|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is mathematics a science? | ||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:page 237-8 in PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE by Hermann Weyl Princeton Uni Press 1949 If one thinks one can understand the reduction of said sharp genetic line(s) in terms of a hierarchics of valences (contingent nonetheless) then the math that bridges this text of Weyl could be considered science. I often think I am permanently in such possession. But that is such (relative to this thread head) IF the computer science structure Weyl passed on can be empirically such as to reduce the same structure. I do not think that it does. Hence math is not science. A philosophical position from Wolfram’s new kind of science however might have one think (thought previously) that it is (so irreducibly complex) but again philosophy is not math or science now is it? Theology is not teleology.
quote:op.cit. p240 Viscosity was not the word but the math could cover it. Empirical mathematics and breeding empirical mathematicians are two different combinations. Experimental space both contain. There is a metaphor mathematically where Weyl used a simile.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Nice.
Jack, I could not have said it better myself!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
There are other "grammers" that do not exist and yet are purely cognizable FROM Boole, x=x^3 and higher powers GIVEN THE PROSE in his{rules of thought} work. It remains to be seen if these "lingos" will be called "math" of today or "organons" anon. Claiming the plurification of Boole categorically will never occurr is more dangerous than asserting the small probability that God exists not existing.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2005 03:31 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Some day I expect the shapes of the symbols in rings will affect biological signing but still it is the multiple "///" tones that matter in e/c. I really dont know that this must be not math. It seems like math when a notion of theoretical biology is sustained. I dont think that that the "////" can be blinking lights as Stu Kaufmann was motivated to think (that he could not "do" Kant etc).
Now that I know yous gls are really good math people I might try to figure out how the 70s' advances in group theory might be science via math in biogeography. Later. Weyl wrotequote: I always considered Mandelbrot's discussion of the word "fractal" to point to this problem of what FORM other than 'normal' such sounds heard in science might be maths for.
quote:both quotes of Weyl, page 35 in PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE I am torn between determining transfinte e-numbers or reflecting on groups further for the permutable subtraction I think evolution remands biologically from n! no matter the divisions. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Hey froggy,
What would happen if some one other than me (rhetorically speaking (I am not spitting venom here) figured out what Brown's letters "S" and "T" mean in terms of my annotation on his questioning? The three strokes I attached in my side comments WOULD NOT BE LEIXICALLY a language or even a part of it but only a pure mathematical thought that would have implementations differently than is currently being taught in biology because of evolutioanry influence I contenD. I met and spoke with Brown on a few occassions and even talked with him about set theory once. Compared with other mathematicians at Cornell (some coming from Harvard etc except one who left for Berkely) he is really an OK kind of guy. The back cover of the book contains my notes on how to relate group operations to biology but this is done in terms of human teleology. Weyl clearly indicated(I speaking for the entire book PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE, not a part or trap of it inversly) that teleology could connect into math DIFFERENTLY than evolution by force as it was DISCUSSED in the late 40s. I suppose I will only lurch you if I show how the "business cycle" of teaching evolution is only the alternative "phase" of matter that Wright explicitly did not include & show that macroevolution is not within a collective aggregate of that supply. Oh, well......I suppose I will have to do that by enlaring this "thumbnail" above but that is not math as science but science as itself. If Theus ever decides to respond I'll pick that up with 'him'. The "apriority" of which you write seems to me, if I understand you well enough, to be the result of probabalisms (no matter how reflected on) not any DETERMINATION made from a prior mathmatical mind whether only revealing a statstical regularity or regularity as law etc (in nature by nuture etc etc). So,,, I have to disagree with you and agree with some others in this thread.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: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 post-modern 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024