FOM: NATURE of mathematics
Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
jgc at adinet.com.uy
Sun Mar 15 11:53:40 EST 1998
Dear Professor Silver,
Thanks for your reply. None the less, I still do not grasp what are
your *own* thoughts about the nature of mathematics. I am aware of
your posts, and your criticisms on Hersh's views -- you may remember
now that it was me who first asked Reuben Hersh to elaborate about
Martin Gardner's harsh review of "What is Mathematics, Really?".
You may remember also that I drew the attention on this forum to
the "Wigner's dilemma" (of unreasonable effectiveness of maths in
the natural sciences), and to the "Julio's dilemma" (of unreasonable
fitness of large portions of *certain pieces* of maths to large
portions of *other pieces* of mathematics, fully and independently
discovered/conceived in different times, places, and topics).
What I would like to ask you about here, and I would be most grateful
for your answers, is not what you are *against* in Hersh's philosophy,
but what you are *for* in your *own* philosophy.
1) Should mathematics on other planets (of other galaxies) be entirely
different from ours -- provided its existence? Should it be similar?
Isomorphic? What do you think? ...
2) Do you endorse that "mathematical reality lies outside us, that our
function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which
we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our 'creations',
are simply our notes of our observations"? If so, I would appreciate
to know why?
3) In the following incomplete sentence,
"Hamilton .......... the quaternions in 1843",
let us suppose we have to fill in the blank with a word.
[discovered / invented / constructed / found / conceived / ...]
What would be your choice?
4) Do you think that the probability that there's another Mersenne prime
is greater than that that there's a mistake in the proof that the one
recently discovered is prime?
5) In what sense can we say that mathematics is timeless true?
6) In the year 2098 (say, in case our fragile planet still be there), do
mathematicians will believe that there *really* are infinitely
many natural numbers?... Yet, without doing futurology, do you
believe here and now that there *really* are infinitely many natural
numbers? If so, where are there?... Do you really believe that it is
conceivable that these infinitely many natural numbers did exist on
a Jurassic park despite the fact that there were no mathematicians
around to imagine them?
I set forth these questions to make myself clear of what I intended in
my previous posting. According to your reply I can understand that I was
not sufficiently explicit. Please mind that I am aware that you already
acknowledged that you "do not have a fully developed philosophy of
Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
More information about the FOM