Understanding
in [Logic]
|
Prev: I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
Next: NAY, I SAY AGAIN, STUBBORN STAINS? USE BRILLO. ONLY A BRILLO UNDERPANTS CAN OUTSHINE THE SUN.
From: yasu on 17 Mar 2010 18:39 Hi, I am a 33 year old Japanese male, never been formally educated in math or logic but have always been "bothered" by my blurred understanding of math,logic, etc, for the past 15 years or so.. I have been trying to figure out what such things that bother me really are... bought ( and read some part of...) many books on logic, philosophy, mathematics, etc I am still not clear and I am not sure if my question will be answered even after I have read and studied all my books... So, if you don't terribly mind, please would you comment on my thinking below? ========================================================= MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically followed. The study and research of MATHEMATICS is not practiced by any machine today. Understanding requires assumptions about implicitly stated conditions. Such assumptions are not practiced by any machine today. Kind Regards, Yasuaki Kudo PS My occupation is computer programmer.
From: William Elliot on 18 Mar 2010 02:39 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, yasu wrote: > MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically > followed. > False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. > The study and research of MATHEMATICS is not practiced by any machine > today. > They're trying. > Understanding requires assumptions about implicitly stated conditions. > Understanding is not a topic of mathematics. It's a topic of philosophy. > Such assumptions are not practiced by any machine today. > Computer software is full of known science and math.
From: yasu on 18 Mar 2010 07:45 On Mar 18, 3:39 pm, William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, yasu wrote: > > MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically > > followed. > > False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. > > > The study and research of MATHEMATICS is not practiced by any machine > > today. > > They're trying. > > > Understanding requires assumptions about implicitly stated conditions. > > Understanding is not a topic of mathematics. It's a topic of philosophy. > > > Such assumptions are not practiced by any machine today. > > Computer software is full of known science and math. Hello, thank you for replying. I really appreciate your comments. Regarding the "belief system" concept, I have been debating in my mind as well. What I was thinking was something like this - is it possible a non-human to understand mathematics? I though the answer, at this moment anyway, was false. I thought that if you save PDF books of mathematics textbooks etc on a hard drive, the machine cannot "understand" the content of it. In order to "understand" anything, I think it requires the "wilinness" of whoever studying the subject to understand it.. That's what I called very vaguely... (sorry for my lack of vocabulary), "religion". Does it make sense?
From: Marc Alcobé García on 18 Mar 2010 10:18 On 18 mar, 12:45, yasu <yasuakik...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 3:39 pm, William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, yasu wrote: > > > MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically > > > followed. > > > False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. > > > > The study and research of MATHEMATICS is not practiced by any machine > > > today. > > > They're trying. > > > > Understanding requires assumptions about implicitly stated conditions.. > > > Understanding is not a topic of mathematics. It's a topic of philosophy. > > > > Such assumptions are not practiced by any machine today. > > > Computer software is full of known science and math. > > Hello, thank you for replying. > > I really appreciate your comments. Regarding the "belief system" > concept, I have been debating in my mind as well. What I was thinking > was something like this - is it possible a non-human to understand > mathematics? I though the answer, at this moment anyway, was false. > I thought that if you save PDF books of mathematics textbooks etc on a > hard drive, the machine cannot "understand" the content of it. In > order to "understand" anything, I think it requires the "wilinness" of > whoever studying the subject to understand it.. That's what I called > very vaguely... (sorry for my lack of vocabulary), "religion". Does > it make sense?- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - Maybe Smullyan's "Forever Undecided" would make a good read that would dispel some of your worries.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 18 Mar 2010 10:59
William Elliot <marsh(a)rdrop.remove.com> writes: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, yasu wrote: > >> MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically >> followed. >> > False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. Honestly, William, this bit of reasoning almost reaches the heights of Archimedes Plutonium's greatest syllogism. The premises Mathematics is not religion. Religion is [a] belief system. do not imply Mathematics is not a belief system. (Note: I am not expressing an opinion on whether mathematics *is* a belief system or not, since the latter term is too vague.) -- Jesse F. Hughes Me: "Quincy, there's only *one* Truth, isn't there?" Quincy (age 4): "Yeah, and it's *mine*." -- A lesson in postmodernism goes awry. |