Tag: number

“Fog Everywhere” Continued

[read the previous essay on this topic]

Consider mathematics and the aspect of fog. Nietzsche argued that the world is not knowable to us as a whole. This includes trying to express it with numbers. A recent example is Max Tegmark’s assertion that the universe is not something explained by mathematics; rather, it is itself mathematics. To contrast, Karl Jaspers, summarizing Nietzsche, wrote:

We cannot say what the world as a whole is. It is false to change all processes into a familiar world of our own, and then say: “All is will (everything wills); all is pleasure or pain (everything endures); all is motion (everything flows); all is tone (everything sounds); all is spirit (everything thinks); all is number (everything reckons).” Nietzsche warns us against all notions of the whole: “Let us guard against thinking that the world is a living being…or that the universe is a machine…Let us guard against saying that there are laws of nature…Let us guard against thinking that the world eternally creates novelties.” All these “shadows of God” darken actuality. We are within the world, and the whole of the world is, as a whole, not accessible to us.

Karl Jaspers, Nietzsche: An Introduction to the Understanding of His Philosophical Activity, Henry Regnery Company, 1966, p. 293

Notice in the paragraph quoted above that Nietzsche specifically excludes reducing everything to numbers, in opposition to Tegmark and the simulation hypothesis.

Robert Kanigel describes Srinivasa Ramanujan as “the man who knew infinity” in his biography of the same title, but mathematicians disagree on the ontological status and utility of infinity. The discussion of applying Ramanujan’s sum to arrive at -1/12 is very intricate and complex.

To make things even more puzzling, math students are confronted with the Gaussian integral, with its positive and negative infinities.

You can gain additional insight into infinity with:

Cauchy and Weierstrass had eliminated infinitely small and infinitely great numbers from analysis and replaced them by limits. But the theory of limits that thereby became so central required a clearer theory of the real line, that is to say, a theory of the irrational numbers. And that theory promptly reintroduced the infinite into analysis. The old infinity of infinitesimal and infinite numbers was simply replaced by the new infinity of infinitely large collections.12

In 1831 Carl Friedrich Gauss said [Kli72, p. 994], “I protest against the use of an infinite quantity as an actual entity; this is never allowed in mathematics. The infinite is only a manner of speaking, in which one properly speaks of limits to which certain ratios can come as near as desired, while others are permitted to increase without bound.” But only 52 years later, we find this in Cantor’s Grundlagen [Can76, p. 75]: “The idea of considering the infinitely large not only in the form of the unlimitedly increasing magnitude and in the closely related form of convergent infinite series…but to also fix it mathematically by numbers in the definite form of the completed infinite was logically forced upon me, almost against my will since it was contrary to traditions which I had come to cherish in the course of many years of scientific effort and investigations.”

12 See Russell’s Principles of Mathematics [Rus03, p. 304] for a related sentiment.

Shaughan Lavine, Understanding the Infinite, Harvard University Press, 1994, pgs. 38-39

In 1961, the great Russian physicist George Gamow’s popular math and physics overview was republished to great acclaim among science and math aficionados. Intriguingly titled One, Two, Three…Infinity, the book gives you a hint that the relationship of numbers and integers to the concept of infinity is still intriguing even after the intricate analyses of Cauchy, Weierstrass et al.

Let us conclude by considering Zeno’s dichotomy paradox of motion, in which “That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.” As the goal is divided into halves, one must complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.

[read the previous essay on this topic]

Education: Linguistic and Arithmetic Elusiveness

We wish to sensitize the student to the obvious-but-hard-to-see truth that both language and arithmetic have slippery natures built into them and seeing this clearly is a part of deeper education, our mission here.

Take four simple statements and see that they’re entwined and “confusing.”

  1. You can count (i.e., numeracy).
  2. You can count (depend) on me.
  3. You don’t count (i.e., importance).
  4. Count (include) me in.

When a person says, “you can count on me” do they mean that you will be standing on me and then go, “one apple, two apples, three apples” (i.e., count in the everyday sense). No, obviously not. “On” in this context is not physical or locational, but figurative. Ask yourself: how is it that you know the difference and nuances of all these meanings given that the word count and the preposition “on” seem straightforward but are really “polyvalent.”

Wittgenstein tells us that philosophy and its conundrums are ultimately based on “language games.”

When Gadamer (Heidegger’s student) tells us that “man is a linguistic creature” he means, among other things, that man “swims” in this ambiguity ocean every moment and puns and jokes aside, handles these ambiguities automatically, somehow. How does a child acquiring language get the sense of all this? It’s difficult to understand and explain. Language is both our nature and somehow beyond our grasp.

The same slipperiness, in a different way, holds for arithmetic and numbers. You can immediately see that the square root of 16 is 4 (plus or minus) but if you are asked, “what is the square root of seventeen?” you’d be “at sea” without a calculator. If you’re now asked, what is the square root of -17 (negative seventeen), you would probably be lost.

These would seem to be very basic “operations” and yet are baffling in their way and parallel the “sudden difficulties” in language use and orientation and clarity.

Deep and “meta-intelligent” education, which we promote here, begins by seeing, among other things, that both our ability to function while “swimming” among words and numbers is puzzling if you look at them “freshly.”

It’s also not so easy to define exactly what reading and writing are in the first place or why exactly the smile in Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting is enigmatic.

When one glimpses the truth that we are surrounded by obvious things that are never really obvious, one pauses and thinks. This is where (self) “re-education” begins, especially if “enchantment” (genuine magical fascination) accompanies the thinking.