after 8 straight days of work, I’m back but values
will have to wait…
Math… the idea of numbers… 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10…………
we have these numbers… let us look at the number 1…….
look down at the table and spot one, (1) book… on my table, the
kitchen table actually… I have 6 philosophy books… my daughter
books from school, are another 2 books… so I have 8 books on my kitchen table…
pretty simple, pretty basic…but this idea of one, of one book…
think about it… look at the book, I am looking at Copleston’s
" A history of philosophy" book two…that is one book…
but the reality is quite different… I look at Copleston’s book and
what do I see? I see a book… I don’t see the number 1 as in one book…
the idea of one is a mental idea, not a physical idea…
I see a book but I don’t see any type of number for that book…
so when I look at my table and I see books, I don’t see that there
are 8 books, I see books and mentally, I create the number 8 to
account for the number of books…in real life, we just see individual
books, I see the “A history of Philosophy” and mentally, I create the number 1…
it doesn’t exist physically, the number 1, it is a mental construct… numbers
are really mentally constructs we use to help us create order and sense in the
universe…I wish I could take credit for this but the credit lies with
Husserl… numbers are a psychological event, not a physical event…
but what about all those numbers that we use accurately and succesfully
to understand the universe… let us think about this…
what came first, the event or the math? I would suggest that the event
comes first and the math comes later…is the event, say the creation
of a black hole, a mathematical event or a physical event?
it is a physical event and the math is done later…… this suggest
that the reason something can be mathematically described is
because the system which is being described is a stable system…
for example, the solar system, we can mathematically describe the
solar system but that is because the solar system is a stable system…
and so we can quote, backdate it,… because the system is stable,
it can be mathematically described…… we cannot use math to describe
an unstable system………is the failure there, the system or is the failure
the math? so when we describe or use mathematics to understand a system,
we are actually just understanding a system using math… and the math only
works because the system is stable… it is the stability of the system that
makes the math work, not the math that makes the stability of the system
work……….
then is the universe a mathematical universe?
no, the universe begins and once a system like a solar
system becomes stable, then and only then will the math work…
but what about Einstein? his math was able to predict or understand
many things that he didn’t know about………. He created the math
and then later a system was found that fit the math… the system comes first
and the math later, later describes it… the universe is not a mathematical
universe… it is a systems universe…and once the systems become stable and
survive then, then it can be mathematized……….
Kropotkin