A tract on how the history might work, again, *sigh*:
http://www.dcorfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HowMathematicians.pdf
The point being, that mathematics, like Cluetrain products, are
conversations, and that those that coalesce and progress don't get made
without some awareness of the continuity
A larger question might be (perhaps indicating my own ignorance) : is
mathematics inherent in the universe or a rational construct of the human mind?
Paul
**
Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live
music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
Somebody called it neutral, i.e., neither of the mind nor of the world by
lying between.
Was it William James?
Love to know.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Original Message -
From:
To: [EMAIL
All,
I have started to reNoodle this entry based on your comments. The noo=noodle
is at
http://www.sfcomplex.org/wiki/MentalismAndCalculus
Here is the first paragraph,
Mentalism is the belief that what we do is caused by events in some inner
space called the mind. One of the classic
Glenn, I personally agree with your analysis of what mathematics is
either in large part or wholly.
But there are others who do not. The field of mathematical philosophy
has many branches of opposing belief.
None of which has been proven for the most part and the subject has
mostly
Mathematicians have asserted both positions - some believing that math
is a process of discovery of the intrinsic nature of the universe (or
the mind of God) while others believe it is a process of invention and
isomorphism between the invention and the universe is serendipitous.
davew
On Fri,
We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical
representation of complexity and that being a barrier to progress
in the science.
the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises mine.
implicit in the sentence is some variation of mathematics is a better
Perhaps the invention is intrinsic? The either/or conundrum seems
artificial, unless one buys into a narrower definition of mathematician.
C.
Prof David West wrote:
Mathematicians have asserted both positions - some believing that math
is a process of discovery of the intrinsic nature of
Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem from the uses of
metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The premature rush to abandon
the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is the real
- in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress.
Well, depends on what you
Michael Agar wrote:
Is a computer program a mathematization?
Proof is that Mathematica is in large part written in the functional
programming language Mathematica, and Macsyma/Maxima written in Lisp.
Marcus
FRIAM Applied
David Mirly wrote:
One of the more opposite views, however, is the Platonist view (I
think I have that right) where mathematical concepts
are a set of universal truths and we just discover them as opposed to
creating them.
Well, I don't want to object to the idea that Platonism opposes
Prof David West wrote:
We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical
representation of complexity and that being a barrier to progress
in the science.
the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises mine.
implicit in the sentence is some variation
Carl wrote:
A tract on how the history might work, again, *sigh*:
http://www.dcorfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HowMathematicians.pdf
Given a master with power and an apprentice without, don't see why the
genealogical view is necessarily at odds with tradition-constituted
enquiry -- such that one
Perhaps, we will come to better understanding of math if we see ***what math is
not***. Here is Gregory Chaitin's Alan Turing
Lecture on Computing and Philosophy, Mälardalen University, 2005:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr0fOGeS7DE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bacYDSy19Q
Well, the geneological enquiry (as described) seemed more adversarial
than the traditional - the G guy is trying to discredit the other guy by
showing that he is just on a power trip of some sort. I tend to look at
them as subtractive (G) and additive (T) sculpture - complementary if
some
Günther Greindl wrote:
Well, depends on what you want to do - developing _new_ theories is best
done via metaphor; to get a qualitative feel for the stuff; speculative
philosophy, if you like (that is indeed what I like to do :-))
But to make it into science, which means that you can make
Carl Tollander wrote:
the G guy is trying to discredit the other guy by
showing that he is just on a power trip of some sort. I tend to look at
them as subtractive (G) and additive (T) sculpture - complementary if
some common goal is in mind, but the G guy never gets there, as he has
no
17 matches
Mail list logo
