Skip navigation

Tag Archives: mathematics

Paz & Gorm & Oliver & some other friends are all perplexed about mathematics. They think it is huge, and so important that all philosophy should just conform itself to Maths. The problem is, while they know that any data or knowledge can at best be an approximation and a simplification and a relative truth, they mysteriously miss the relativeness of Maths. And it is a shame, too, that they are perplexed, because Maths is such a simple, solved issue.

One of the first digital computers was used by the american scientists that were trying to build the first atom bomb to perform a calculation that was deemed actually impossible. Years later, IBM concluded that 10 computers was enough to make all the calculations that the whole country could conceivably need. We are billions and billions of times over this power of computation and we just keep on filling those HDs. With the internet, we have so much calculating power that to Laplace it would be impossible to distinguish it from infinite calculation. And we are not using it to compute the future, we employ the infrastructure to get free porn to everyone instead.

This is not a movement towards a centre, an essence, a heart of reality. Instead, it is layering on top of previous ideas, away and away from whatever foundation there ever was. Mathematics reaches out and out, not in.

Mathematics is a means. As such, it reveals nothing about the end, and thus nothing about essences or reality.

This does not mean it is unimportant, but exactly the opposite: Because Maths is just a tool we should value it. Otherwise, it would be just another divinity for us to worship.

Paz & Gorm & Oliver & some other friends are all perplexed about mathematics. They think it is huge, and so important that all philosophy should just conform itself to Maths. The problem is, while they know that any data or knowledge can at best be an approximation and a simplification and a relative truth, they mysteriously miss the relativeness of Maths. And it is a shame, too, that they are perplexed, because Maths is such a simple, solved issue.

Even if you could stash into an atom all the numbers needed to describe it, you would still need at least another atom to take care of the addressing — a computer to calculate the universe would have to be twice the size of the universe… for memory alone.

To put it another way: using current technology you could create one computer that calculated the position of a single atom, quite simply by cheating and assuming the same atom as reference point. But to calculate two atoms it is impossible to create a computer, because the position is a real number, and computers simply can not compute infinite numbers.

In order for Laplace’s demon to exist, it would have to violate all the natural laws that he supposedly knows.

Paz & Gorm & Oliver & some other friends are all perplexed about mathematics. They think it is huge, and so important that all philosophy should just conform itself to Maths. The problem is, while they know that any data or knowledge can at best be an approximation and a simplification and a relative truth, they mysteriously miss the relativeness of Maths. And it is a shame, too, that they are perplexed, because Maths is such a simple, solved issue.

We have all kinds of different experiences, and we can think about them in different ways. Describe them in many ways. That we can do it enhances our liberty.

And Mathematics has been over and over again a breaker of dogmas. That we embrace a dogma like «Maths is the only source of truth» is, in a way, a betrayal of this tradition.

Paz & Gorm & Oliver & some other friends are all perplexed about mathematics. They think it is huge, and so important that all philosophy should just conform itself to Maths. The problem is, while they know that any data or knowledge can at best be an approximation and a simplification and a relative truth, they mysteriously miss the relativeness of Maths. And it is a shame, too, that they are perplexed, because Maths is such a simple, solved issue.

Maybe it all boils down to this: They think they have no choice in Maths. That there is no option. Well, as for me i have options! Let me demonstrate:

2+2=5

Weee! Cool, ey? Didn’t get it? Let me do it again, pay attention this time!

2+2=198,340,918,383

We do have choice. It just so happens that, not giving ourselves those kinds of choices concerning addition we are allowed to solve differential equations. We sacrifice some choice to get some more choice in another place.

This isn’t even exclusivity of Maths. If you don’t give yourself the option of skipping gym every other day you get fitter, and thus your liberty gets enhanced. I could find examples of that almost everywhere.

And, at the same time, the capacity to completely disregard the rules whenever we so please is still with us. Not only that, it is vital for the development of Mathematics itself! For instance, when Gauss and Riemann simply disregarded the rules for parallel lines to create what is called non-euclidean geometries (which by the way were then used in General Relativity). Or zero. Calculus itself, as it squables in divide-by-zeros except it does not admit to doing it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers