<<<<<<<
In what terms will I know it? In what terms will I describe it? Other than
probably Saying "I'm moving damn fast!!!!!" which doesn't mean
anything.That's what I mean when I say that understanding presupposes a mode
of expression.
>>>>>>>>.
Well, nobody is doubting the fact that we need symbols to convey the ideas.
The question that I am posing is, are these symbols adequate( or rather
necessary) to describe the phenomenon. Just because of the fact that we make
use of mathematical symbols does not mean that mathematical symbols alone
can describe it. It just proves that we are used to mathematics so much
that, we find it difficult to understand anything without symbols.
Also u need mathematical symbols only if u want to express your motion in
terms of mathematical symbols. Say, you are running, can you not compare
your running speed at different points in time? Can you not know when you
are jogging and when sprinting? Do you need mathematical symbols to realize
that there is some change in velocity? You may argue that, u may not be able
to specify the speed at a particular point in time. But is not "speed at a
particular instant" itself a construct of mathematics? Suppose man has not
invented mathematics. U are not aware that there is something called speed,
vector velocity etc. Can you not intuitively tell that a state of rest is
different from a state of motion or for that matter, a state of higher
velocity ( sprinting ) is different from a state of low velocity? (jogging)
Just to prove my point, why does a deer run very fast when it sights a
predator?. When it is sure that it is relatively safer, it slows down. You
may argue that it does not need to communicate like humans do. We make this
statement because it does not communicate like the way we do. Its quite
possible that it is aware of its "speed" and uses a system of symbols and
signs that is quite different from us and also tells this to its "friends".
So to experience motion or to understand motion, I believe, mathematical
symbols are no neccessity. But if we want to describe motion so as to fit it
into the mathematical framework that we have built up, I think we need
mathematics.
Also your statement that I am moving damn fast makes a lot of sense if you
can convince yourself that there are alternate ways of describing it other
than X km/hr. I am moving damn fast says that
1. I am moving
2. I am sprinting, probably running at my maximum speed. ( I know my maximum
speed intuitively but I don't know what is it in km/hr. depending upon your
point of interest, you can consider it as half full or half empty).
Chalo, expecting a massive mail from you
Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan
And again a followup mail saying :
Now talking of Capra's "map for territory"
I am perfectly with you on the fact that mathematical symbols are like the
maps. It seems, u have not correctly understood my objection. My objection
is not against symbols as representation of the phenomenon. My objections
are
1.You believe maps are not independent of territory. Perfectly agree, 100%.
But you also seem to suugest that territory is not independent of maps. It
is this backward mapping from concepts to reality that I object to.
2. you believe maps are true representation of territory.
I contest this. Maps are just a perspective of the map-maker about the
territory. If map maker changes, so does the map
Now coming to the need for maps.
I believe maps are not essential. You can still understand without the maps.
Just to prove my point, Do u need a map of your colony? Don't u feel u know
more than what the map actually tells u? So should we not do a similar thing
in science as well. When we have understood certain phenomena, should we not
try to do away with the support tools just like we are doing away with the
locality maps? This has been the crux of my argument so far. I believe if
one can explain a phenomenon or for that matter, a concept when he can
define it without any jargon.
No comments:
Post a Comment