Re: [cs-pdcdca] Re: [ProgSoc] A questions

[Christian Kent <whophd@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Marcin Lubonski wrote:

> Any more questions or douts concerning my signature ? ;))
>
> Marcin .
>
> Encryption is mathematical warfare. Mathematics is the universal language.
> Encryption is secrecy. Secrecy is a declaration of war.

I once had a lecturer who told me:  Knowledge is power.  Power is abuse.
No secrets means more knowledge.  Without secrets you will be abused.

To which, I said:

(a)  that's just glib
(b)  the Americans solved this in the 19th century -- divest power;
     spread it round.  Who's watching the watchers?  Everybody.
(c)  if you're just worried about paying child support then let's not be
     disingenuous -- attack that law instead, if you don't like it

> > (1) Formalism. This basically says that mathematics is devoid of any
> > meaning and is just the set of all possible deductions from all possible
> > sets of consistent axioms using all possible rules of inference.
> > Unfortunately Godel's Theorem shoots this view to pieces because it proves

I'll still go for this one anyway.  Just out of sheer minimalism.  It's
nice to cling to a theory that's shot to pieces.

> > that there exist statements whose truth or falsity can never be demonstrated
> > from  the rules of deduction if they and the initial axioms are rich
> > enough to include our familiar arithjmetic of whole numbers.

Give one example?

> > (2) Inventionism. This says that mathematics is a purely human invention
> > like music or literature and is nothing more than the activities carried
> > out by mathematicians. If you hold the view that mathematics is a form

Until one day, a bunch of aliens arrive, and you show them a^2 + b^2 = c^2
with paper and scissors, and they'll say "Shit, how'd you know THAT?"

> > (3) Platonism. This view says that mathematics exists independently of
> > human beings. Mathematicians discover mathematics, but it exists "out
> > there" (wherever that may be). There is a lot to support this view.

OK then there's the broader theories of knowledge, that go:

(a)  there is a finite amount to know, and we can find it all out
(b)  there is a finite amount to know, and we can't find it all out
(c)  there is an infinite amount to know, and guess what?  Yep.

or there's my favourite,

(d)  there really is a god, and not only that, she loves judging us,
     creating us, and also intervening in our daily lives;  such that
     whenever we get too cocky and work it out, we force her to make
     up some new rules.  Aww, c'mon, how do you explain:

	MAN:  Hey!  We got it from 100+ elements down to just
	      three -- how cool is that?  Plus, minus, and the other one!

	GOD:  Damn it.  Science is evil, or didn't I mention that?

	MAN:  Pffft, you said that to Galileo and I didn't care.

	GOD:  Fine, try this then.

	      (Man goes and bombards some little pieces to shit)

	MAN:  Oh WTF??  What's this??  Ups, downs, stranges ...
	      who the hell made up this 'quark' BS??

	GOD:  Bwhahaha.  And that's not all ... remember that
	      Theory of Relativity you were gloating over the
	      other decade?  Reconcile that, smartass.

	MAN:  Hmph.  Oh well, maybe I can use this quantum stuff to
	      encrypt something.

and of course there is,

(e)  you're living in a dream world, Neo.

> > For example, human cultures widely separated in space and time have all
> > discovered what we call "Pythagoras Theorem" (as well as many other
> > mathematical theorems). The fact that different cultures have independently

Not only that, but every independent culture that has an integer numbering
system extending up to 69 has also found a double-entendre for it.  No,
really!

> > postulated in the late 19th Century. Sensing that mathematics might be
> > lead into serious error by the manipulation of concepts like infinity
> > of which we have no concrete experience it rejects them altogether.

They obviously hadn't been plugged into a piece of fairy cake lately.

Nice post, Bernard.

CK.


-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.