[math-fun] Is mathematical truth "real" ?
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago: Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself. What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth. —Dan
Mathematical truth is as real as the fact that we have one sun and seven continents, that a coin has two heads and that Pi is about 3.1415. That is, mathematical truth is as real as anything else. It's certainly as true as molecular biology! -tom On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --
*Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure --* so says Max Tegmark Mathematical_universe_hypothesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
This was the subject of a PBS Nova episode, “The Great Math Mystery”, originally aired 4/15/2015 and rebroadcast last Wednesday 3/28/2018. It mentions Fibonacci spirals, gravitation, Maxwell’s equations, prediction and discovery of the Higgs boson, etc. as evidence that math is real. fMRI scans of people doing math problems, and experiments showing various animals have an ability to distinguish “number” (more things here than there). Unlikely to convince an esteemed anyone, but a nice assembly of well known anecdotes, and good eye candy. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html> — Mike
On Apr 2, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
In my view they instantiate quite different meanings of "truth" and "real". In mathematics and logic "2+2=4 is true." means something like "Given the Peano axioms and rules of inference '2+2=4' follows." "True" is an attribute that is conserved by the rules of inference; so if the axioms are true the theorems are true. But "true" is just a marker like "t" in a programming language. In science "true" is almost never used. Theories are "accepted" when they entail the observations and nothing to the contrary. Then they are provisionally thought to correspond to facts. This is always hypothetical and provisional because one can never be sure of the facts and because other theories might entail the same observations. So my personal view is that mathematics exists in a different domain. The declarative part of all possible language = Platonia. Observations, perceptions, exist and from them we formulate theories of physical reality, which are (so far) always provisoinal and incomplete. Brent As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein On 4/2/2018 9:42 AM, Dan Asimov wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Considering that molecular biology depends on things like electron orbits and the Pauli exclusion principle for molecular bonds at a very fundamental level, and these things are fundamentally mathematical, there can be no truth that includes molecular biology that excludes mathematics. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Brent Meeker <meekerdb@verizon.net> wrote:
In my view they instantiate quite different meanings of "truth" and "real".
In mathematics and logic "2+2=4 is true." means something like "Given the Peano axioms and rules of inference '2+2=4' follows." "True" is an attribute that is conserved by the rules of inference; so if the axioms are true the theorems are true. But "true" is just a marker like "t" in a programming language.
In science "true" is almost never used. Theories are "accepted" when they entail the observations and nothing to the contrary. Then they are provisionally thought to correspond to facts. This is always hypothetical and provisional because one can never be sure of the facts and because other theories might entail the same observations.
So my personal view is that mathematics exists in a different domain. The declarative part of all possible language = Platonia. Observations, perceptions, exist and from them we formulate theories of physical reality, which are (so far) always provisoinal and incomplete.
Brent As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein
On 4/2/2018 9:42 AM, Dan Asimov wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --
I'm inclined towards Brent's point of view. IMHO, "real" means something that can be *experimentally* verified -- or more importantly -- something that can be experimentally *refuted*. Mathematics is completely disconnected from the "real world"; things are true mathematically *no matter what the "real world" looks like*. You can do experiments from now til kingdom come, and none of them will change any mathematical truths. In mathematics, you set up a set of axioms/axiom schema, and you then look for "models" of those axioms. Sets of axioms that have models are consistent; if the axioms are incomplete, there will be *undecidable* statements which can be either true or false, depending upon which of multiple different models you choose. ---- There is another closely related notion which really bothers me: the *legal* notion of "facts". Legal "facts" are determined by "fact-finders" which are judges and juries; this legal "fact" system is completely disconnected from both mathematical truths and scientific truths. Moynihan's old saw, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts", is actually a really, really cynical lawyer joke, since the population at large doesn't usually realize that the legal meaning of "facts" has nothing to do with "truth"! At 12:27 PM 4/2/2018, Brent Meeker wrote:
In my view they instantiate quite different meanings of "truth" and "real".
