Chiroptera
Member Posts: 6531 From: Oklahoma Joined: 09282003

Re: "/&/ "as genes? math or biology? normal rxns??
Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you, Brad.quote: I really do think that whatever that "math" is it is pure in itself no matter how it sorts difference of natural and artifical selection in the statistical normal distribution approximation.
While my contention is that modern mathematics is pure symbol manipulation, I certainly do not dispute that it is the mental concepts given to the symbols by the human mathematicians that make the practice of mathematics possible. I should also admit that it is, in the end, the correspondence between certain concepts in mathematics and concepts in the sciences (especially the physical sciences) that largely determine which fields of mathematics and the directions of research are "useful". As it should be, since the main motivation for mathematics (at least for nonmathematicians) is its utility.
This message is a reply to:   Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 09032005 8:26 AM   Brad McFall has responded 
Replies to this message:   Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 09062005 8:20 PM   Chiroptera has not yet responded 

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3136 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12202001

Re: "/&/ "as genes? math or biology? normal rxns??
Here is the "mental concept" am concerned about.Can Weyl be mistaken that "quantity" is not much longer an issue but instead that the whole scholarship he attempts to close, should be reopened, as the " quantity of genes" is adumbrated. Is there not something to Mr.Jack's query as to if there is something else a foot?? I for one was completely struck to sit in a graduate seminar in ecology and evolution@CUin 86 to hear a new professor Will Provine used contra Johnson in 96 ask formerly without response from other profs, as to what a "gene" was. How we "quantify" them seems to invert the relative importance of metric and geometry in Weyls' thought in this context but I should rather speak of yours or mine. Quatification can have purposes in mind, not pure granted. Thanks so much for your clear response. You and others in this thread have gained real respect from me time around. quote: On the character of mathematical cognitionFrom time immemorial mathematics has been looked upon as the science of quantity, or of space and number. (Though we also find this definition with Leibniz, the mathesis thus delineated is to him but a part of the more comprehensive ars combinatoria.) Today this view appears much too narrow in consideration of such fields as projective geometry or group theory. Consequently we need not worry particularly over an exact determination of what is meant by quantitative. In fact, the development of mathematics itself rasies doubts as to whether quantity is a welldetermined and philosophically important category. Geometry, inasmuch as it is concerned with real space, is no longer considered a part of pure mathematics; like mechanics and physics, it belongs among the applications of mathematics. Under the influence of the general arithmetic of hypercomplex numbers and later of the axiomatic investigations, of set theory and symbolic logic, the distinction between mathematics and logic is gradually obliterated.
page 62 Weyl Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. I think we are tempted to think of bioinformatics as an implementation applicable to Weyl's perspective but I think this is mistaken as it entails TOO much Greek Society reference which just does not exist in postmodern culture. I thought Weyl failed to follow through the Katian LOGICAL horizon organonically. Yes, I need to justify that last sentence biologically but there is no distortion in my so thus thought such applied albeit it be.
This message is a reply to:   Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 09052005 6:41 PM   Chiroptera has not yet responded 
