Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:26:52 GMT

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:18:17 -0600, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:53:19 +0000 (UTC), Neil W Rickert
>> <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jason" <jasonstevensNOSPAM@free.net.nz> writes:
>>
>>
>> [. . .]
>>
>>
>>>>Since mathematics has evolved along-side science and plays a large part in
>>>>describing and predicting how the world works, then as a formal system goes, it
>>>>seems to be on the money as far as capturing something about the world.
>>>
>>>That's your opinion. As a mathematician, I have a different
>>>opinion. I consider it important that mathematics is not about the
>>>world. Roughly speaking, mathematics is about what would happen if
>>>reality did not intrude. We discover a lot about reality by seeing
>>>how it differs from the mathematical ideal.
>>
>>
>> If mathematics is not about the real world, what is it about? If it is
>> about the tautological elaboration of axioms, to what do the axioms
>> belong if not the real world and to what does the elaboration of the
>> axioms belong if not the real world? I don't see any way to defend
>> your contention that math is not about the real world. Especially
>> without any alternative definition for reality to which mathematics
>> belongs that isn't about the real world, whatever it is taken to mean.
>
>I have to agree with Neil, here. Mathematics is about the real
>world only when and only to the the extent that it is used to
>describe real world relationships. i.e. it is only coincidentally
>about reality.

The problem, Albert, is we have no way to decide what those real world
relationships are. Neil has no criterion that I'm aware of. Is logic
about the real world? I would have to say so. So there's no way in my
estimation to say that tautologies are not about the real world.

I think what Neil means is that mathematics occurs in the in-here
as opposed to the out-there. But that still makes it part of the real
world as far as I'm concerned. Far too many mathematicians get
stuck in mystical mumbo-jumbo trying to figure out just exactly
where mathematical objects are if they aren't in the real world.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... most of the standard axioms would get scrapped ... you claim that set theory is ... theory in which to express virtually all of mathematics. ... S (call this function 'omega pre S'). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Robot Evolution
    ... no. Goedel proved a very limited thing about ... generated from systems of axioms "at least as ... accomplish mathematical reasoning. ... "If human reasoning about mathematics is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... > This is not a job the axioms were ever meant to do. ... other person's interpretation require a winning strategy, no more, no ... I'm pretty sure than any model of set theory is intuitively ... figuring out how I tell what is real in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... It's the *axioms* ... Otherwise it's not an axiomatic system. ... generator to compare to a proof checker in the first place. ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Towards a Formula for Primes
    ... I generalised the concept of a system of mathematics that moves a ... By the discovery of pseudorandomness in primes, ... I recommended that the XOR function be moved ... we have all the axioms we need in an "xor transarithmetic". ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast