Skip to main content

Mathematics: A recondite language.

Before the Newtonian phase of philosophy, when natural philosophy was segregated from ordinary philosophical ventures for its commitment to repeated experimentation and scepticism, which would later be called the scientific way of knowing, there was an abstruse language. Unlike its well-known counterparts, this was extremely difficult to communicate and required well-defined logical reasoning to understand or expand. Essentially the worst kind of language, even millennia after its origin, it continues to haunt people by the name of mathematics. 

Mathematics, as a language, starts with well-defined axioms. The most visible of them is in geometry, with the definitions of a point and a line. But such esoteric definitions continue all across mathematics. They do serve a great purpose, though, building one abstract concept over another because only when the idea of points well learn is it became easy to build that there can be another abstract concept of line, which passes through two points, and so on for the existence of plane. Also, the rigidity in its definition prevents any level of uncertainty from creeping in. If there is any uncertainty in mathematics, it is captured in variables whose values are determined in the future. They convey the ideas of time and progression yet always allow certainty into the vocabulary. That may be why it is cursed to remain the worst language of communication.

However, mathematics is the most extraordinary language they can ask for science. Mathematics is an incorruptible language with no room for interpretation and the sacrosanct nature of its morphemes. To capture the abstract concepts of physics in a well-contained vessel of equations. That is perhaps why the concepts in mathematics well precede their origins in mathematics. Let's look at the famous Zeno's paradox. 

Zeno’s paradox may be rephrased as follows. Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the remaining distance…and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never get to the other side of the room and that no matter how fast or far ago, there is always half that number.

The solution to this paradox becomes imperative when we look at the scientific definition of infinitesimal splitting; we would reach something called quantum limit, where the occurrence becomes probabilistic, and further splitting loses physical meaning. This shows that the logic of the language mathematics foretells the conceptual/practical laws to avoid an essential paradox arising from its definition. Therefore, we need to appreciate the linguistics of mathematics
as the mother of all sciences. Indeed an awe-inspiring language.
 

Popular posts from this blog

Politics of Perpetuity

There are obvious downsides to democracy. When we look at the distribution of opinion on a particular issue, it generally follows a normal distribution. This implies that to achieve the majority, it's theoretically advised to stick to the centre. And this love for mediocrity makes democracy allergic to politically solid decisions.  Along with it, democracies tend to be the rooster for sweet talkers. And that is an outcome rather than a voluntary trait. Primarily because most voters need to be equipped to deal with the complexities of the field. For example, it could be more practical for an electrical engineer to comprehend medical patterns and the pandemic's effect on production. Thus, democratic institutions need people managers who have two keywords to watch out for - sweet talking and status quo. However, democracies have been hugely popular. And people have reported being happier. Whether this is induced, indoctrinated or influenced is another question. But history has cho...

The Theatre Era

As tough times await us, it's frivolous to talk about theatres. But doesn't it look like theatres would go out of fashion before the pandemic ends( But would it ?? ) With the footfall on OTT platforms rising daily. Looking at a screen stuck to the chair, with no ability to pause or even play subtitles, sounds so technologically inferior. The blockbuster release has increasingly been  generously funded , mega-multi-starrer films, which keep running sequels until they go unprofitable . In fact, content is sometimes the second priority; the fan base and the festive season come first. Over the years, movie houses have mastered this art. Roping in top actors into characters that have gone synonymous with their name. The OTT platforms, however, are earmarked for the content. Their promise to give a shot to the aspiring director who doesn't have funds to compete against the mult-million movie releases. Thus i n its cast and crew shines the raw, untamed art which any critic would b...

What if "Maggus" don't have a choice ?

There are two possible reasons for stopping by this post; you happened to be among those hard-working study-serious college-goer who lament not being perceived as fun by his/her peers. Or you have a soft spot for these people, striving to pay off the debt from when he single-handedly completed your group project. There could be a hundred other reasons, so let's jump into the matter. Let's construct a scenario with simplified assumptions. Suppose there are 5 students in your project team. Each of you has decided whether you want to work or not. If you decide to work, you must put in an effort of value "e". The project will be possible if at least 3 of the students participate. A successful project rewards everyone in the team "r", which is greater in value than "e". So what do you think will happen. Let's assume that each of you is rational (which secretly implies you will maximise your personal gain whenever possible). Will all five contribute ...