($$ logic wars $$(institution and worship (re: math as religion)))


 Science > Physics > ($$ logic wars $$(institution and worship (re: math as religion)))

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "galathaea"
Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:58:32 PM
Object: ($$ logic wars $$(institution and worship (re: math as religion)))
In article
<5052519.1163072125339.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org>, "T.H.
Ray" <thray123@aol.com> wrote:
!! > T.H. Ray wrote:
!! > > >
!! > > > Mathematics is not a religion is it?
!! > > > Why people adopt the religious attitude is
!! > > > baffling.
||
!! > > > By challenging the fundamentals that have been
!! > > > layed down a type of progress can be made that
!! > > > far rivals the usual progression of adding a
!! > > > branch to a branch of the tree.
take any mathematical theorem
here are some properties of the theorem:
- it can be _expressed_, ie. it has a symbolic representation
- the symbology has an _interpretation_ in terms of:
+ objects
+ transformations of objects
what that theorem "means"
depends on which interpretation is chosen
!! > > > This is a statement on the human mind. The
!! > > > mathematician is most immune to emotional
!! > > > argumentation, yet to claim an inadequacy at
!! > > > the base of the tree hurts badly and well it
!! > > > should, for if the inadequacy is a reality
!! > > > then all of the mathematicians who have been
!! > > > hoodwinked have suffered from the social
!! > > > instinct of mimicry.
that social instinct
is how we learn to play the games
no one suffers because of that
they suffer because of an opposing
social punishment at mistakes
this is more rigorous in mathematics
!! > > > The mathematician who claims immunity will
!! > > > have to accept this lower accusation and
!! > > > therefor should remain open to such
!! > > > possibilities.
but interpretations are not possibilities
and possibilities are not religious
religion is a particular choice
a decision in faith that is not influenced
by the scientific verificationism
of possibility
!! > > > Such possibilities have to be met with clear
!! > > > criticism from the defenders of the existing
!! > > > tree.
the cause of the suffering above
!! > > > The ease with which you do so is a measure of
!! > > > your own abilities.
clear critique
is only possible where verifiable criteria apply
interpretation cannot be criticised
except in muddy terms that
don't quite understand the argument
!! > > > If the truth is so clear cut there should be no
!! > > > problem arriving at it with honest discussion.
which truth?
it is all the same argument
the game of philosophy
truth needs to be interpreted too
!! > > > Otherwise your math is just a religion:
there has always been a close relationship
between mathematics and religion
all students of mathematical history
know the strong connections between these categories
the pythagorean legacies
< the embarrassed acknowledgements of godel >
!! > > > The book has been written.
!! > > > One must preserve the book.
one book
for one interpretation
for one truth
for one
and all
!! > >
!! > >
!! > > As another writer pointed out, the only clear
!! > > cut fact of mathematics -- for whatever other
!! > > properties one might wish to assign the subject
!! > > -- is that math is a language.
no
math is all languages
it is the lingua in all forms
the abstraction of the string of symbols
and the games they can play
!! > > It coheres in common terms by which its speakers
!! > > communicate.
it does not cohere
even on whether it should cohere
!! > > Mathematics is no one's private language, and
!! > > -- unlike the case with religious belief --
!! > > no theorem acquires truth status merely
!! > > because an individual believes it to be true.
interpretation
is a part of the game itself
it is learned through mimicry and creative expression
the thesis and antithesis
individuals make choices
with respect to others
but individuals make choices
that is the ego center in agent theory
!! > The hierarchical structure is an explicit and
!! > meaningful component of mathematics.
||
!! > When the hierarchy is exposed as flawed the flaw
!! > needs to be corrected.
||
!! > The ability of trained mathematicians to perceive a
!! > flaw or be in denial of that flaw is the difference
!! > between true mathematics and religion.
what is the ontology of truth used?
except in respect to a chosen interpretation
there is no notion of flaws and truth
!! > The inherent assumption of accuracy of current
!! > mathematics by modern mathematicians is a religious
!! > precept.
no
the accuracy of mathematics
is due to its verificationist studies
of scientific ontologies
ontologies with perceptual abstractions
shared by a communicating group
but mathematical ontologies
extend beyond the accurate
!! > This assumption is being exposed as invalid here.
||
!! > Is this a minor point?
||
!! > It is not.
||
!! > The consequences of this invalid assumption may make
!! > the difference between a natural basis of reality
!! > versus an arbitrary basis.
mathematicians developed euclidean geometry
mathematicians developed boolean logic
neither of these
are the most likely language of propositions
in the models of our reality
most modern theories
are within noneuclidean notions of space
and which have noncommuting observables
causing failures in distributive associations of propositions
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
!! > The PolySign Numbers (tm)
!! > offer an Answer
!! > and expose an Ambiguity
!! > in the current mathematical system:
!! >
!! > http://www.bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/index.html
||
!! > Magnitude is a fundamental principle whose marriage
!! > with the natural numbers yields Results(C).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
om mani padme hum...
i prettied up your advertisement
!! Mathematics has no priesthood.
sure it does
and it should
they are the respected
because of accomplishment and skill
in an interpretation
the teachers
of the gameplay in that interpretation
the referrees and speakers for the field
whatever field
!! That you have come up with an idea that has not found
!! wide acceptance, does not logically imply that some
!! force of authority is conspiring to withold recognition.
often there is confusion
between lack of acceptance
and lack of acknowledgement
some interpretations are "uninteresting"
to other interpretations
they lack a communication channel
!! I suggest you look for flaws in your argument or in your
!! method of presentation.
||
!! That's what the referee process is for.
flaws
in which interpretation?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

 

NEWER
pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER