philosophy of mathematics

[chaz wyman]

Now, I was wondering, does the Philosophy of Mathematics prove that communism was doomed to failure?

No.

You can use maths to prove that a really free market will eventually self destruct, leaving a tiny minority with all the cash and the other 99% with nothing.

[chaz wyman]

Logic and mathematics must be inextricably linked. For the most part mathematics is logical and makes sense. I mean, it is illogical if a mathematical formula doesn't make sense. But what is the point of a mathematics that doesn't make sense.

So I am thinking, the philosophy of mathematics is a philosophy that ferrets out logic, common sense and natural laws that pertain to human existence and behavior. However, that logic, that common sense or those natural laws are not easily detectable or visible to the naked eye, hence the need for this philosophy to make sense of it.

What makes the philosophy of mathematics different from its science counterpart is that it doesn't have formulas to support the arguments it makes. Its formulas are more like intuitions. For instance, the axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" makes perfect sense and is logical. However, there is no tangible, mathematical formula that can be written to support that or prove it to others. It is an abstraction. Yet, the majority know it to be true, instinctively. The is no tangible formula for it. Nevertheless, the formula exists in our mind.

Gravity is interest, found both in the physical world and in human nature. The difference is that gravity in physics can be shown in a mathematical formula. The gravity relating to human behavior cannot be formulated because it is only sensed and intuitive. There is a saying, what goes up must come down. We know that's true also in human behavior but you can't show it in a formula like one can with gravity in science. We know that if human behavior gets too out of whack there will be negative consequences. But we can't formulate it like scientists can when things go out of whack in the physical world. Instead we formulate it through philosophy.

I think, to be credible you have to realise that maths is only a model to describe nature. There is nothing in maths that can predict the existence of natural phenomena.
As Hume says when a billiard ball hits another there is no way any apriori categories can predict the outcome of the event. What you need is to be able to observe. And although we may use induction to assert what will happen the next time two billiard balls come together, there is nothing that can predict it with any certainty.
No mathematical law necessitates the existence of gravity for example, you have to watch apples falling off of trees! Maths only describes the event. All science is description.

[chaz wyman]

Philosophy of Mathematics is equivalent to analytical philosophy. It specializes, like economists do.

Economists are mystics, the system they pretend to predict is chaotic.

[spike]

You can use maths to prove that a really free market will eventually self destruct, leaving a tiny minority with all the cash and the other 99% with nothing.

Now, that is a real idiotic statement with no grounds for proof. But there is experience to show that the free market is sustainable.

[chaz wyman]

You can use maths to prove that a really free market will eventually self destruct, leaving a tiny minority with all the cash and the other 99% with nothing.

Now, that is a real idiotic statement with no grounds for proof. But there is experience to show that the free market is sustainable.

Nope!

The unfettered downwards pressure on wages means the downward spiral of demand. This leads to the polarisation of wealth and poverty for the many and riches for the few.
You only have to look at the world as a global market to see it happens al the time.

[spike]

Maths is a tool that is used to describe natural phenomena. It uses apriori reasoning. It is a tool TO describe.

So, then, math is a language, like language is a language. But it does more than describe things. It's also for replicating things. It describes how to replicate something. If you want to properly replicate something you have to use mathematics. If you want to build something you need mathematics. And if you want to pass on the knowledge of building something one also needs mathematics.

Literary language also describes things. But like math it also helps to replicate. For instance, it can describe how to replicate democracy. Mathematics can't describe or help replicate democracy. But literature can.

The thing is that literature along cannot replicate democracy, especially for those who have never practiced it. To have a democracy there has to be experience in doing it. If democracy was mathematical, then it would be easy to replicate in countries that have never experienced it.

The philosophy of math tries to distinguish between inherent principles and human constructs. It is generally agreed that mathematic itself is not a human construct but is rooted in nature. How about democracy, though?

Many think democracy is as natural as rain. But democracy needs human constructs to support. So democracy also appears to be a human construct. Democracy, then, is an interesting case where you need philosophy to replicate something that is supposed to be natural.

Gravity is the most democratic of the four forces in the universe. But we would not want that kind of democracy to apply to humans, hence the human constructs we have fitted it with.

[chaz wyman]

Maths is a tool that is used to describe natural phenomena. It uses apriori reasoning. It is a tool TO describe.

So, then, math is a language, like language is a language. But it does more than describe things. It's also for replicating things. It describes how to replicate something. If you want to properly replicate something you have to use mathematics. If you want to build something you need mathematics. And if you want to pass on the knowledge of building something one also needs mathematics.

