Only because we have /chosen/ to structure the metaphysical basis of our civilization along such lines.
-
-
-
There is only a tiny subset of society that consciously uses a mathematical foundation to their metaphysics, and they often have outsized influence.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It was the presentation that was the problem for me . I understood later that math is the language of probabilities. I also think my math teachers didn’t get that.
-
Math is also encompassing a language of certainties. You can build it by bracketing a language of probabilities, and the opposite direction works too.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I suspect that most people who end up having both studied math deeply and developed sophisticated ideas about its broader relevance developed the competence, rather than the appreciation, first. it seems hard, or clairvoyant to go the other way.
-
The things I learned well as a child had obvious aesthetic appeal. I think it is possible to make some phantastic math visible before you drown in notation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And on that note. How do you differentiate logic from maths? Do you think logic has anything to say about the architecture of mind?
-
I see logic as a small subfield of algebraic math, describing a tiny class of representational automata, but which apparently suffices to bootstrap a language and strategy of exploration that regenerates all of math. (Our computers are built on a language of NAND gates.)
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That is, follow interestingness — ?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Minds aren't computable, though. Doesn't stop us constructing a model, I guess.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.