4 ms·

Natural philosophers are simply physicists who were too lazy to learn math.

sova 9y ago
One could just as easily say that mathematicians are natural philosophers clouded by rigid symbols that have no inherent meaning on their own. For every zag, a zig.
- sova 9y ago
  So many downvotes, but nobody wants to spar, what a pity.
  - codebolt 9y ago
    Alright, I’ll bite. I challenge your assertion that math is without objective meaning. First I want to make an observation. Do you know the history of how the study of complex algebra/calculus came about? If so, I assume you will agree that it was initially a completely abstract thought experiment with no connection to anything in the “real” world. Given your assertion that math is without meaning, it would seem to me that mathematical ideas that originate purely out of human imagination would just be arbitrary semantics. Then how can it be that complex analysis only several decades after it was formulated turned out to be not only useful, but necessary to formulate the theory of quantum mechanics in a way that agrees with physical observation? I can name numerous other examples of the same phenomenon; namely that a purely abstract mathematical idea is long after its formulation shown to be profoundly reflected in physical reality. To me it seems obvious that the way these phenomena occur implies that part of the process by which humans use their imagination and reasoning to come up with abstract mathematical ideas, is more akin to using their intuition to map out objective ‘structures’ of logic (that are also reflected in the underlying structure of physical reality) than to simply play with semantics, as it seems you are asserting. Tl;dr Post modernist philosophers are fools and they should be ashamed. Qed
    - sova 9y ago
      I agree with you that there are many incredible and useful insights based on mathematics and the equals sign, but the main point of contention is that not every mathematical truth has a co-responding physical phenomenon. Nor can we adequately explain how an equals sign works, or why it works. Mathematics and [im]material reality are not one-to-one and assuming that mathematics supersedes the imagination or is a superset of human language and expression negates human experience and renders our lives as secondary to "almighty math." Mathematics is a tool, would you agree? Philosophy is also a tool. Mathematics without a human user is like a video game without a player. I am not asserting that mathematics has no "objective meaning" it _only_ has objective meaning (because for every "object" we must have a "subject" namely, the observing consciousness). Thanks for biting =)
      - codebolt 9y ago
        I'm always up for a discussion on this topic, because I find it very interesting and I think there is a major (dare I say it) metaphysical point here that is overlooked by mainstream intellectuals. However I've argued with enough post-modernists online over the years (which is usually like arguing with a wall) that I might have become a bit snarky- sorry about that, I appreciate the graceful tone in your response. I agree that the symbolic language we call mathematics and reality are not one-to-one as you say. But the fact that we can use abstract reasoning around these symbols to uncover new ways of understanding of the physical world, especially in cases like the one I lined out in my example, implies to me that there must be some objective reality that is in some way captured by these symbols, in a way that plain philosophy cannot. Personally I subscribe to Roger Penrose's lines of thought on these matters: http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.no/2012/09/penrose-on-whether-platonic-objectivity.html http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.no/2012/09/penrose-on-whe... So to answer your question, I agree that math is a tool, but I think in some sense it also more than a tool. I believe it can also be seen as a map into a platonic reality, and that there is some element of our mind that is able to observe this realm which allows us to draw the map (using mathematical symbolic language) and come to an agreement about how it should be drawn. And that elements of this platonic realm are for some mysterious reason also reflected in the structure of our physical reality.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Maybe no-one wants to spend their time trading trite aphorisms.

sova 9y ago

One could just as easily say that mathematicians are natural philosophers clouded by rigid symbols that have no inherent meaning on their own. For every zag, a zig.

sova 9y ago
So many downvotes, but nobody wants to spar, what a pity.
- codebolt 9y ago
  Alright, I’ll bite. I challenge your assertion that math is without objective meaning. First I want to make an observation. Do you know the history of how the study of complex algebra/calculus came about? If so, I assume you will agree that it was initially a completely abstract thought experiment with no connection to anything in the “real” world. Given your assertion that math is without meaning, it would seem to me that mathematical ideas that originate purely out of human imagination would just be arbitrary semantics. Then how can it be that complex analysis only several decades after it was formulated turned out to be not only useful, but necessary to formulate the theory of quantum mechanics in a way that agrees with physical observation? I can name numerous other examples of the same phenomenon; namely that a purely abstract mathematical idea is long after its formulation shown to be profoundly reflected in physical reality. To me it seems obvious that the way these phenomena occur implies that part of the process by which humans use their imagination and reasoning to come up with abstract mathematical ideas, is more akin to using their intuition to map out objective ‘structures’ of logic (that are also reflected in the underlying structure of physical reality) than to simply play with semantics, as it seems you are asserting. Tl;dr Post modernist philosophers are fools and they should be ashamed. Qed
  - sova 9y ago
    I agree with you that there are many incredible and useful insights based on mathematics and the equals sign, but the main point of contention is that not every mathematical truth has a co-responding physical phenomenon. Nor can we adequately explain how an equals sign works, or why it works. Mathematics and [im]material reality are not one-to-one and assuming that mathematics supersedes the imagination or is a superset of human language and expression negates human experience and renders our lives as secondary to "almighty math." Mathematics is a tool, would you agree? Philosophy is also a tool. Mathematics without a human user is like a video game without a player. I am not asserting that mathematics has no "objective meaning" it _only_ has objective meaning (because for every "object" we must have a "subject" namely, the observing consciousness). Thanks for biting =)
    - codebolt 9y ago
      I'm always up for a discussion on this topic, because I find it very interesting and I think there is a major (dare I say it) metaphysical point here that is overlooked by mainstream intellectuals. However I've argued with enough post-modernists online over the years (which is usually like arguing with a wall) that I might have become a bit snarky- sorry about that, I appreciate the graceful tone in your response. I agree that the symbolic language we call mathematics and reality are not one-to-one as you say. But the fact that we can use abstract reasoning around these symbols to uncover new ways of understanding of the physical world, especially in cases like the one I lined out in my example, implies to me that there must be some objective reality that is in some way captured by these symbols, in a way that plain philosophy cannot. Personally I subscribe to Roger Penrose's lines of thought on these matters: http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.no/2012/09/penrose-on-whether-platonic-objectivity.html http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.no/2012/09/penrose-on-whe... So to answer your question, I agree that math is a tool, but I think in some sense it also more than a tool. I believe it can also be seen as a map into a platonic reality, and that there is some element of our mind that is able to observe this realm which allows us to draw the map (using mathematical symbolic language) and come to an agreement about how it should be drawn. And that elements of this platonic realm are for some mysterious reason also reflected in the structure of our physical reality.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Maybe no-one wants to spend their time trading trite aphorisms.