Cantor et al were egomaniacs and everyone sailed away for the joy rude, imho

Doesn't calculus have a proof that 0=1? That seems like a flaw.

Math has ignored Cantor's own message. Arguably the message he received from God, and in turn never gave much heed to. Yet the issue is the continued obstinacy towards new approaches. We've spent two months sharing.... F#$% it no one cares.

Ah, I was thinking of the proofs that 0=1.

Infinity as a philosophical concept is fascinating, but I have no use for the various splinters used as tools in higher math. As for set theory, its flaws remind me of the paradox "this statement is a lie". The statement amounts to a failure to lie.

Intuition tells me that mathematical paradoxes are resolved by restating the position in a more logically coherent way, or accepting that sometimes results defy reason and just roll with it. Set theory is more philosophy than mathematics anyway. It doesn't need to describe reality because that's not its purpose.

That's nihilism. I'm sorry to be bruskly opinionated about your beliefs and sorrier to have to admit this strong opinion in an in an constructive manner. I still value your as a comrade on this site.

If that was nihilism I wouldn't have bothered trying to communicate meaning.

If perceptual relativity isn't in your lexicon, I refer you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

Even facts can get mushy, but that doesn't mean it's always so.

The Truth of the matter is that when it comes to perspective, one size does not fit all.

nihilist are not so nihilistic that they do not spread their nihilism by talking, meming, believing in themselves. the definition of nihilism if so uncommunicative would be more like Taoism. Taoist believe it is pointless to question the pivotal essence of reality because we ourselves are an expression of that essences. we find it most easily by never attempting to find it. and we loose it most eagerly by analyzing essential existence. especially losing it in the process of talk.

A sort of existential agnosticism. At least on the surface. More inarticulate than enigmatic. I find its protestations regarding good and bad to be more revealing of our inherent lack of prescience than an inherent lack of moral conscience. Taoism was so wanting for utility that it gave rose to Confucianism.

But definitionally, absurdism holds that meaning can be authored by the individual, for the individual. Nihilism by definition is not that. When we refuse to accept a common definition of the words we use to communicate, meaning truly is limited to the absurdist rendition of such.

Not only is reality shaped by personal perception, in some cases is it literally defined by personal perception. Usually on the quantum level, but that's a real as anything. Maybe moreso.