Talk:Mathematicism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion at Wikiproject Philosophy[edit]

See the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Mathematicism. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a number of sources that will help provide WP:RS for the lead.


From Googling the term 'mathematicism', it appears the terms has slightly different meanings to different experts:

  • Britannica "Mathematicism, the effort to employ the formal structure and rigorous method of mathematics as a model for the conduct of philosophy."
  • Collins Dictionary (of Harper-Collins) "the belief that everything can be explained in mathematical terms"
  • Oxford Living Dictionary "The view or belief that everything can be described ultimately in mathematical terms, or that the universe is fundamentally mathematical."
  • The book "Unity of philosophic experience" by By Etienne Gilson describes "Cartesian mathematicism" here.
  • The "Descartes’s Mathematical Thought" by By C. Sasaki quotes from Gilson's same text gives the Oxford English Dictionary dictionary as well here.
  • Book titled "Fields of Sense: A New Realist Ontology" by Markus Gabriel says here: "Ultimately, set-theoretical ontology is a remainder of Platonic mathematicism. Let mathematicism from here on be the view that everything that exists can be studied mathematically either directly or indirectly.[18]" (the footnote referring to a work by Alain Badiou is too long to include.)

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources can be found by clicking on "books", "scholar" and "HighBeam" below:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. (OED, the standard definitions for English) definition and elaborated on it. I'm aware later sources defined it differently, or were not aware of any of those and used their own meaning, but those aren't standard. Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is also a later source (than OED) that is just a particular version of what Pythagoras asserted.--dchmelik (t|c) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dchmelik: Thanks for coming to discuss. I'm sorry I didn't post here earlier. Could you add your sources such as the OED? There was a complaint at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Mathematicism about lack of sources. I agree that all of the material should have sources. Honestly I think the content is probably fine based on my knowledge of philosophy, but the lack of sources is a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's same as related Oxford one you quoted above except says ‘opinion’ instead of ‘view or belief,’ but as I said, I elaborated the definition for more detailed usage in philosophy. So, I don't know if I can still cite OED, and I'd have to recheck details of exact version I used. I've read the original sources for older material, and the earlier, uncited modern material is already described in other Wikipedia articles.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should the page now be a disambiguation because you found these other definitions? Possibly, though the mathematical philosophy book definitions are sub-categories of the main definition, i.e., if everything is mathematics, then the approach to all areas of philosophy is mathematical, so include the approaches in the sense the philosophy books mention.--dchmelik (t|c) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Philosophy#Mathematical universe hypothesis. I would encourage interested parties to contribute to the WP Philosophy discussion. In my view, we have to deal with fringe POV-pushing in general. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

philosophical mathematics[edit]

    (Neo)Pythagorean-(Neo)Platonist-Leibnizian Mike Hockney coined the term 'philosophical mathematics,' but reference to him (not later usage) was removed, despite him being either an advanced science/mathematical philosophy expert or becoming one discussing one-on-one with such PhDs how to write their philosophical math theory. I'm a math expert (not professional, unless you include university tutoring, editing/starting pure math articles here, not teaching courses) but it seems people removing references may not be, rather than having interest, likely more in applied math in physics, coming here from theoretical physics (only a math subset) articles to push physics 'points' over traditional math philosophy. There's a guideline against self-published sources (Hockney,) not absolute rule, yet I've found his writing deals with doctorate-level philosophy/science/math, even if restating PhDs whom may not write on philosophical math.
    They build on all past mathematicism listed in this article (and explain 'new' interpretations making perfect sense, such as previously unknown Leibnizianism, as it's known Leibniz did not make all work public) with new ideas and excellent explanations for most past major and current 'big philosophy questions' (including nine or more in that outdated link, which is actually the 'unsolved' questions, which after reading philosophy 24 years, mostly beyond a couple advanced college philosophy classes, rereading the preceding link after all Hockney's ebooks, which a few the questions/problems may be named slightly differently or maybe one or two he doesn't strictly name, I understand how ones are solved.) They arrived at the best new advanced basis, and most purely mathematical cosmology (what I sometimes call it, but as he says, ontology, then also worked on cosmology, epistemology, value theory, logic, all fields of philosophy) defining with Euler's Formula (function uses numbers/points in definitions/graphs of all possible waves) what underlies all modern physics: waves. For now I won't make argumentum ad verecundiam and restore my summary & citation... but I'd like to see if other professionals on Wikipedia also conclude Hockney, and Doctor Thomas Stark, write the most cutting-edge mathematicism (I know that some/many off Wikipedia or whom haven't read this article reached the same conclusion.)
    Several other authors write on philosophical & ontological mathematics as in Hockney's theory now, and expand on it, including a higher academic philosopher using the screen name Buer (Diabolically Informative,) and a celebrity using the nickname Morgue, and several academic websites.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CTMU[edit]

