The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » Historia-Matematica

Topic: [HM] Mathematics and Time
Replies: 1   Last Post: Mar 29, 2000 8:16 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Clark Kimberling

Posts: 20
Registered: 12/3/04
[HM] Mathematics and Time
Posted: Mar 28, 2000 11:26 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



In his March 10 communication, Ben Fitzpatrick mentions Philip J.Davis's
"Of time and mathematics." Thanks, Ben, for bringing this stimulating
essay to our attention. Professor Davis kindly sent me a copy, published
in Southern Humanities Review 18 (Summer 1984) 193-202.

Davis is a well known author. His awards include the Washington Academy
of Science Award, the Chauvenet Prize, and the American Book Award for
1983. With his consent, I'll quote from the essay, beginning at the
beginning:

"Time, that mysterious something, that flow, that relation, that mediator,
that arena for event, envelops us and confounds us all. What is time? The
answer of St. Augustine has become famous: 'If no one asks me the
question, I know; but if one should require me to tell, I cannot.' Two
millenia later, two revolutions in physics later, we can still sympathize
with this answer. Our shelves are filled with formulas and speculations,
and we still cannot say what time is; we cannot agree whether there is one
time or many times, cannot even agree whether time is an essential
ingredient of the universe or whether it is the grand illusion of the
human intellect.

"There are thus two conflicting opinions about time, and they have been
around since antiquity. According to Archimedes (and to Parmenides
earlier still, for whom ultimate reality is timeless), one must eliminate
time, hide it, spirit it away, transform it, reduce it to something else,
to geometry, perhaps. Time is an embarrassment. According to Aristotle
(and to Heraclitus earlier still, for whom the world is a world of
happenings), one must face time squarely, for the world is temporal in its
very nature and its coming-into-being are real.

"Modern science follows the path of Archimedes rather than that of
Aristotle..." Time is downplayed, ignored, transformed, eliminated.
Cause and effect are replaced by description and relation: do not ask
why, but how; and the successes of the Archimedean program characterize
our scientific civilization."

******* continuing several paragraphs later:

"The common philosophy of mathematics says that personal, historical time
is absolutely irrelevant for mathematics. Some authors have even
expressed the opinion that mathematics is the ONE [I use caps for Davis's
italics] subject in which time is irrelevant. The entities of mathematics
are envisioned as timeless, existing perfected in a world of pure
essences. The truths of mathematics are truths forever, outside of time,
outside of mind and personality; the deductive dialogues take place
atemporally in a world of pure logical transformation. Technical words in
common mathematical discourse which seem to betray a temporal basis, words
such as 'is,' 'exist,' 'let,' 'vary,' 'approach,' 'map,' 'construct,' and
'equip,' are held to be metaphorical expressions of a formalized time-free
equivalent."

*****

Davis then challenges the "common philosophy of mathematics" with
reference to the history of mathematics. I won't quote much of his
development because that might decrease your incentive to obtain
a copy of the article and read all of it.

*****

Continuing, later:

"One might here object, saying that the counting aspect is part of the
primitive intuition of addition, and intuition of mathematics is not
mathematics. It might be said that the embedding of the integers in
systems of great subtlety is part of the history of mathematics, and the
history of mathematics is not mathematics...[the list continues]...The
assertion may then be made that there is still a formal meaning to 2+3=5
which can be abstracted from all of the above, and this formal meaning is
out of the range of time. But in that case, I will invite anyone to tell
me what that timeless meaning is and to tell me in a way and in a language
or a metalanguage which itself is beyond the range of time. In my view,
this cannot be done, because the meaning of 2+3=5 must be supplied as part
of a wider, similar set of utterances, and this meaning is bound up in
application, in intuition, in arrangement, in computation, in art, in
mysticism - in short, the whole mathematical experience. The more of
these elements that are stripped away to arrive at a pure, clear
statement, the harder it becomes to communicate what remains and the
closer we are to a formalism in which thought and action become separated
from meaning.

"Mathematics embraces all these aspects, and even more. 'Pure
mathematics doesn't exist," assets Didier Norden, and I agree.'"

**** End of quoting (but not the end of the article). I omit
Davis's reference-notes and references except for Norden:

Didier Norden, LES MATHEMATIQUES PURES N'EXISTENT PAS! (Paris: Actes Sud,
1981).

Would anyone care to defend pure mathematics? Is pure mathematics perhaps
a formalistic system which IS separate from meaning? Can we (perhaps
following Hilbert, and Cantor) think of [pure] mathematics as the
collection of definitions and relationships - not necessarily depending on
the difficult notions of "meaning," "existence," and "truth" except as
part of the mathematical experience, as contrasted to mathematics itself?
My key word and idea here is "definition". It seems to me that objects in
mathematics, most especially infinite sets and sequences, are "defined"
(or, in the case of the natural numbers, assumed) whether they are "real"
or not, and that the definitions and relations are atemporal. Perhaps what
I'm suggesting is best represented by the distinction between the meanings
of "truth" and "consistency." Truth may be time-dependent, but is
consistency? To put it another way, perhaps the first concern of a
mathematician when broaching something new is whether it is
"well-defined", not whether it has "meaning" or even "existence".

Davis mentions an "opinion that mathematics is the ONE subject in which
time is irrelevant." I agree. But even if mathematics (again, the set of
definitions and implications, not the mathematical experience) is
time-dependent, it seems that mathematics is nonetheless VERY different
from other subjects. Perhaps the "real" difference is that (pure)
mathematics is the ONE subject that doesn't exist.









Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.