> the modern civilized world could only emerge —for better or for worse— when Western Europe could free itself from the fetters of medieval scholasticismI can propose an alternate view of things. Not that I'm going to argue that it is the only true statement in the world, but I think it is necessary for a thought to progress to have an alternative hypothesis.
So the proposition is: formal symbolisms can deal only with those problems that where already solved in imprecise human's languages.
To invent calculus and orbital mechanics you need first to talk for a several centuries (or thousands of years?) about what is position and velocity, you need to talk your way upto acceleration, and then you need to find a way to measure them and to define in a strict geometric terms. Ah, and infinity, it was a very counter-intuitive idea, Xenon invented some of his paradoxes specifically to point at counter-intuitiveness. When Newton came all these talks and debates did the most of work for him.
> the ability to understand the human tongue is insignificant compared to the power of math.
But the fun is: you cannot know if someone understands math if they do not understand human language too. You cannot teach math to those who cannot speak human language.
Math is a cream on top with a limited applicability. What math can say about love? I do not like to sound like Dumbledor, but really behind all we do there is an emotions motivating us. Math cannot deal with emotions, because it was built that way and because non-math talks about emotions hadn't bring a good model for emotions, which math could express in a formalized language.
> Dijkstra says
I wonder when he said it? Before AI concluded that expert-systems based on logic were acknowledged to be a failure or after that?
I can propose an alternate view of things. Not that I'm going to argue that it is the only true statement in the world, but I think it is necessary for a thought to progress to have an alternative hypothesis.
So the proposition is: formal symbolisms can deal only with those problems that where already solved in imprecise human's languages.
To invent calculus and orbital mechanics you need first to talk for a several centuries (or thousands of years?) about what is position and velocity, you need to talk your way upto acceleration, and then you need to find a way to measure them and to define in a strict geometric terms. Ah, and infinity, it was a very counter-intuitive idea, Xenon invented some of his paradoxes specifically to point at counter-intuitiveness. When Newton came all these talks and debates did the most of work for him.
> the ability to understand the human tongue is insignificant compared to the power of math.
But the fun is: you cannot know if someone understands math if they do not understand human language too. You cannot teach math to those who cannot speak human language.
Math is a cream on top with a limited applicability. What math can say about love? I do not like to sound like Dumbledor, but really behind all we do there is an emotions motivating us. Math cannot deal with emotions, because it was built that way and because non-math talks about emotions hadn't bring a good model for emotions, which math could express in a formalized language.
> Dijkstra says
I wonder when he said it? Before AI concluded that expert-systems based on logic were acknowledged to be a failure or after that?