    CTMU seems to at least fit other definitions of mathematicism above, such philosophy ('linquisticism' in this case?) that uses mathematics, but is CTMU a theory of a language-based universe, mathematical universe (mathematicism) or both?--dchmelik (t|c) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Spinbitz/Sorce' and/or cymatics[edit]

    Two mathematicisms are cymatics (or some version) and Joel Morrison's Spintbitz/Sorce.
    People described cymatics (but you should check article) as based on waves and/or spirals (mathematical objects,) but I don't know people were just explaining cymatics mathematically or further theory.
    Spinbitz/Sorce had a website but lately is just (free) on (e)book sites such as Lulu Press (I can't link.) Spinbitz/Sorce isn't traditional mathematicist-rationalist-idealism, but seems maybe equally uses empiricist-materialism meta paradigm. Morrison may be a philosophy or mathematics academic or not, and cites many academic philosophy/science/math sources.
    Does anyone know current Spinbitz/Sorce website or know what such a cymatics version may be or if it even has sources--dchmelik (t|c) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unenlightened[edit]

Can anyone tell me what this even means? "Mathematicism is any opinion, viewpoint, school of thought, or philosophy that states that everything can be described/defined/modelled ultimately by mathematics: that reality/universe is fundamentally/fully/only mathematical ideas & substance, i.e. that 'everything is mathematics' (ideal/mental/spiritual containing atomic/material/physical)."

