Philosophy Now Forum

For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:17 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
Quote:
Why did you even bring economics up in this thread?

Okay, read this from Nobel laureate for economics Paul Krugman of The New York Times: "The central cause of the profession's failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess."

There is a lot of Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics occurring in economics. It is not just a political exercise as you may have thought.

I am a subscriber for 12 years of PN magazine. So I consider myself a money contributor and supporter of this form.

Quote:
What's a "monitor" when its at home?
I don't understand this question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Posts: 5926
spike wrote:
Quote:
Why did you even bring economics up in this thread?

Okay, read this from Nobel laureate for economics Paul Krugman of The New York Times: "The central cause of the profession's failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess."

There is a lot of Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics occurring in economics. It is not just a political exercise as you may have thought.
All very interesting but my question was why bring it up in a thread on the philosophy of mathematics? Why not post it as a topic about economics and finance elsewhere?
Quote:
I am a subscriber for 12 years of PN magazine. So I consider myself a money contributor and supporter of this form.
Fair enough. Let's see if you get a response as I presume you may be entitled.

For myself the reason is obvious why a philosophy forum would have a category on Logic, not sure about the maths but since they've said the "philosophy of maths" I can accept it. Especially since at least two philosophers have made major contributions to maths and two more, major philosophical contributions to the subject.
Quote:
I don't understand this question.

spike wrote:
... from monitors like you.
?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Posts: 5926
Impenitent wrote:
daydreaming of becoming Godzilla perhaps?

-Imp

:) What's a'monitor wit choo!?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
Quote:
All very interesting but my question was why bring it up in a thread on the philosophy of mathematics? Why not post it as a topic about economics and finance elsewhere?

Logic and mathematics is utilized to establish theories and models of human behavior. Economics, more than any discipline, relies on models to determine and explain what is going on in the market place. Hence my bring up economics in this thread.

I have tried to explain the existence and application of Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics. However, nobody else has. So, what are some of the other areas in which Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics used? Geography?

Moreover, there isn't any life more fundamental or central that economic life. Therefore every thread is applicable to it, including this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm
Posts: 1164
spike wrote:
Quote:
Philosophy seeks absolute answers.

Well, philosophy can go ahead and seek absolute answers all it wants but it wouldn't find them. Philosophy is not designed that way, to find absolutes. And if it does discover them then it isn't philosophy. In philosophy absolutes don't remain absolutes for long because they are constantly consummating themselves.
.

Wrong. You are an idiot. Philosophy wasn't designed in Any way. And people can start a thread for any topic they want; people don't have to comment onthem though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm
Posts: 1164
Arising_uk wrote:
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm


This is an interesting paradox but it is merely a discursive illusion.

The fact that Meno could come up with the paradox means that there existed elements of his consciousness which had access to such relations of logic. If he had no such aptitude he could not have known that such a paradox could be constructed. The paradox is his because he had an aprioiri condition of knowledge that gave him the paradox.
I, On the other hand have no such knowledge of such a paradox for the meaning of the addressed statement (we only know what we already know) but only that the paradox makes sence if one does not know what he does not know (denial). :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm
Posts: 1164
As to a philosophy of math:
Here is a proposal that is philosophical and has to do with math:
The operations of mathematical symbols only reflect a valid operation in their basic relations. Once interpretation takes place, math has been removed from actual presentation (identity) of the phenomenon and thereby reflects re-presentation (equasion).
Equasion is the human interference in identity, such that what may be identical is removed from its basic state of affairs and placed in a subsequent arena of states where the affairs accord with human agenda.

The problem posed is the problem solved for any given awareness of intent. The intent is posed in the form of a question with a 'hanging equals'. The identity is denied in the effect of the human interference and interpreted as cause and effect (human pre-eminance).

How's that for some philosophy of math?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Posts: 5926
In the mainstream this is what's generally been accepted as the topics in the philosophy of maths. But I accept that things can change.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo ... thematics/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
Quote:
Why did you even bring economics up in this thread?

Furthermore, I would say that contemporary economics is the culmination of philosophy of mathematics. I begrudgingly thank PN forum and Arising_uk for my realizing that.


Last edited by spike on Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
Quote:
You are an idiot.

No doubt that comes from a juvenile.

That is one of the problems with this forum. There are too many juveniles and juvenile thinkers on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:55 am
Posts: 206
lancek4 wrote:
As to a philosophy of math:
Here is a proposal that is philosophical and has to do with math:
The operations of mathematical symbols only reflect a valid operation in their basic relations. Once interpretation takes place, math has been removed from actual presentation (identity) of the phenomenon and thereby reflects re-presentation (equasion).
Equasion is the human interference in identity, such that what may be identical is removed from its basic state of affairs and placed in a subsequent arena of states where the affairs accord with human agenda.

The problem posed is the problem solved for any given awareness of intent. The intent is posed in the form of a question with a 'hanging equals'. The identity is denied in the effect of the human interference and interpreted as cause and effect (human pre-eminance).

How's that for some philosophy of math?


Have you been at the Postmodernism generator, by any chance? http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm
Posts: 1164
Richard Baron wrote:
lancek4 wrote:
As to a philosophy of math:
Here is a proposal that is philosophical and has to do with math:
The operations of mathematical symbols only reflect a valid operation in their basic relations. Once interpretation takes place, math has been removed from actual presentation (identity) of the phenomenon and thereby reflects re-presentation (equasion).
Equasion is the human interference in identity, such that what may be identical is removed from its basic state of affairs and placed in a subsequent arena of states where the affairs accord with human agenda.

The problem posed is the problem solved for any given awareness of intent. The intent is posed in the form of a question with a 'hanging equals'. The identity is denied in the effect of the human interference and interpreted as cause and effect (human pre-eminance).

How's that for some philosophy of math?


Have you been at the Postmodernism generator, by any chance? http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/



Is that what my brain is? Yes, indeed :aaaaaaahhhh the wonders of a post-modern generator. It is fun though; no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
Philosophy of Mathematics is equivalent to analytical philosophy. It specializes, like economists do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
Now, I was wondering, does the Philosophy of Mathematics prove that communism was doomed to failure?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 672
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group