/lit/ - Literature

>>12217119
that book is basically an encyclopedia
you wouldn't actually understand much of anything even if you read the whole thing, and you'd likely turn into a smug jackass who thinks he knows a lot of math

>>12217119
Math is for the highly motivated.

>>12217119
Why does it look like an ear and have citrus segments like thinly sliced salad oranges fanned in pufferfish sushi arrangement along the bottom there?

>>12217119
1. The mathematical thinking required for philosophy isn't something you need to learn from a textbook

2. I'm actually reading Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications right now and discrete math (structural thinking as far as I can tell at this point) is particularly relevant for philosophy

>>12217136
What exactly IS the mathematical thinking needed? I’ve seen this talked about so many times but it feels like a meme to me. Care to elaborate?

>>12217119
mathematics was created to solve prosaic issues like "how much grain do i owe the jew after this harvest?" and "where does my land end and my neighbors begin?"

its totally rudimentary and practically irrelevant to serious intellectual matters. mathematics has no light to shed on the universe, its just a shitty technology that was created for arbitrary purposes.

>>12217148
no mathematical thinking is required for philosophy. introducing formal systems into philosophy is just the same sort of intellectual trick that post modern types engage in, they are trying to impressive their audience (which consists entirely of fools) with the appearance of complexity

>>12217148
Maybe the term structural thinking is a term you might like better

Structural / mathematic / computational thinking are all the same imo.

A structure is either stable or not. A mathematical proposition is either true or not. A computer program either runs or it doesn't.

With this kind of thinking we can take axiomatic / fundamental truths and make something out of them.

Like taking the axiomatic truth of causality and coming to the conclusion of predetermination. That takes some structural thinking to see that everything made up of tiny causalities.

I don't think you have to learn any math to this. We teach ourselves the same thing by doing puzzles; everything from fitting blocks as a kid to logical puzzles.

The textbook I'm reading includes this logic puzzle:

>relate to inhabitants of the island of knights and knaves created by Smullyan, where knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You encounter two people, A and B. Determine, if possible, what A and B are if they address you in the ways described

>A says “The two of us are both knights” and B says “A is a knave.”

Obviously one is lying, so B is the knight.

That kind of thinking - being able to work with abstract concepts - obviously helps with philosophy. You can buy a book full of these puzzles written by the Smullyan guy

>>12217162
>introducing formal systems into philosophy

We live in a formal, structured universe. If you don't think about the universe in a formal, structured way then you're thinking with your feelings. That's more art than logic.

>>12217159
Math is the language God used to create the universe.

>>12217173
Not to sound condescending, please dont misinterprete this is as a back handed insult: do you know what a 'formal system' is?

It has a very specific meaning in math and philosophy. Formal systems are symbolic, finite, discrete, symbol-manipulation systems. Its a way of arriving at certain sequences of symbols based off certain rules and given certain initial symbol sequences. These systems are useful to mathematicians because they are useful to society's ruler who needed a way to encode various imagined social phenomena such as tracking property, tracking the amount of resources in storage, tracking trade, etc.

As you can see, the universe is obviously not a formal system in this sense. This is why I suspect you think of the term as having a different meaning than I do (its commonly understood meaning which I have just described).

What do you mean when you say the universe is formal, structured?

>>12217159
y i k e s

>>12217173
>>12217180
>>12217195
Haha, here are some fine examples of people thinking about the universe in a formal, structured way:

> We live in a formal, structured universe. (?????)
> Math is the language God used to create the universe. (?????)
> y i k e s (?????)

discrete math won't teach you much about anything except for discrete math

t. phd student in mathematics

>>12217168
This puzzle assumes that A and B have perfect knowledge of each other, which would be impossible in the world where knaves always lie about being knaves.
B could be a knave if A (knight) is misinformed
A or both could be a knaves or both could be knights is B is misinformed

*dabs*

>>12217205
Obviously no match to you, a true intellectual who thinks math begins and ends at accounting.

>>12217212
what do you think is the most 'insightful' field of mathematics? i.e., which field of mathematics illuminates the most about mathematics as a whole?

>>12217192
The universe has a definite form. It's formal.
The inherent goal of the being living in the universe is to codify it in a system, and utilize it for the being's own ends.

>>12217214
I never said math ends at accounting, I said it begins with such prosaic motivations and functions -- a view which historians and mathematicians universally (to my knowledge) share with me.