This is so nebulous that the whole page appears entirely superfluous. I would suggest nomination for deletion *except* that it is clear there is some concept here that is treated by some other sources. Although deletion is not appropriate, the page needs to come down on the side of one meaning and run with it. Either the Oxford or Britannica definition would make sense. If other people mean something else by the term, then they get a different page and a disambiguation, because as it stands, this page is hedging its bets so widely it is telling us nothing about any of them. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC) I add to my own comment to note that the lead is not a summary of the main text, but something else. The description in the lead should summarise the description in the main text. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary (appropriate for Wiktionary, not here) & encyclopaedia definitions are shorter than typical academic ones for which those understanding intuitionist rationalist idealism (thinkers using reason/logic aided by intuition, not those who put senses/empiricism above thinking/reasoning/logic nor above intuition) understand very easily (so isn't nebulous/superfluous in the least)... those who don't (sensory) ask what it means. In ancient Greece two opposing metaphysics were idealism versus (vs) atomism, and in earlier modern age (Cartesian) mentalism vs materialsm, and more recent (contemporary) postmodern age spiritualist vs physicalist... which each earlier pair is philosophically identical to matching later ones (so good to mention all for philosophy history)--dchmelik (t|c) 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps this is the problem. Wikipedia *is* an encylopaedia, and is meant to be written for a general audience. In particular, this lead is against the policy WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Wikipedia is not an academic source, although per WP:TECHNICAL the body can also cater for expert readers, but the lead must be a summary for the general user. Wikipedia is also a tertiary source, unlike an academic treatise which is usually a secondary source. As such, this article lacks for any grounding in secondary sources. The above reply appears to be telling me that I don't understand this article because I am not sufficiently and intutionist rationalist idealist. This is not what Wikipedia is for. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, while I appreciate you were only fixing typos in my comment, it is not generally good form to edit other people's comments on the talk page. The typos were there in the original and I quoted verbatim. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo apparently from bug from me using sometimes-beta-/experimental visual editor; my typo: my fix. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which is precisely why Oxford--if you mean Oxford English Dictionary (OED)--definition would be inadequate, and there's not necessarily reason to merely copy another encyclopaedia for which public domain version is over 100 years old (otherwise can't necessarily copy in verbatim, just cite). The lead is sufficient and in fact even more descriptive than many/most articles involving the synonymous schools of thought (typically just unfortunately picking one from an arbitrary time in history so causing less understanding). One doesn't need to know what the schools of thought are (which one can find out in their own articles) just that it's part of them, which is how many/most philosophy articles work. This is an obscure/unpopular topic (general audiences generally ignore) unlikely a secondary source (if excluding cited academics/professors) even exists (one source used to).--dchmelik (t|c) 17:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not suggesting we copy from somewhere else verbatim. I have cited Britannica now. Nevertheless this article goes beyond Britannica's entry, which really only deals with Cartesian Mathematicism. That is not a problem if we can source the other stuff. It is not good enough to say this article is better than others. Rather the question is whether this article does what the Wikipedia project sets out to do: provide information accessible to a general audience on any subject. Again, it is not good enough to say this is an obscure topic that general audiences ignore. In fact, the obscurity is key to what Wikipedia offers in this case: accessible information for a general audience, unfamiliar with this topic, that they can access when they come into contact with the subject. This is not me saying this. This is Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia for a general audience. Academic secondary sources are fine for the citations. Indeed, Wikipedia allows primary sources, although secondary sources are preferred. Oh and lastly, the OED is a dictionary, so the definition comes from usage. The usage will come from sources. As such the dictionary definition is not so unacceptable, although if we found the sources the dictionary editors used to reference their entry, that would deal with the source issue too. 212.159.115.41 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fine, except wouldn't say it's a loose definition rather than a strictest definition possible; absurdism, existentialism, mysticism, nihilism, relativism, etc. people defined as loosely as they want, but mathematics (and rationalism) is absolute so uses exact definitions (even one smallest mistake makes it no longer valid). Sourcing other stuff ends up like sourcing 'cooking' & 'cookery' separately. It'd be good to return newer schools of thought than (idealism) 2500+ years ago; I see I may have had a typographical error in one link (mentalism (philosophy), or reality being mental) but think such newer ones (including spiritualism about reality being spiritual, predating more popular 1800s religious movement sense) are in fact described in philosophy articles because philosophers generally moved on several hundred years ago to new ones, then new ones in more recent centuries (idealism to mentalism to spiritualism, all about same substance, and same with atomism to materialism to physicalism). No one wants to be reading a philosophy article 2500+ years out-of-date. This article was created with British grammar (single quotations marks, full stops (periods) after punctuation, etc., and articles' original dialects aren't supposed to be changed).--dchmelik (t|c) 00:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have hunted out my login details and signed in as I am spending a lot of time on this. I claim the IP edits. Need to make that clear so that you know this is a single editor.
I am not committed to the word "loosely", but I think we need to explain why this article is not clear exactly what mathematicisim is. Descartes did not think mathematics "was everything" for instance. Yet there is another school of thought that literally says it is. Both are described as mathematicism and the article needs to explain that this is because the definition encompasses both. There is not absolute agreement on the definition, and maybe there is a better way to express that. Maybe it is widely defined, or maybe it is just a school of thought.
Sourcing: essential. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and if we can't find a way to source the information the information should be deleted.
Mentalism: the term is obscure in philosophy. You had it as a red link but even the actual Wikipedia page for it is a stub. Descartes was a rationalist. I would object to use of the word Mentalism in this context without a source that describes how it is relevant. If we are saying that mathematicisists actually believe reality is mental, we should say that (with sources). Throwing in the term "mentalism" does not enlighten the reader. We have no space constraints on Wikipedia and should spend time explaining the subject. That is the purpose of this page.
On grammar, I added a "use British English" template as I saw that was your preference from previous edits, but double quote marks are good British grammar too. More importantly, I changed them to follow the Wikipedia style guide and I described that in the edit summary. Please look up MOS:DOUBLE. I speak British English, and was taught double quotes at school and the vast majority of what I read in life uses double quotes. The Wikipedia style guide dictates double quotes and there is no reason to ignore it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Standard/traditional English uses single-quotation marks with double being overkill newly-copied from American English (typical of their changes done for little/no reason or even by misunderstanding/mistake, which that seems)... some younger people use it, but only necessary for quotation within quotation (otherwise excessive & backwards).
Descartes' was a mathematician (rationalist) much whose work was lost, so his case may be unclear/debatable yet topic-relevant: cited by later sources (Hockney, earlier disputed but published by a company with other authors, all overseen by editors, and relevant, and cited many times himself by mathematics enthusiasts/academics, translators), clarifying his mention of unextended (mind, unextended strict term/notation being a geometric-algebraic zero/point/unit/monad (0,0,0,...), which Descartes originated number lines/axes using the notation) & extended (matter) were two aspects of one substance/reality (otherwise tertium quid problem which after original argument is only ignored in irrationalism).
Idealism is about ideas, which are in mind, so later became clarified is also mentalism, if not in ancient/Classical times (as alluded) at least after Descartes discussed mind & matter, so natural philosophy (natural science) opposed idealism with materialism (with nothing new, then the opposing mentalism including German Idealism (more popular term, including theories of mind/mentalism) was opposed to by physicalists also with nothing new, since mid-to-late modern age opposed by spiritualism also from far East). I don't care about removing new synonym schools of thought, but if atomism/mentalism/physicalism is reintroduced as opposing, then each opposing pair should be.
Mathematicism is saying reality is fundamentally/fully/only (monism) mathematics simultaneously ideas/mind/spirit (first two clearly required/inherent, third in ancient to modern sources, in the monisms being aspects of one thing) which sources since Pythagoras & Plato say (Socrates & Plato say true reality is intelligibile/ideal/mental, though described personal and likely also universal/divine spirit, as Pythagoras did). A mathematician wrote '"Numbers are the highest degree of knowledge. It is knowledge itself"--Plato', though I havent't yet found this in books (may be later paraphrase). In idealsm, mentalism, spiritualism (monisms) ideas/mind/spirit are aspects of one thing, and each school of thought uses all with exception some adherents may avoid some (such as some modern philosophers discussing mental aspects such as mind & ideas but avoiding spirit for obvious reasons). I think 'fully', 'only' describe monism more clearly than only 'fundamentally' because people who misunderstand or only understand dualism/polyism or atomism may say 'but' in reply to 'fundamentally' but unlikely to 'fully'/'only' ('completely' is also good but longer)--dchmelik (t|c) 02:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On double quotes, British English was not as consistent as you say. For instance, double quotes were always used in Newspapers. See https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2020/05/01/headlines-from-ve-day-8-may-1945/ That first image contains a 1945 quotation in double quotes. But Wikipedia is not a forum per WP:FORUM so I will not debate the issue, I merely note that your quotation style does not meet the Wikipedia manual of style per MOS:DOUBLE. Quotations should be in double quotes.
As to the rest of what you wrote, WP:FORUM again applies. Nothing you say is sourced. Readers are not interested in the opinions of editors. We must source everything as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. You do mention Mike Hockney but he is not a WP:RS as he is (or they are) self published.
From my reading so far I have found quite a few mentions of Mathematicism i the literature but it appears to me that this is a label that is applied to aspects of the work of philosophers and not chosen or adopted by the philosophers themselves. You will be pleased to read I did find a source speaking of the Mathematicism of Pythagoras. I have yet to read it as it is in Italian, and my Italian is rusty, but there is at least some evidence that the term has been applied to him. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scrolls/books predate newspapers, which I'm sceptical 'always' overdid quotation marks: British newspapers started in 1600s (continuing practice of early first millennium European bulletins & gazettes (Latin then used/extended into Germanic languages including English)). Average/standard USA newspapers are sixth year/class/grade literature level, and I don't recall if is similar in British Isles, but if is, there should be separate uk.wikipedia.org with higher-level rational (Wikipedia's isn't) style manual. Much larger discussions (pre-Twitter but still) even deviating into longer side topic discussion didn't used to mention WP:FORUM.
Self-published works aren't necessarily forbidden (Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works)... Hockney was edited (which isn't self-publishing) then published by Hyperreality Books, among other authors (also not his 'self').
'Mathematicism' usage in philosophy & science/mathematics may be recent/modern (occuring in Wiktionary (so I added here) and Oxford's newer English lexico.com derived from OED about contemporary English, but not definitive/standard) but some philosophers & scientists/mathematicians choose the term... maybe rare enough this shouldn't have had more recent definitions than Descartes' until sources such as the Italian one you found are read/translated.
old sources:

