IS MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM IMMORAL? (with Davin Eastley) Isn’t math just an abstr

IS MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM IMMORAL?

(with Davin Eastley)

Isn’t math just an abstraction? A language? Well, so is postmodernism a language. So is marxism a language. So are all monotheistic religions constructed of a language.

1) Abstraction is a fuzzy word. It can either mean “imaginary” as in “I imagine”, or “analogy” which is a higher constraint. I think you mean, analogy.

2) Operational language, in both science and philosophy, makes fuzzy, loaded, or erroneous analogy extremely difficult. Because, if you cannot explain something in operational language YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. Operational language is not only a truth test, but a comprehension test.

3) The language of mathematics is platonic. And the fact that it is so common to use terms like ‘mathematical structure’ is because of obscurant, non-operational (unscientific) language. But it does not have to be stated in obscurant, non-operational (unscientific) language.

4) I think its useful to ask the question, WHY we need mathematics as a tool? Why? Since nothing in mathematics cannot be expressed in operational language, and mathematical platonism is an unnecessary but useful linguistic convenience, then, why do we need it to augment or extend our sense, perception, understanding, memory and comprehension?

5) Does the flight of an arrow exist? Or can we forecast and recall the flight of an arrow? Does an n-dimensional cartesian point exist? Or can we describe such a thing via operations? Both are reproducible. What is the difference between the description of a unicorn and the description of a vector space? Surely we would not say that the unicorn exists?

6) Existence is persistence. How do unicorns, flights of arrows, and vector spaces exist IF they exist? And is that existence a form of persistence? If so, do then, our emotions exist? Do gods exist?

They do not exist. They can be constructed. They can be repeatedly constructed. But they cannot exist.

Mathematics is the process of constructing proofs. Proofs are internally consistent. But they are not statements of ‘truth’. Mathematics as expressed is non-correspondent. However, there are no mathematical constructs that cannot be expressed as relations that ARE at least conditionally correspondent.

And this is a very important question for ethics to answer. Yes, ETHICS.

Obscurant language is unethical.

It is no different to teach infinity as extant, versus as an impossible operation that we forecast as a potential, than it is to teach god is extant, versus the anthropomorphization of a given family structure too large to cooperate by familial means.

It is no different to teach a limit function as a compensation for the variability of precision given the context of the calculation, than it is to teach that our collective belief can alter the course of natural events.

These are fallacies.