4 Answers

  1. because mathematicians and their sympathizers tried to select theories that are well suited to describing the world. And those that fit poorly were thrown out.

    You run into a survivor's mistake. Not all that is mathematics opsiyvaet at all anything. But only mathematical knowledge that works well is widely distributed.

  2. I think because the “real world” is something that is well described objectively, and mathematics is the science of objective description. And the subjective world is not “real” precisely because it is not objectively described.

    That is, as soon as something starts to be described objectively, i.e. logically/mathematically, it becomes “real”, since it can be objectively discussed.

    Example: language. As it is described by linguistics, that is, in fact – logic, mathematics, it becomes more and more “real” and less subjective, humanitarian.

    Another question is why some laws of nature are so precisely fulfilled. The “anthropic principle” plays an important role here wikipedia.org

    Its meaning is that if the laws of nature were more chaotic or simple, then we would simply not exist as intelligent beings.

  3. I gave a + to the answer about Wittgenstein, but I'll answer it myself. Consider this an addition to the answer”about Wittgenstein”.

    You used the phrase “real world”in your question. And for you, the comparison of mathematics (as if “unreal world”) and “reality” – of course.

    I assure you that this state of affairs is neither total nor historically stable.

    If I ask you : “What exactly do you mean by the real world?” then you can probably suspect the other person of playing a game or being provocative.

    Or, in response to a question, you can circle the surrounding area that is visible from the balcony where I smoke, and say: “Well, that's it! This is the real world!”

    To what extent is the fact that you naively waved your hand, pointing to the “real world”, itself formed by “internal mathematics” in yourself?

    No, not a deception, not an illusion, but-inner glasses through which you can not help but look at the surrounding?

    • Here you can easily skip to Kant and a priori forms of perception. Or to the symbolism of the Cashier. Or. Etc. Back in time, so to speak.

    Your question doesn't have a definite answer, and it can't have one.

    Here it is not customary to write such words: “this is a secret!”.

  4. This is not entirely correct. This was the dream of analytical philosophers, in particular Bertrand Russell, but it did not end in anything for various reasons that are very difficult to discuss.

    Mathematics is good (not perfect, but only good) for describing the logical phenomena of the world, for establishing logical order and coherence. Following the early ideas of another analyst, Wittgenstein, all the paradoxes and questions in the universe arise from the incoherence and non-universality of language. One person, for example, understands one thing by the word “experience”, the other – quite another. Russell liked this idea very much (it was not for nothing that he wrote the introduction for Wittgenstein's book Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung) and, having picked it up, he spent many years developing an absolute language, a language of logical quantifiers (in fact, the language of mathematics), which was supposed to put an end to philosophy, sophistry and make everything understandable. In fact, the idea was to explain everything through mathematics.

    However, the attempt failed for various reasons. First of all, this is, of course, the work of the same Wittgenstein (Philosophische Untersuchungen), who put an end to the dreams of both analysts and logical positivists in the person of Carnap, for example, who were doing something similar overseas. In his later work, Wittgenstein showed the fundamental impossibility of creating such a universal language.

    It is said that one of the reasons that led him to this idea was the formulation and proof of Godel's theorem, which was a huge blow for analysts.

    So, to return to your question, it is incorrect. Mathematics itself, by its very nature, greatly restricts the range of questions that “can” be asked and deals only with logical subjects (and even then, this is not so easy, since it is not clear that in our world there is a minimal logical subject). Sometimes, and I would even say often (historically), mathematics even hinders the emergence of new scientific ideas, precisely because of its straightforwardness in asking questions.

    To put it quite simply, science, guided by mathematics, asks the question ” how?” (and math works very well with this question), although it can't yet answer the question ” what?”.

Leave a Reply