Major Rewrite[edit]

I have spent a lot of this weekend rewriting this article from scratch. The old article was entirely unsourced, whereas the rewrite is almost fully sourced (I ran out of time tracking down the last couple of refs). I am not precious about what I have written - this should be taken as a starter, and I can see plenty to improve myself, so please take a hatchet to it. However, some key points:

1. I have begun with definitions of mathematicism and worked from there. 2. The lead now summarises the main 3. The main is now a progression of mathematicism in philosophy, and my intention is to show why each philosopher cited is seen as a mathematicist.

I think we need to be clear this is Western philosophy.

I think it could do with a summary or something that draws it all together.

I offer this in a hope this helps. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very good rewrite except omitting any ancient/Classical (Pythagoras' other statements, and it's true Aristotelean ('true & false' binary/mathematical) logic went into neopythagoreanism then neoplatonism, though obscure topic I'd have to reread... Plotinus also fixed Plato's theory of forms, which may be relevant) and omitting some cited modern known academics (MA Alan Badiou, and Jane McDonnell & Sam Baron presumably are MScs/PhDs... Hockney is MA/PhD Communications aided by MScs/PhDs Mathematics/Logic/Exact/Formal Sciences, Philosophy, Theoretical Physics, etc., and Max Tegmark is a probably PhD Physics whom coined term 'mathematical universe hypothesis' apaprently taken up by a mathematician still in article, though Dr Tegmark isn't correct, created very interesting theory).
I wouldn't believe it's only Western as India developed some ideas before Greece, and though there are both large claims & criticism about ancient mathematics in India, it had ancient mathematics-/logic-focused rationalism, and a Hindu/Theosophist academic writing me from India described Yoga describes same theory as Hockney... I don't recall if the Hindu and I discussed Hockney but told me Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga Sutras when describing Ishvara are in fact I-svara or vibrations (or waves, vici).--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mathematicism&oldid=1208865196"