Matematica: Realista ou Nominalista? Meu debate no WeMe

xxxx

Debate no WeMe, começando pela minha resposta a questão copiada abaixo:

https://mewe.com/group/5bbbdfe32ee15f0a6c2d0e46

Luis Morello – 10/27/18, at 4:30 pm

Bill Reed – Maybe the solution I found when I had this problem can be useful. Mathematics is 33% realism and 67% nominalism. Think about the human body, there is the bone skeleton and following it there are the meat/fresh ( sorry my English istill is no good) thing and after that, the neurological thing. There is a unique system in this Universe, under evolution based upon the process of life cycle, which produced the shapes of atoms, galaxies, plants, animals, like this process produced the human shapes as fetus, embryo, teenager, etc. So, atoms has a perceived skeleton (electromagnetic level) and a non perceived biological few expressed properties. Galaxies has its skeleton ( the mechanistic Newtonian structure) and a little bit more expressed biological properties which caused Einstenian general relativity revolution upon Newton, not perceived by Physics/Math. So, Physics is the study of the Universe’s skeleton only, which is just the soil we live and are dependable from, so, Physics produces the right Science and technology for the wellbeing of human bodies. Since this skeleton is based on electromagnetism and mechanics, its logics can be humanly translated into Math. Since Physics and Math has dominated the academic sciences, our sciences are feed up to walking only inside the skeleton structure of Nature. It is a feed-back process between wrong cosmological knowledge and useful technology. In the new world view called Matrix/DNA Theory, we are finding biological properties at the wrong called “non-living natural systems” but, physics and Math can not help here, we are replacing this logics by biological logics. What will happen when we begins to perceive the brainy logics in this Universe? The three levels must performs the 100% of final reality. What do you think?

Only a few words: Which is the basic foundation of Universal Nature? Its under-frame of atoms and galaxies performing the bone skeleton or the life’s biological properties? I asked these questions while was living in Amazon jungle to the chaotic and pristine natural biosphere and it answered with a signal, which is another question: ” Which came first: your skeleton structure or yours fresh coverture?” Ohh… there is no doubt that the fresh thing, in shape of DNA, placenta, etc., came first. The bone skeleton is a product of biological life and not the other way around. So, Nature is suggesting here that the basic foundation of this Universe, before the Big Bang that produced the skeleton composed by atoms and galaxies, is life. And Physics/Math does not grasp life very well… Ok, this is my thought and maybe my brain is hard-wired totally in a wrong way..

xxxx

A questao postaa no WeMe:

Mathematical Nominalism or Mathematical Realism?

That Mathematics is invented is, I guess, a fine concept as far as it goes, but it fails to convince me for two reasons. 1) It offers no understanding of the known cases of independent discoveries. and 2) It seems to imply that so many practitioners have been mistaken about just what it is that they thought they are doing.

The first point is basically a mystery to me. In the Physical Sciences examples of independent discovery are understandable — their all studying the same Universe right? — but, though I am not by any means a professional Mathematician, I have pleased myself by discovering some little mathematical trinket, which seemed surprising and far from obvious, only to stumble upon the same theorem when poking about on the internet. How does this happen?

As for the second point, I must say that the Realism of Mathematics (Platonism) has been a strong part of my inner worldview, to the point that one of my college friends accused me of being religious … my religion? Math. If this was just me, then we could explain it away as a quirk, but I assure that most, if not all, of the Mathematicians I’ve known have been guilty of acting as if they were studying something real, but only when no one was looking.

In the last year or two my guilt about believing that these funny symbols that I shuffle around on pieces of paper actually mean something real finally got to me, so after much soul searching, I came up with a way to feel comfortable about acting as if Math is real and that is to see it in the light of the following pragmatic solution.

There may be a pragmatic reason, I tell myself, for this covert assumption of Mathematical Realism, and that is because it is the best way of taking advantage of this the wonderful cognitive abilities that we have evolved with. These abilities serve the purpose of guiding us through everyday reality. A Realist view of Mathematics is then, just, the best way for us co-opt the cognitive abilities we already have, using them for other purposes, Mathematics.

The arguments between a Realist or Nominalist view of Mathematics will probably continue without a decisive victory on either side, but I have found an argument that gives me a pragmatic sanction to continue acting as a Realist. #Nominalism #Realism#mathematics