In mathematics and logic "2+2=4 is true." means something like "Given the Peano axioms and rules of inference '2+2=4' follows."
"True" is an attribute that is conserved by the rules of inference; so if the axioms are true the theorems are true.
But "true" is just a marker like "t" in a programming language.
In science "true" is almost never used.
Theories are "accepted" when they entail the observations and nothing to the contrary.
Then they are provisionally thought to correspond to facts.
This is always hypothetical and provisional because one can never be sure of the facts and because other theories might entail the same observations.
So my personal view is that mathematics exists in a different domain.
The declarative part of all possible language = Platonia.
Observations, perceptions, exist and from them we formulate theories of physical reality, which are (so far) always provisoinal and incomplete.
Brent
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
-- Albert Einstein
On 4/2/2018 9:42 AM, Dan Asimov wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence -- though I certainly believe it mmyself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
--Dan
Legal facts, as determined by judges or juries, are supposed to be the same kind of facts that science tries to explain/predict, but science admits lots of facts are not explainable or predictable. In deterministic systems chaos is common. In quantum systems randomness is inherent. So those facts are passed off as historical, accidental, or geographical. Science can constrain them, but not to the precision required to settle a legal issue. Legal proceedings often include testimony by scientists (and even statisticians), but because of the limitations of science their testimony is seldom definitive even it were perfectly understood. Just look at the obfuscation that got O.J. Simpson acquitted. Brent On 4/2/2018 1:32 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
I'm inclined towards Brent's point of view.
IMHO, "real" means something that can be *experimentally* verified -- or more importantly -- something that can be experimentally *refuted*.
Mathematics is completely disconnected from the "real world"; things are true mathematically *no matter what the "real world" looks like*. You can do experiments from now til kingdom come, and none of them will change any mathematical truths.
In mathematics, you set up a set of axioms/axiom schema, and you then look for "models" of those axioms. Sets of axioms that have models are consistent; if the axioms are incomplete, there will be *undecidable* statements which can be either true or false, depending upon which of multiple different models you choose.
---- There is another closely related notion which really bothers me: the *legal* notion of "facts".
Legal "facts" are determined by "fact-finders" which are judges and juries; this legal "fact" system is completely disconnected from both mathematical truths and scientific truths.
Moynihan's old saw, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts", is actually a really, really cynical lawyer joke, since the population at large doesn't usually realize that the legal meaning of "facts" has nothing to do with "truth"!
At 12:27 PM 4/2/2018, Brent Meeker wrote:
In my view they instantiate quite different meanings of "truth" and "real".
In mathematics and logic "2+2=4 is true." means something like "Given the Peano axioms and rules of inference '2+2=4' follows."
"True" is an attribute that is conserved by the rules of inference; so if the axioms are true the theorems are true.
But "true" is just a marker like "t" in a programming language.
In science "true" is almost never used.
Theories are "accepted" when they entail the observations and nothing to the contrary.
Then they are provisionally thought to correspond to facts.
This is always hypothetical and provisional because one can never be sure of the facts and because other theories might entail the same observations.
So my personal view is that mathematics exists in a different domain.
The declarative part of all possible language = Platonia.
Observations, perceptions, exist and from them we formulate theories of physical reality, which are (so far) always provisoinal and incomplete.
