- #71
Doctordick
- 634
- 0
You have apparently missed my point entirely. It is probably my fault. I have examined peoples reaction to what I say carefully and have noticed that it is very difficult to get them to pay any attention to the issues I think are critical. I am at a loss as to how one gets them to think about these issues. The experience is very much like squeezing a bar of soap; as soon as I think I have constrained the issue to a specific fact, their attention spurts out to another subject. The best I can do is to repeat myself from another direction. Believe me I am seriously trying. Try readinghonestrosewater said:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=452793#post452793
I have tried to make it clear that the issue of definition is a result of intuitive correlation of massive amounts of information: i.e., each of us have, in our heads, meanings attached to the symbols we use. I have labeled the procedure by which we achieved that result "squirrel thought"; quantumcarl calls it "zen" and others just call it "intuition". I chose to put forth a new label for the simple reason that I wanted to bring to the forefront the fact that, although it is clearly the most successful and the most powerful mechanism" by which we can come to "know" anything, it is utterly impossible to prove that knowledge correct. I did that to avoid the ambiguity which would exist if I used the label "zen" or "intuition" (I don't want to mess with other peoples words).
When I said, 'the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics"', what I meant was that I would regard "the field of mathematics" as a defined issue. What I am trying to do is create an accepted vocabulary which we can use to communicate. So long as we are stuck with common English, we cannot believe we are communicating; all we are really doing is exchanging vague nuances which can not (in general) ever be considered exact.
I have talked to philosophers before and, like that proverbial bar of soap, getting them to accept mathematics as a useful tool is almost impossible. The discussion always goes off into that never never land of "how do you know logic is rational?" Of course the correct answer is I don't; but that shouldn't be sufficient to stop one from thinking. The central point is that, so long as we are in the field of mathematics, the consequences of symbolized operations and procedures can be consistently be symbolized: i.e., we can get far reaching agreement on those consequences. Thus, whether mathematics is right or wrong is of no critical importance; what is important is that the vast majority of human beings will agree that they are agreeing. Agreement is the central measure of any real communication.
So, what I am saying to you is that I will accept "the field of mathematics" as an understood thing. In your own head, you can use any definitions of the terms, symbols, operation and consequences you wish and I will be willing to presume we are communicating (so long as the professionals in the field agree with any arguments you present using those meanings: i.e., you are up to snuff on what the mathematicians have concluded constitute "valid" mathematics).
The central issue here is to make no commitment to the idea that anything we "know" is correct! How do we do that and still communicate? Isn't that a fundamental problem in philosophy? I think I know what "evidence" is (or should be if we want to be exact) and I would like to discus the issue in an exact (scientific) manner; however, we need to agree on a vocabulary with which to communicate.
Looking to hear from you -- Dick
