An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Mathematics is also not a science. It is non-empirical. Every mathematical object is an abstraction. Take the number one for example.
It was with the move to the language of mathematical symbolism that mathematical objects became an abstraction.
Burning ghost wrote:The OP representation of language and humanity is plain ridiculous.
Anything Fan of Science says is on point.
Woodart wrote:Philosophy is a symbolic inquiry into the nature of many things – so is mathematics. Philosophy and language were first. Math grew out of language and philosophical development. Math is a science of inquiry. In the same regard agriculture and biology grew from investigative inquiry. The first investigative inquiry was philosophy. Math came along somewhere down the road and used the same investigative inquiry methodology.
The word mathematics comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which, in the ancient Greek language, means "that which is learnt", "what one gets to know" ......
In any case, we can now recognize from all this that historicism, which wishes to clarify the historical or epistemological essence of mathematics from the standpoint of the magical circumstances or other manners of apperception of a time-bound civilization, is mistaken in principle. For romantic spirits the mythological-magical elements of the historical and prehistorical aspects of mathematics may be particularly attractive; but to cling to this merely historically factual aspect of mathematics is precisely to lose oneself to a sort of romanticism and to overlook the genuine problem, the internal-historical problem, the epistemological problem. - Edmund Husserl (The Origins of Geometry)
It seem your views are a rigid one-perspective view
Well, not really. The "objects" don't physically exist so you've kind of fallen over yourself there.
I agree with Husserl here:
Upon the combined “sediments” reposes finally our actual interpretation of the world … the “scientific” attitude permeates all our thoughts and attitudes … We take for granted that there is a “true world” as revealed by the combined efforts of the scientists … This idea of a true, mathematically shaped world behind the “sensible” world, as a complex of mere appearances, determines also the scope of modern philosophy. We take the appearances of things as a kind of disguise concealing their true mathematical nature. (20-21).
Okay fool, the distinction then is that geometry is rigidly formulated? A circle is always teh same circle framed in a mathematical world.
Who was it that said language is to thought what math is to phsyics?
Mathematics may bare relation to reality (in the physical sense) but as an abstract there is no need for this.
I am pretty sure this is what fan of science is rightly defending.
I take it you have come to a better understanding of Husserl now? Please share!
If you don't want to take my word for it that math is completely non-empirical …
With respect to the claim that math is basically counting, this is demonstrably false. Matching is more fundamental than counting, and this is what allows us to deal with such things as infinities.
Mathematics basically deals with logical proofs.
Maybe mathematics is the deeper, more precise language of our future AI overlords.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests