Re: What's the name for this?
From: Chris Sonnack (Chris_at_Sonnack.com)
Date: 04/29/04
- Next message: Roedy Green: "Re: Programming is not as much fun/more fun than it used to be."
- Previous message: Roedy Green: "Re: Programming is not as much fun/more fun than it used to be."
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: What's the name for this?"
- Next in thread: Stefan Ljungstrand: "Re: What's the name for this?"
- Reply: Stefan Ljungstrand: "Re: What's the name for this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:31:27 -0500
EN> We have a philosophy of mathematics whether we want to or not,
EN> and Platonism produces bugs because of its demand that everything
EN> be known and available.
CS> (The above statement is utter gibberish, AFAICT.)
"Edward G. Nilges" wrote:
> Here goes:
>
> Proof 1 (trivial): everything is connected with everything else. If
> "connection" is a fully transitive operator, then there is an
> infinity of proofs that there is a connection between Plato and CS.
Granting, for discussion, that "everything is connected", then any
given connection is indeed trivial and meaningless.
> Platonism is in large measure the belief that the contents of our
> minds, whether mathematical or not, are partial shadows of real
> entities that exist in a timeless "world of forms".
The important aspect here is that Plato believed this ideal world
was the *more* real. He spoke of the "world of ideas" verses the
"world of things" (our everyday world).
Thus, to Plato, a circle isn't an idealized description of a round
thing, but a *reality* that exists apart from this universe.
> It is challenged by Intuitionism which is based on Kant's claim
> that our experience necessarily takes place in an inescapable
> framework of space and time,...
(Isn't the deal with Kant actually about how experience takes place
in our own minds?) More to the point, Intuitionism, AIUI, predates
Kant (he just had his own spin on it--his "anshauung"). Intuitionism
is really just the idea that we can have indefinable "knowledge".
But, regardless, veering off topic here, let's try to get back to
the connection of Platonism with CS real soon.
> ...and therefore bases the truths of mathematics on their
> constructibility by step by step arguments...
(AIUI, Mathematical Intuitionism opposes Platonism primarily in
assuming mathematical constructs are generated products of the mind.
OTOH, Plato would claim they are "discoveries" of the real reality.)
In any event, we appear to have some agreement on the basics.
The Platonic view is that there is a perfect reality, more real
than our world of things, and (importantly) that this reality
exists on its own. The Idea of a Sphere *exists* even if our
universe never Big Banged.
What you call the Intuitionist view in opposition to Plato, I've
called the Aristotelian view. Aristotle believed the world of
things was the primary one and that Plato's world of Ideas were
just abstractions.
> There's a connection, in the Intuitionist challenge to Plato, to
> programming, for Intuitionists have the attractive humility of
> the "structured" programmer who uses good structure because this
> ensures he makes his goal in a step-by-step fashion.
Rejected conclusion. Step-by-step method also used by many, many
other "philosophies". Plato himself used step-by-step analysis.
Thus, similar to your trivial proof above, the connection to
intuition--let alone to Plato--is trivial and without meaning.
Strike one. (-:
> Platonism in mathematics is also challenged by Marxism which points
> out that despite all of Plato's ravings, mathematics was actually
> developed by ordinary slobs in Sumeria, China and elsewhere who were
> trying to divvy up goods and earn a living.
[sigh] Your biases and prejudices are showing again. Plato isn't
challenged by this at all, for he believed that we all existed in
the perfect world of idea *before* we are born, and that once we
were born into the imperfect world of things, we *recalled* the
ideals when doing mathematics. (Thus, any slob can recall this.)
> The connection with CS is that the actual history of CS is the
> post-facto dignifying of discoveries by that species of ordinary
> slobs called programmers of how to accomplish a job of work, with
> impressive sounding theories.
Rejected. I would opine that most real discoveries in both math
and CS are made by active scientists in that domain. (That doesn't
preclude the occasional "A-ha" moment from us slobs, though. :-)
Strike Two.
> In our own lifetime we see how discoveries made by ordinary
> employees of IBM become "theory" once the academics have at them,..
To the extent that ever actually happens, isn't that appropriate?
Isn't it the Right Thing that academics would take an "A-ha" and
explore its full meaning?
> ..and this is a good thing as long as we can remember that the
> original practice wasn't theory.
You may be misusing the word, "theory". I suggest "science".
> The point is not privileging EITHER the practical inventors or
> the academics.
How about privileging both?
> Another challenge to Plato came from David Hilbert who claimed
> that mathematics is a game we play with symbols.
(Interestingly, Hilbert attacked Intuitionism and very strongly
supported the principle of the excluded middle (among other things,
he pointed out how useful, elegant and brief were proofs using it).)
More importantly, Hilbert was a part of Mathematical Formalism,
which believes that truth is determined by proof (and you can
see why he would attack Intuitionism :-). Specifically, all true
statements are provable and all provable statements are true.
> His spiritual cousin is the person for whom the computer is a
> game playing machine.
Oh, I don't agree with that very much. I see what you're getting
at, but it's a heck of a stretch. The huge difference has to do
with exactly how those symbols are manipulated and how proofs are
created. Very distant, I'd say, from a video game player.
Still searching for the Platonic/CS connection....
> However, Platonism is dominant in the academy for the very good
> reason that academics like to think of themselves less as the
> servants of practical men and more like Plato's vision of the
> philosopher, who emerges from the cave to see the sun...
Heh. Probably more the case that academics live in an idealized
non-world of ideas (actual Platonism has been pretty much debunked
on a philosophical basis, although most hard core mathematicians
are probably Platonists) rather than the real world, but whatever.
Still searching... could there be beef ahead?
> A typical result is the overly ambitious system (more an artifact
> of the prehistory of software before C and unix taught us all
> humility, in some cases too much) which attempts to be the
> corporation's or government's World of Forms which, on the nacreous
> computer screen, expresses truths more True than the messy ambiguity
> of daily life.
(More axe-grinding, Ed?) I'd say overly ambitious systems are an
equally current problem--if not more common these days with our
advanced systems.
> A recent dialog with Plato was constructed by Jacques Derrida,..
Ah, your pal, Derrida, again. Back to searching. For a moment there
we were almost getting back on topic....
> Derrida pointed out...
Derrida is a dipstick. Nuf sed.
> The relevance to CS is deep.
If "deep" means "doesn't really exist", I agree!
> This is because CS is the invention, if it is anything at all, of
> a new form of more intense, "active" writing, programming.
No. No. No. NO. NO!!!
Computer Science is the activity that pursues computation and
predates "programming" and computers. Haven't you quoted the
quote about telescopes and astronomy recently?
This whole Derrida-writing line is crap, Ed. Sheer fantasy.
Strikes three through ninty-nine. (You're waaaay out! :-)
Will we ever get back to Plato?
> The result is that in a completely unconscious form, end users..
End Users?!?!? Um..... hmmm.
> ...continually have a blind spot such that they cannot see that
> an active writing is what makes the "magic" and consistently
> underestimate its materiality...as do programmers themselves.
Gibberish, Ed. Sheer gibberish. I hardly know where to begin.
End users rightfully are not, and should not be, aware of the
"magic".
And I VERY much doubt programmers underestimate programs. (-:
Still searching for Plato.....
>> Why would any philosphy result in a "fragmentation of analysis"?
>
> Forest and trees.
And if your philosphy was, "don't forget the forest for the trees?"
>> Have you not learned that we actually think about your unsupported
>> assertions? And hence see them for the smoke and fog they are?
>
> The irony is that they are supported by references you don't trouble
> to read.
>
> Are you sure they are nacht undt nebel? Be advised that they may
> seem to be so and might not be. For one thing, in years of
> experience in programming alone, I have the drop on you,...
A. Timewise, not by much.
B. Remember, I've *seen* your programming.
That the "drop" is an illusion of your own mind.
> ...and I predate the C language and its mistakes.
You hereby reveal your bias and your foolishness.
(And I also predate C, for that matter.)
>> Your biggest error is in thinking you are superior to people here.
>
> I don't think I am "superior". I know what I know and I enjoy
> setting others straight in order to refine my ideas.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You just shot your denial in the foot.
> Dude, I don't want you to accept me as a peer.
Your wish; my command.
And here we are. Platonism/Computer Science. No connection.
Ed implicitly admits his BS. Or will he try again?
Stay tuned.
Or not.
-- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
- Next message: Roedy Green: "Re: Programming is not as much fun/more fun than it used to be."
- Previous message: Roedy Green: "Re: Programming is not as much fun/more fun than it used to be."
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: What's the name for this?"
- Next in thread: Stefan Ljungstrand: "Re: What's the name for this?"
- Reply: Stefan Ljungstrand: "Re: What's the name for this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
