliable anymore.

...stupid black hole keeps spinning me right round.

You just activated my trap card!

Then Philosophy is Truth. Not Mathematics.

I mean, Math-Realist would agree with you in a Platonists kind of way, but then we're using Philosophy to justify Mathematics and that's Truth (or at least a subset of Truth).

But now I'm being sucked into the blackhole where Philosophy and Mathematics are within language (because I'm not Math-Realist), so Language is Truth, but that doesn't feel grammatically right.

This is why I love/hate Wittgenstein. It's kinda liberating to concentrate on the language games and place conversations like these as misunderstandings, but at the same time it leaves me without something to ground myself to and I just have to go about my day.

That begs the question: which mathematics are you referring to? Algebra? Calculus? Base10?

Mathematics isn't Truth at the highest levels (the fundamental levels?) but it's definitely reliable! Then again if we don't need proof for Truth then you're right, but that feels weird to say.

I don't like the use of "Trust" here and would much rather have "Reliability" because it can be grounded in statistics.

I did skim over a few parts towards the end, but it was a pretty good read. Thanks for sharing.

Wouldn't evidence fall under the observation category in the trifecta that constitutes "Facts"?

It feels like this attenuation of facts implies, because of the sheer amount of context and observations there could be, there cannot be clear and easily verified truth conditions. Trust feels like the catch-all to where observation and context fail because Part 3 ends with allowing the reader faithful beliefs to a certain extent. I believe the second part also goes into alternative facts to explain the consensus people can buy into depending on the "Facts" - perhaps to eventually lead up to the end.

Wittgenstein's revenge, I would think, puts us in a blackhole passed the event horizon. We are inescapable of the language(s) we speak and have implicitly put truth on the otherside. Eventually, truth (technically, this kind of truth can always be around us but we just don't know it) would gravitate towards us but only if we're in the right space, time, and conscious enough. We can at least begin accept it then. That's just for ourselves too. Imagine trying to share truth with someone else! Feels like a miracle if that happened especially in our day and age. Then again, I feel like truth is outside the scope of the article, so this is just my understanding.