Science And Math Was: Python's Lisp heritage

[Tim Daneliuk]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
> 
> |> mathematics, including the study of algorithms, is a natural science.
> 
> Tim Daneliuk <tundra at tundraware.com> wrote previously:
> |I disagree strongly...  All of mathematics is a formal construct of the
> |human mind created with the intent of removing ambiguity and enhancing
> |our ability to describe what we *think* and what we *observe*.
> 
> To my mind, Daneliuk present here the strongest argument that
> mathematics (and therefore CS) *IS* indeed a science.
> 
> The wrinkle I would add to it is in describing exactly *which* science
> mathematics is.  Rather than being something close to Physics, and
> describing the behavior of the (large-scale) physical universe, I see
> Mathematics as a special branch of Psychology.  Mathematics describes
> the laws of thought, but at a level of abstraction that applies to any
> thinking being.  If we find martians, or teach dolphins, or invent
> computers sophisticated enough to "think", their thought patterns will
> be constrained by the rules of Mathematics--even though they quite
> likely will not be characterized by uniquely human Psychological
> features like, say Oedipal complexes, structured 3-scale memory,
> prototype-centered reasoning, and so on.

Hmm, this is a really interesting argument.  However appealing it is, I
find no compelling evidence to support the idea that "...thought patterns 
will be constrained by the rules of Mathematics."  I'm not saying it is
wrong (though my instinct is that it is, indeed, wrong).  I am saying it
is heretofore unproven.  If you take this position, you are arguing that
*all* human intellectual activitiy like creative action, analysis,
emotion, need, and so on can, at least in priciple, be described
mathematically.  This is a very mechanical view of the human intellect,
which I find doubtful...

>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tundra at tundraware.com