Brent
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
-- Albert Einstein
On 4/2/2018 9:42 AM, Dan Asimov wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence -- though I certainly believe it mmyself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
--Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
My email is capricious, so I often miss current threads, but I found this one interesting, so I offer my belated opinions. I believe that there exists an objective physical reality (I am a physicalist). I believe that my body and mind supervene on that reality (I am a materialist). Reality includes other beings with minds and experiences similar to my own (I am not a solipsist). "Real" describes entities or events that exist within reality. "Truth" describes statements that correctly describe entities or events within reality (I believe in correspondence theory of truth). However, I recognize that due to failings in perception, understanding, and expression, we cannot attain truth with certainty. We must settle for confidence based on observation, experiment and external confirmation (I am an evidentialist). Mental constructs, including concepts and abstractions, are not real in any sense. Specifically, mathematical concepts such as objects, sets, shapes, numbers are not real (I am not a Platonist). IMHO, the proper subject of pure mathematics is not objects, numbers, shapes, patterns, collections, or any of the popularly ascribed subjects. Indeed, our eyes and brains are wired to interpret the world in terms of objects, numbers, shapes, patterns, collections, &c, even if our mathematical talents are modest. These concepts are no more inherently mathematical than are colors, tastes or smells. It is just that these concepts are more amenable to reasoning, and were therefore the earliest subjects of mathematics. But since George Boole (bless his heart) unified mathematics and logic, it has become clear (at least to me) that the proper subject of mathematics is logical systems. By logical system I mean a set of strings of symbols manipulated via formal rules (logic). Applying pure mathematics to a problem domain essentially devolves to: - Translate relevant aspects of the problem domain into a logical system (applied mathematics) - Use the formal rules of the logical system to generate new strings of symbols (pure mathematics) - Interpret and test the new strings of symbols within the problem domain (more applied mathematics) The process of translating a problem domain to a logical system effectively strips it of meaning: - The truths of the problem domain become meaningless strings of symbols in a logical system. - The strings in a logical system can be applied with different meanings to different problem domains. - The strings generable in a logical system are determined by the rules of the system. A computer with infinite time and memory could, given the rules of an arbitrary formal system, apply the logic to generate all and only the strings of an arbitrary logical theory. Such a computer, given the axioms and logic of ZFC, could eventually spit out almost all of known mathematics with no inkling of what it means. This is not to denigrate pure mathematicians. Even if we could create a computer that could spit out all of mathematics, interesting results would be painfully few and far between. There is great deal of art to pure mathematics, in choosing axioms and applying clever logic leading to new proofs and ideas. To do so effectively, mathematicians must need invest their strings of symbols with meaning, it's our human failing to see meaning where there is none. I don't believe in "mathematical truth". Mathematics doesn't magically generate truth, rather, if you feed it truth it poops out more truth. Unfortunately, we don't have any truth to feed it, so we have to accept beauty instead. I also take issue with the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. I can buy that the universe in mathematical in the sense that its behavior is determined by laws that might possibly be translated faithfully into the strings of a logical system. I can't, however, buy the idea that the universe is mathematics. What else could this mean but that the universe IS a formal system. If so, where are its axioms and theorems? Are they the strings of string theory? What are the atomic symbols used by the universe to write its theorems? And then Tegmark postulates "self-aware substructures" of his mathematical universe. Good luck writing a logical system with one of those. But Tegmark has already jumped from one grand conceit (MUH) to another (CUH), claiming that all computable mathematical structures are real. It all sounds farfetched bordering on religious.
I think mathematical truth is "real" in the sense that it is objective; it can be independently verified. Mathematicians talk about discovering mathematical truth rather than inventing it. We can build mathematical gadgets in a similar way to building devices, but there are laws that govern their behavior in much the same way that physics governs the devices' behavior. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.math.ucr.edu/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
Define "real". Also, Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream and the physical world nothing but a phantasm, I should call this dream or phantasm real enough, if, using reason well, we were never deceived by it. --- Leibniz On 4/2/18 9:42 , Dan Asimov wrote:
If this common discussion subject among mathematicians has come up in math-fun previously, it must have been a while ago:
Is mathematical truth real? I was reminded of this question when I happened to sit next to an esteemed molecular biologist who has strong opinions on the matter: He thinks math is "all in the brain" of humans who think about it. I could not convince him that math has any kind of independent existence — though I certainly believe it myself.
What do other think about this? I would say that mathematical truth is *at least* as real of a thing as physical truth.
—Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (9)
-
Andres Valloud -
Brent Meeker -
Dan Asimov -
David Wilson -
Henry Baker -
Mike Beeler -
Mike Stay -
Tomas Rokicki -
W. Edwin Clark