Good to hear from you too, Carlos, an excellent post! I always like to explore similarities and differences between maths and language. I love your idea of form (geometry) as a more likely basis of maths than arithmetic.
However, let's be careful not to fall into Socrates/Plato type of assumptions of native knowledge. The square of the hypotenuse might equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right-angled triangle, but that only works within a context that is artificial in the first place. After all, in nature something may have a certain length at a given moment, but the next moment the temperature will be different, resulting in expansion or contraction of the material on which the triangle was drawn, etc. Yes, such expansion may take place over the entire triangle, but not exactly the same in each part. Anyway, my point is that scientific analysis may, by taking something in isolation, take things out of context. Let me get back to language, to show what I mean. I sometimes think that the meaning words is formed more through relations in the brain, rather than that meaning existed inherent in the word. Observations are stored in our brain and the links between observations, as stored in our mind, determine their meaning, rather than that meaning was inherent in words. Applying that idea to maths, the value of a number would be determined by its place within a sequence of numbers, i.e. its value being relative to the other numbers, allowing one to zoom in and out, magnifying the sequence, while remaining the relationship between numbers. Again, let me go back to language, to show what I mean. Language is often seen as based in words that are part of verbal language (audio). However, as you say, it makes sense to use form (video) as the basis of meaning. Form is part of our visual perception. We recognize things visually, because their form remains the same, as we approach it (zoom in and out). Thus, it makes sense to argue that much of the meaning of words is founded in forms, as part of visual perception, even though many linguists have traditionally regarded most languages to be more audio-based. Indeed, for centuries teachers have used the institute of school to remove many visual parts of language (such as gestures and body-language), as if only the audio was important, then further stripping language even of intonation and other life, to end up with written words, as if words in isolation constituted the perfection of language. As a result, children all over the world have spent much time translating written words from one language into the other, while in the process losing their very ability to speak. Indeed, school may seem a great way to preach religion, but it's not necessarily the best way to prepare children for life. Interestingly, there's also something like form in the audio part of perception and, as I said, it comes down again to relationships. Volume is something that is perceived relatively, i.e. a single sound becomes loud after silence, while a similar sound could be perceived as soft when accompanied by louder sounds. Pitch is more relative than absolute, i.e. relationship forms the sound, rather than the instrument. In conclusion, science all to often takes something in isolation, when studying a phenomenon. Their research then looks at the instrument only, to conclude that the instrument formed the sound, while in reality, sound is each time formed in a different context making the instrument sound differently every time, and is primarily formed by the player of the instrument, rather than by the instrument on its own, which conclusion makes a mockery of many research findings that did strip people out of the picture in an effort to focus on objects only. I encourage scientists to include more context in their work. Not only would this make more people gain interest in their findings and conclusions, it would also enrich their research method itself, which is all too often analytic only. Where a research team finds it difficult to look at wider impacts and importance of things, it could try and include members who are more inclined to use such perspectives (I'm making a pitch for epistemologists here). Anyway, here's an example of a group of scientists who do make an effort to step out of the box and reach people who typically don't read scientific papers. It's a rap video by Australian scientists, called: I'm A Climate Scientist, at: http://sustainable.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979327535 Please do have a look! Cheers! Sam Carana On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:40 AM, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not a mathematician, I'd love to be one oh yes, but a simply > linguist for Spanish and Portuguese. > Even so, language has something in common with Maths. > May be there are other points to discuss, but my intention today is to > say that the part they share the most is something which clearly shows > the difference between discrete elements and a continuum. > > In language there are forms which can only be considered as discrete > units, they mean nothing and their only mission is to differentiate > from each other. Each of this forms is unique, and it has an unique > position within a chain, an address. That chain is conventional. > And there is also a continuum which is the space of meanings, > whatever this means. > Like in "Romeo and Juliet" we understand? their love regardless the > letters R O M E and etc. > > Back to Math this represents the same relationship that exists between > Geometry and Arithmetic. > > IMO the World/Nature does not use numbers but forms, so somehow can be > said that Math can only base on Geometry. > > Numbers are to Math, like information to Language. > Math and Language can only base on forms, that is what they have in > common, IMHO of course > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
