> > Jason wrote: > > > > You state that Kelvin's statement is inherently > > > self-invalidating?
> --- "waspaligap" <waspaligap@..> wrote: > > Well, yes. He makes a claim (an epistemological claim). > Let's call that claim "K". According to K, "when you > cannot express it (i.e. some claim) in precise > mathematical terms, your knowledge of it, is of a meagre > and unsatisfactory kind". > > But as is obvious, K is not expressed in mathematical > terms. From which it follows that according to K, K "is of > a meagre and unsatisfactory kind" (whatever that means - > but it seems unlikely to allow for K being true). > > If mathematics is the language of the universe, even > > that can't explain the Qualia aspect of the universe. > > Judy posted a youtube link on this a while back. > I'd agree with you there. > > Which means Maths is a process and not the end in > > itself? > I'm not sure what you mean. Does anyone think that Maths > is an end in itself? However what does interest me very > much is the mystery of mathematics. We live in an age of > science. For many it is a substitute for religion. It's > true that some sciences are more equal than others. So the > iffy ones such as economics, climate science, and > psychology bask in reflected glory from physics and > chemistry. Yet the foundation of it all seems to be > mathematics. But do we even know what mathematics is? What > are mathematical "discoveries"? What are we discovering? > Where does the necessity of mathematical truth come from? > > Could you rephrase Godel in a little more easier way? > I doubt it! Godel's proof, like quantum indeterminacy, > seems to point to something most peculiar, but no one can > quite agree about what that is (or means). But perhaps we > can just return to the logical positivists that were > referred to earlier in the thread... > > I'd suggest that many folks who idealise science have in > their mind some loose form of logical positivism (either > explicit or implicit). Like this: > > Q: What makes science work? > > A: The experimental method > > Q: But why does the experimental method work? > > A: Because we test our theories against experience > > Q: What do you mean by experience? > > A: The evidence of our senses > > Q: What is sense data? > > A: The images in our brain > > Q: What other types of knowledge are there? > > A: That's all there is > > Q: So what about Logic and Mathematics? They're not sense > data! > > A: They just describe the relations between the concepts > and symbols we use to refer to sense data. Thanks Paligap. Sorry for the delayed reply. My gardener who worked for me for more than 15 years died. The very next day a 27 year old widow with 3 small children arrived to work. She is a total orphan with nobody in the world. Her husband died in a mining accident. Anyway coming to the thread, Your point is brilliant. So Logic and Mathematics are both abstract intangibles. They only describe the relationship between concepts and symbol. I remember physicist Max Tegmark stating that at the most fundamental level, there are only numbers. Does that mean the unified field is something intangible? Nirguna means "no qualities whatsoever". Would you call Buddhism, a 'solipsistic reductionism' or lets say 'nihilistic reductionism'? > The trouble with this idea is that the work of Russell and > Frege in the twentieth century seemed to show that > mathematics could not be reduced to logic (simple, > self-evident tautologies). Furthermore, maths seems to > result in bizarre, counter-intuitive "discoveries" (such > as Cantor's proof that some infinities are larger than > others). So the point of Godel is that he appears to add > more spice to this pot with his incompleteness theorem. > > If Cantor's discovery does not come from the evidence of > his (our) senses, and if it doesn't simply represent the > manipulation of self-evident axioms. what on earth's going > on? > > Mysterianism rules! >
