From: Steve Nichols (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Fri Dec 22 2000 - 12:24:02 MST
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:55:43 -0800
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it
On Thursday, December 21, 2000 5:06 PM Steve Nichols steve@multisell.com
wrote:
S> Didn't Russell and Whitehead show that 'logic' supplied the
S> rules underlying both mathematics and language in Principia
S> Mathematical ... maths is purely logically, and cannot be
S> "proven by science empirically."
>They tried to this, but, I believe, they failed. So do many others,
>including Chrasles S. Chihara (_Constructability and Mathematical
>Existence_), Philip Kitcher (see his _The Nature of Mathematical
>Knowledge_), Morris Kline (see his _Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty_),
>and Penelope Maddy (see her _Realism in Mathematics_).
What difference in functionality is there between the maths "+" sign,
the natural language "and" word, and the logical symbol for
conjunction (upturned U)? Same for all the other logical and
mathematical operators. I think that maths has a psychological
(logos = mind) basis rather than an observable, empirical basis.
S> >Einstein's E=MC^2 was a philosophical
S> >argument until science proved it later.
>
S> This a claim from Physics, not algebra ... or academic
S> philosophy come to that.
Not actually. Einstein made certain assumptions and deduced things from
them. In some ways, his assumptions were bolder, more consistent, and more
parsimonious than those of others.
Maths deals with generalities: "Energy is Mass speedolight squared" or
whatever is a claim about physical properties .... sure Einstein used
THOUGHT experiments, but Philosophy cannot claim proprietorship
over all types of "thinking" (see fuller response to Harvey Newstrom)...
Level Up
www.steve-nichols.com
Afterhuman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:32 MST