Literary language also describes things. But like math it also helps to replicate. For instance, it can describe how to replicate democracy. Mathematics can't describe or help replicate democracy. But literature can.

The thing is that literature along cannot replicate democracy, especially for those who have never practiced it. To have a democracy there has to be experience in doing it. If democracy was mathematical, then it would be easy to replicate in countries that have never experienced it.

The philosophy of math tries to distinguish between inherent principles and human constructs. It is generally agreed that mathematic itself is not a human construct but is rooted in nature. How about democracy, though?

Many think democracy is as natural as rain. But democracy needs human constructs to support. So democracy also appears to be a human construct. Democracy, then, is an interesting case where you need philosophy to replicate something that is supposed to be natural.

Gravity is the most democratic of the four forces in the universe. But we would not want that kind of democracy to apply to humans, hence the human constructs we have fitted it with.

Maths does not replicate, it might simulate, but scientific replicability is about physical demonstration not abstract description.

Calling gravity democratic is asinine.

[spike]

Oct 21 was supposed to be the end of the world according to Rapture specialist Harold Camping. But he had previously calculated that May 21 as the end of time. Why he got it wrong, he argued, is that he didn't get his math right.

I don't think he made any concrete mathematical analysis to prove The Rapture. There was no mathematical formula as to how the world would end. So what was he talking about when he said he got it math wrong?

I think Camping was saying that he had rigorously studied the situation, which to him was analogous to mathematical calculations. Which makes me think, philosophy of mathematics has little to do with mathematics but more to do with things that are analogous to doing math, like rigorous logic and analysis.

[spike]

Maths does not replicate, it might simulate, but scientific replicability is about physical demonstration not abstract description.

That is like saying a photograph does not replicate. And to 'physical demonstrate' you need math, which assists and makes possible a physical demonstration. Math is not just an abstract description but a thing that can be translated or transformed into the concrete. Math is like, ambidextrous.

Calling gravity democratic is asinine.

Nevertheless, like I said, gravity is the most democratic of the four forces in the universe.

[chaz wyman]

Maths does not replicate, it might simulate, but scientific replicability is about physical demonstration not abstract description.

That is like saying a photograph does not replicate.

Nothing like it. a photo is only a 2D representation of a moment in time. That's even less like replication.

And to 'physical demonstrate' you need math, which assists and makes possible a physical demonstration.

Maths has nothing to do with a physical representation. You are beginning to sound like an idiot. Are you an idiot?
Maths is a numerical abstract representation. When an apple falls from a tree there are no number involved. Maths uses numbers to model the event. This simulates the event.
REPLICATION is a word uses whereby a physical law is demonstrated by being repeated. The clue is in the word; replicability.



Math is not just an abstract description but a thing that can be translated or transformed into the concrete. Math is like, ambidextrous.

You are taking like a moron. I never knew maths had two hands.

Calling gravity democratic is asinine.

Nevertheless, like I said, gravity is the most democratic of the four forces in the universe.

Does it get a vote? Does it seek to represent the people.

....


Oh wait a minute...




Drop dead!
You are a time waster.

[spike]

Here is an article from PN issue 84 that pertains to this thread: http://philosophynow.org/issue84/Mathematical_Platonism
I wish I understood better what the article is getting at. Nevertheless, I subsequently learned that Plato loved geometry but was contemptuous of the material world. He was not a practical man. Perhaps that's what the article is getting at.

One aspect of the philosophy of mathematics is a realization made in the nineteenth century that mathematics doesn't deal with truth but validity.

[chaz wyman]

Here is an article from PN issue 84 that pertains to this thread: http://philosophynow.org/issue84/Mathematical_Platonism
I wish I understood better what the article is getting at. Nevertheless, I subsequently learned that Plato loved geometry but was contemptuous of the material world. He was not a practical man. Perhaps that's what the article is getting at.

One aspect of the philosophy of mathematics is a realization made in the nineteenth century that mathematics doesn't deal with truth but validity.

Maths validates, and describes. It has fuck all to do with reality.

[spike]

Maths validates, and describes. It has fuck all to do with reality.

There is something definitely wrong and disturbing about the person that said that. I mean, why the interjection that wasn't even called for?

[chaz wyman]

Maths validates, and describes. It has fuck all to do with reality.

There is something definitely wrong and disturbing about the person that said that. I mean, why the interjection that wasn't even called for?

I'm trying to get you to sit up and smell the coffee.

There are no integers in nature; no circles, straight lines, no regular polygons. Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.

[spike]

I don't believe you. You are just being argumentative. That's your nature.