Excellent Sam! On May 21, 12:55 am, Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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=2814749793... > 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 > > athttp://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.
