Talk:Mathematicism

Discussion at Wikiproject Philosophy

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

philosophical mathematics

    (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)

CTMU

    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)

'Spinbitz/Sorce' and/or cymatics

    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)

Unenlightened

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 summery 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)

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)

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)

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)