>>12217213
I didn't paste that part, but it's one of each and they have knowledge of eachother.

>>12217217
>The inherent goal of the being living in the universe is to codify it in a system, and utilize it for the being's own ends.
A fascinating statement of belief, but very unconvincing and frankly boring in terms of actually enlightening content

>>12217217
> The universe has a definite form. It's formal.
If by describing the universe as formal you mean merely that it has form... then thats pretty trivial. And it says nothing about how mathematics or formal systems are well suited at all to enlighten or promote understanding of the universe.

>>12217214
Bach did not do Math...

>>12217226
If you find truth boring, then that's an inefficiency that you should want to correct.


The imperative to existence (at least as a human) is survival (death is antithetical to existence), pleasure (what makes any given experience good to the one experiencing), and an expansion of will to best ensure both survival and maximal pleasure in any circumstance.

>>12217232
The universe having definite form implies that it works with a system of causality. You can't understand the universe outside of a formal system, because that's what the universe is. You can call the system of the universe God's formal system.

Let's think about what God is. Omnipotent and omniscient. Everything that happens is God's doing.
Lets look at humans. We are controlling more and more of what happens in the universe. Life evolves along these ends - expansion of will. The goal of life is to become God. Act accordingly.

>>12217250
Ummmm... That's where you're wrong, sweetie.

>>12217263
> If you find truth boring, then that's an inefficiency that you should want to correct.
Its not truth, its just your own view that you've provided with no supporting explanation or evidence. The fact that you think of your own bland assertions of your beliefs as truth reflects that you are a dogmatic thinker

Your ideas about the imperative of human existence having to do with pleasure and survival are once again, interesting only in terms of how they reflect on you. They are totally superficially and materialistic views though that almost no great thinkers have espoused, and you provide no explanation or justification for them.

> You can't understand the universe outside of a formal system, because that's what the universe is.
No, I already explained to you what a formal system is and why the universe is clearly not a formal system. Restating your view doesn't change what a formal system is and it doesn't change what reality is. Please demonstrate how the universe is a formal system, if you can. I have no idea why you think anyone should take your dogmatic reassertions of your beliefs seriously.

> Lets look at humans. We are controlling more and more of what happens in the universe. Life evolves along these ends - expansion of will.
Oh? Bold claims... please explain or demonstrate how any of this is true.

>>12217119
>reading this current year academic trash
>and Anglo at that
At least post Bourbaki for a real mathematical compendium.

>>12217168
where do you start with that guy?

>>12217168
Nice post but how are you going to leave out the textbook you are reading nigga?

>>12217119
Mathematics is only really valid within the bounds of logic, kind of a meme.

>>12217159
Mathematics is not "invented" it is discovered, and it is the most fundamental thing

>>12217221
>it begins with such prosaic motivations and functions
Everything begins with prosaic motivations, brainlet.

>>12218544
The most prominent scientists cannot agree on the egg and the chicken of math and reality, so let's not be dickheads and pretend like this is some sort of settled consensus.

>>12218556
Scientists are irrelevant they do not research the fundamental and they are not the "authority" on ontological and epistemological matters.
They are researches of a finite subset of the infinite Ideal Realm. They are currently empiricists attempting to finalize the short axiomatic list that will constitute this finite universe and it's total finite set of possible states.
The laws of physics, once completely written out, is a finite string of axioms that are consistent. Thus they are necessarily incomplete via Incompleteness. The set of all true statements is infinite and transcends this universe, and exists in and as the Ideal Realm.

>>12218556
>settled consensus
It's not a settled question, but there is currently a widespread consensus among mathematicians that math is indeed discovered. Brainlet.

>>12217119
Is this a good book to get a mid-tier understanding of math concepts? I'm 27 and too old to ACTUALLY study things, but I'd appreciate unretarding myself just a bit with something that isn't complete pop-sci trash like Brief History of Time

>>12218582
No.
This book is:
https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Algebra-Differential-Unified-Approach/dp/0971576653/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544633388&sr=1-1&keywords=vector+calculus+linear+algebra+and+differential+forms&refinements=p_72%3A1250221011

>>12218594
thanks, anon

>>12217173
>We live in a formal, structured universe.

>>12217119
<3

>>12217594
Bourbaki is way behind the Princeton Companion.