Whether it can be applied within math (maybe to simplify)
or towards other disciplines?
PhilX
Does all math have potential use?
-
Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Does all math have potential use?
Yes, all maths have "potential" use as in physics, but the problem is most scientists as some "physicists" think a priori that the use is more than potential, and use it effectively...
Physics are no more a physical science (!), but a mathematical one.
According to a philosopher, a physicist win all math prizes, and this is not fate: When maths sections publish a new tool or a new toy, he incorpore it in his "physical" theory.
Depending on my point of view, this phenomenon has a name: it is called jealousy against Einstein. Such a "physicist" feed the hope in anticipating experiments, as Einstein did, and subsequently to earn medals.
But, if the tools are rotten from the basis, due to a misconception, all consequences have to be revised, and there are already a lot of "physical" theories which can be revised, but sometimes are not, what may be due to job protection.
Physics are no more a physical science (!), but a mathematical one.
According to a philosopher, a physicist win all math prizes, and this is not fate: When maths sections publish a new tool or a new toy, he incorpore it in his "physical" theory.
Depending on my point of view, this phenomenon has a name: it is called jealousy against Einstein. Such a "physicist" feed the hope in anticipating experiments, as Einstein did, and subsequently to earn medals.
But, if the tools are rotten from the basis, due to a misconception, all consequences have to be revised, and there are already a lot of "physical" theories which can be revised, but sometimes are not, what may be due to job protection.
-
Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Does all math have potential use?
Interesting thoughts. I'm going to pursue a certain line in the science section.NielsBohr wrote:Yes, all maths have "potential" use as in physics, but the problem is most scientists as some "physicists" think a priori that the use is more than potential, and use it effectively...
Physics are no more a physical science (!), but a mathematical one.
According to a philosopher, a physicist win all math prizes, and this is not fate: When maths sections publish a new tool or a new toy, he incorpore it in his "physical" theory.
Depending on my point of view, this phenomenon has a name: it is called jealousy against Einstein. Such a "physicist" feed the hope in anticipating experiments, as Einstein did, and subsequently to earn medals.
But, if the tools are rotten from the basis, due to a misconception, all consequences have to be revised, and there are already a lot of "physical" theories which can be revised, but sometimes are not, what may be due to job protection.
PhilX
Re: Does all math have potential use?
Ok, thanks.
Better do maths in its own section, if you like it, and if you can, reflect before calculating, because calculating before understanding lead no far.
The problem I evoked - as a mathematician you can lead weak physicists opinion - but is that physics - and indirectly the world itself - became the picture of maths, in place of the historical understanding that maths are a picture of physics, so of the Nature.
This, is very dangerous. The man could think from the world, think for himself, and now, he tries to think the world itself. This lead to the Babylone tour. We think we find things, but they are only the reflect of misconception.
Being a scientist was historically a synonym of being a philosopher (and being a philosopher was somewhat a synonym of being a religious). Nowadays, "knowledge" domains are very separated, so... in a sense no knowledge is proposed in university (I mean at least in fundamental sciences sections).
This is unconsciously what we mean in the language (which remains more pure because we don't have another mean to communicated widely) : a learner learn - knowing a profession - and a student... study.
But even if I answered "Yes", this was because of your own question, knowing as containing "potential". If you were asking "Do all maths have use", my answer would certainly be "No".
Specifically, do not expect in fundamental sciences to have the tools accompanied by their own application for illustration. This way of understanding is "old school" because no to illustrate the application of the tools - could lead to understand - and as students do not understand (at least: completely), this is a mean of selection. Nothing less.
This is what we mean, finally, in french "nivelage par le haut" - leveling from high, because if you level from high, you go to the lower: you select artificially your student, in place of letting the more clever to understand and level up themselves. Students like a lot the specialities; they want be astonished - so that what was proposed to them.
This obviously, is only my personal opinion.
Better do maths in its own section, if you like it, and if you can, reflect before calculating, because calculating before understanding lead no far.
The problem I evoked - as a mathematician you can lead weak physicists opinion - but is that physics - and indirectly the world itself - became the picture of maths, in place of the historical understanding that maths are a picture of physics, so of the Nature.
This, is very dangerous. The man could think from the world, think for himself, and now, he tries to think the world itself. This lead to the Babylone tour. We think we find things, but they are only the reflect of misconception.
Being a scientist was historically a synonym of being a philosopher (and being a philosopher was somewhat a synonym of being a religious). Nowadays, "knowledge" domains are very separated, so... in a sense no knowledge is proposed in university (I mean at least in fundamental sciences sections).
This is unconsciously what we mean in the language (which remains more pure because we don't have another mean to communicated widely) : a learner learn - knowing a profession - and a student... study.
But even if I answered "Yes", this was because of your own question, knowing as containing "potential". If you were asking "Do all maths have use", my answer would certainly be "No".
Specifically, do not expect in fundamental sciences to have the tools accompanied by their own application for illustration. This way of understanding is "old school" because no to illustrate the application of the tools - could lead to understand - and as students do not understand (at least: completely), this is a mean of selection. Nothing less.
This is what we mean, finally, in french "nivelage par le haut" - leveling from high, because if you level from high, you go to the lower: you select artificially your student, in place of letting the more clever to understand and level up themselves. Students like a lot the specialities; they want be astonished - so that what was proposed to them.
This obviously, is only my personal opinion.