Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Mathematics and Philosophy

```
Date: 05/15/99 at 13:52:43
From: Wim Schreurs
Subject: Mathematics and truth

1. I think mathematics made a mistake.

2. I think that mathematics cannot give an exact representation of
reality in the sense of perceptibility - even things that I think
myself are perceptible because I can 'see' or 'hear' the things I
think, because if I don't, I don't think.

3. So there is no reality beyond perceptibility. There is only
perceptibility.

4. You cannot say 2 + 3 = 5, because 2 is not three is not five. How
can two things (2 and 3), neither of which is identical to 5, be
identical to five if they are united? 5 in itself is also
an independent "being." If it weren't, it indeed could exist as a
collection of at least two other 'entities'.

5. Conclusion: only 5 = 5 or 2 = 2 is a correct mathematical
exercise. ALL the other mathematic "exercises" are wrong. Something
can only be identical to itself.

6. Question (although I know the answer): Is this true or not?

7. Where do they examine this terrible problem further? I'm afraid of

Wim Schreurs
```

```
Date: 05/17/99 at 16:55:04
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: Mathematics and truth

Hello, Wim. You have some deep thoughts here, and I'll try to help you
think through them.

Mathematics deals not with reality, but with an abstraction of
reality: a "model" of just one aspect of the reality we use it to
describe. For example, a number such as 2 doesn't represent any
particular pair of things, but the idea of "two-ness." Man has found
through long experience that things can be counted, and that the
resulting numbers accurately describe one aspect of reality: if I
counted two apples yesterday, and nothing has been done to them, then
when I count them again there will still be two. The number doesn't
tell us their color, or how they taste, or who owns them; but it
describes something about them that is true of any pair of apples. It
is as much something I perceive about them as is their color or taste;
but when I talk about numbers, I am abstracting one property from the
rest, thinking only of the "two-ness" and ignoring the "apple-ness."

Now if I have the two apples I counted yesterday, and you give me
three more apples, I can count them again and I know there will be
five. I don't need to know anything else about the apples to know
this; addition is a property of the numbers themselves, independent of
any other properties the apples may have. This means I can forget
about the apples themselves, and even, if I wish, forget about the
process of counting and the perception involved in doing that. Here we
have entered the realm of mathematics, where we deal with abstract
numbers rather than specific counted items. And within this realm,
since we are no longer dealing with perception, what we say can be
exactly true - although when we take our conclusions back to the
"real" world, we will have to deal with the possibility that our
perceptions are inaccurate: we counted wrong, apples can disappear
spontaneously, or whatever. I might try to apply addition to something
for which it doesn't work (adding, say, a liter of sugar to a liter of
water, and expecting 2 liters of sugar water); then the problem is not
in the math but in the application. It is the job of science (or
merely of experience) to determine what mathematical models apply to a
given situation.

Returning to the mathematical realm, when I say that 2+3 = 5, I am not
saying that any particular 2 and 3 items are the same as any
particular 5 items. I am saying, in an abbreviated form, that whenever
I put together 2 of something and 3 more of them, I will have 5 in
all. Also, I am not somehow "combining" a "2" and a "3" to make
something new that is identical to "5"; I am performing an operation
on two numbers that is the abstract representation of putting together
two sets of things, in order to determine the number of things in the
combined set. If you prefer, you can say I am simply stating a
relation among the numbers 2, 3, and 5.

"Equal" does not mean "identical"; it means that they are two
different ways to describe the same reality: I can view the apples as
a set of two and a set of three, or as one set of five. If I walk
forward two steps, wait a minute, then walk forward three steps, I
will be in the same place as if I had walked five steps all at once.
So "2+3" and "5" are "equal" in the sense that they have the same
meaning, or produce the same result, even though they are different
symbols.

You could certainly invent your own meaning for mathematical terms,
so that "equals" could only be used between two of the same number
(2 = 2). But that would be worthless, since it would not allow any
calculations to be done; and it would neglect millennia of human
experience that calculations can in fact be done. You could also say
that numbers have no reality in themselves, and that is in a sense
true. What makes math "work" is that numbers, which are not a part of
the "real" world, nevertheless describe it very accurately. It doesn't
really matter whether numbers are "real" or whether they are an "exact
representation" of reality (they are correct, but not complete); they
are simply a language that describes one aspect of the reality we
perceive.

Now, if you are concerned that there may be no reality beyond your own
perception, I think you can relax. The kind of philosophy you are
struggling with has trouble dealing with the surprising "reality" of
math, among other things. The fact that this mathematical "language,"
which fits together so beautifully, turns out to fit the reality we
perceive, should encourage us to believe that what we perceive has an
order to it far deeper than our own imagination could build (do your
dreams have such order and consistency?), and therefore has some
reality beyond ourselves. Most of us, because we don't think deeply,
aren't surprised that math "works"; you have recognized that there is
no reason to assume that the "reality" of math and the "reality" of
perception would fit together at all, so math becomes a surprise that
makes you re-evaluate your philosophy. That's good.

Please feel free to write back if you need more help thinking about
this. Deep thinking like this can be scary, and it's good not to do it
alone.

- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
College Analysis

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search