Re: Math as an Experimental Science

Dear William,

I am an empirical/intuitionist in my approach to math.

To me, symbols on a chalkboard are sensed by way of the eyes. They are
empirical.

But rules governing the symbol manipulation are invisible to the naked
eye.

To name a number is not the same as the governing rules of the numbers.
It is like calling someone 'President of the USA,' without giving
him policy rules and procedures to be President. He has yet to play the
game.

I am not into mysticism. I just believe that is how the brain works.

Rules are beyond the five senses, but they are neurological.

Rules governing math manipulation can never be stated or written while
you are doing math. You will never be able to resolve your problem!!!

It will become a paradox of meta-mathematics. It will result in
infinite regress. Infinite regress is not the same as infinite
recursion.

It will be inconvenient and cumbersome while working out your numbers.
You should just know how to do it.

You do not write out the rules when you calculate 2+2=4. You just do
it. There is a how, but no why. There is only description, but no
explanation. Explanations belong to physical things that can cause
things to happen. Symbol abstractions can only describe them.

So in a way, math is experimental, but in a way it is not. It is
'not' because symbol abstractions do not have the same level of
independence, or 'a hands off' attitude during a scientific
experiment.

I believe mathematics to be a free creation of the human mind. There is
a level of freedom that is lacking in scientific experiments. I am not
Platonic. Math is not an objective enterprise.

Here, 'to experiment' has a difference in grammatical context.

'Experiment' is fact because the opposite can be true. This is due
to change and contingency.

Math is experimenting where the facts are dependent upon us. We make
the rules and the symbols. The numbers do not manipulate themselves.

Science is experimenting where the facts are dependent upon the world.
The math just helps us to describe them. But only nature can causally
explain.

They are truly two different things. Yet, they are equally empirical on
two distinct levels.

'Experiment' is a word that simultaneously deploys imitation and
creativity.

It used to be during the Renaissance, artists like Da Vinci would try
to learn about nature by copying it to its exact detail on canvas.

Science does the same, except it gives the paintbrush over to nature.

This does not in anyway deny creativity.

In an experiment, we let nature recreate itself. But how we set it up
is up to the creative ingenuity of the scientist.

In a mathematical experiment, numbers are imitated and combinations of
rule are deployed, but how they are used in those combinations are up
to the ingenuity of the mathematician.

I have to quit now. I am feeling a bit foggy. It is time for a cup of
tea. :-)

Sincerely,

B.T. :-)

William Elliot wrote:
Have computers turned mathematics into an experimental science?

Do students, more eager to use computers than to learn math, want to
pretend math is an experimental science?

Is use of a graphic calculator as a guessing machine an example of the
experimental nature of mathematics?

Is there an algorithm taking in as input the questions above and putting
out as output, an answer with evidential support?

Math is an experimental science.
1. No
2. Yes
3. In new math
4. In math labs
5. In computer labs

.

Relevant Pages

  • Math as an Experimental Science
    ... Thinking about how the brain works, ... So in a way, math is experimental, but in a way it is not. ... to learn about nature by copying it to its exact detail on canvas. ... This does not in anyway deny creativity. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... SR and GR are only math theories. ... that our reality is a physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... The most difficult problem I have with SR experts seems to be hid in this one concept: The separation of the models of nature that we used, ... Models of nature are on at least two different levels: just math models, where math functions and relationships are directly used to predict the results of tests, or physical models that are used, upon which math models are eventually developed. ... The understanding that comes with the physical base allows one to understand the theory one level deeper than when one only has the math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... SR is only math. ... We can't do physics without basic laws/postulates so start with. ... And those laws are gathered from what is observed in nature (i.e. by ... We then derive the wave equation in any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
    ... The math can be actually only applicable to ... they are facts -- that is, they really happen in nature. ... Disagreeing with the lying shit Phuckwit Duck is something anyone ... His sole intent is to argue ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)