Signs Of Signs • 4

Re: Michael HarrisLanguage About Language

But then inevitably I find myself wondering whether a proof assistant, or even a formal system, can make the distinction between “technical” and “fundamental” questions. There seems to be no logical distinction. The formalist answer might involve algorithmic complexity, but I don’t think that sheds any useful light on the question. The materialist answer (often? usually?) amounts to just-so stories involving Darwin, and lions on the savannah, and maybe an elephant, or at least a mammoth. I don’t find these very satisfying either and would prefer to find something in between, and I would feel vindicated if it could be proved (in I don’t know what formal system) that the capacity to make such a distinction entails appreciation of music.

Peirce proposed a distinction between corollarial and theorematic reasoning in mathematics that strikes me as similar to the distinction that Michael Harris seeks between technical and fundamental questions.

I can’t say I have a lot of insight into how the line might be drawn, but I recall a number of traditions pointing to the etymology of theorem as having to do with the observation of objects and practices whose depth of detail always escapes full accounting by any number of partial views.

On the subject of music, all I have is this incidental —

Riffs & Rotes

Perhaps it takes a number theorist to appreciate it …

This entry was posted in Aesthetics, Category Theory, Coherentism, Communication, Connotation, Form, Formal Languages, Foundations of Mathematics, Higher Order Propositions, Illusion, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Interpretive Frameworks, Intuition, Language, Logic, Mathematics, Music, Objective Frameworks, Objectivism, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mathematics, Pragmata, Pragmatics, Pragmatism, Recursion, Reflection, Riffs and Rotes, Semantics, Semiotics, Set Theory, Sign Relations, Syntax, Translation, Triadic Relations, Type Theory and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Signs Of Signs • 4

  1. With regard to the musical aspect, Edward Rothstein touches on that in his “Emblems of Mind.” It is not an answer to the question, so much as a more detailed musing ON the question. But, at least it shows that Harris isn’t the only person to wonder about it.

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      I will have to look into that. The Ancients of course — Chinese, Greek, and especially the Pythagoreans — had much to say on the kinship of math and music, but most of it too oracular for my tin-ear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s