The Continuum: Mainstay or Menace? (erweitert)

The Continuum:  the original sin, from whose fecund loins
came all that is non-constructive in mathematics.

-- Anon.

Kronecker dismissed mathematical entities beyond the natural numbers as “Menschenwerk”.  An average practicing mathematician (who uses such entities all the time) may  agree with him to this extent:

(1)  Our intuitions about the natural numbers are clear and solid.   So long, indeed, as one deals only with some set of actual numbers (thus, a finite set), nothing especially surprising  or even all that interesting  turns up.  If we extend our horizon to the actual infinite of the set of all natural numbers, we meet some concepts that take getting used to (Hilbert's hotel):  but once we’ve done so, they seem natural enough.

(2) The rationals and negative integers  definitely, the algebraic numbers  probably, pretty much come along for the ride (that is, you can hardly exclude them once you’ve accepted N), and they still bring in no paradox – being, after all, of the same cardinality as the natural numbers themselves.  Though, a case could be made that these are not “entities” of the same standing as the integers, which in a sense we can hold in our hands (embodied in oranges, say), but rather abbreviations for operations on integers.  Thus, we cannot hold minus-two oranges in our hands; minus-two is not a thing, but a bookkeeping device. 

(3)  The real numbers, by contrast, are … a piece of work.  Maybe even Menschen-work, except that one could hardly imagine Menschen coming up with anything so intricate and even bizarre.  Their very cardinality baffles intuition  -- and the independence of the continuum hypothesis  shows that we are right to be baffled.  [Note:  The simple infinity of the integers already baffles *untutored* intuition;  but eventually you get the idea.  Click on the Label "Hilbert's Hotel" for further exemplification.  Whereas, the cardinality of the continuum is more like... Hilbert's Nightmare...] All sorts of queasy consequences arrive for simple quantification (cf. Quine re.  objectual vs. substitutional quantification).  The reals were invented (discovered?) for purposes of analysis, which in turn was developed largely for the sake of physics: but it now appears that physics (whether in its quantum cast, where Uncertainty provides a certain indissoluble granularity; or in the Wolframesque finite-automata approach) might not actually require, or afford, a continuum.

And yet standard mathematics speaks indeed ontologically of the reals, not merely pragmatically.  Thus for instance, Rudin’s standard text (Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3^rd edn. 1976, p. 8):

We now state the existence theorem [emphasis in original] which is the core of this chapter.

Theorem. There exists an ordered field R which has the least-upper-bound property.

The author then mentions that the proof actually constructs the Reals out of the Rationals.  This is, of course, the most solid sort of proof of all – not one of those Cantorian diagonalization thingies that has you winding up assenting to the Infinite Woodchuck, without ever quite knowing how you got into such a fix.  It gives you an actual recipe for the construction of these extended numbers, as concrete and explicit as for baking a cake.  And yet… all kinds of things can be thus “constructed”, at will, including items which presumably are not part of the furniture of the universe, in the sense that angels actually sit on them.

~

A roaring vote of confidence in the continuum  is voiced by the noted mathematician René Thom:

“God created the integers and the rest is the work of man.”  This maxim spoken by the algebraist Kronecker  reveals more about his past as a banker who grew rich through monetary speculation  than about his philosophical insight.  There is hardly any doubt that, from a psychological and, for the writer, ontological point of view, the geometric continuum is the primordial entity.

-- “’Modern’ Mathematics: An Educational and Philosophic Error?”, in American Scientist (1971), repr. in Thomas Tymoczko, ed., New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics (1986, rev. 1998), p. 74.

That is in-your-face Platonism, with which, quâ Realism, we have no quarrel.  But the psychological claim seems dubious:  Our intuition of the continuum is probably no more than a vague notion of a smear (and not very infinite at that, neither going out nor going down).   And as for the ontology … When we first meet the Real numbers mathematically (that was the very first thing we did in first-year calculus, with the opening chapter of Spivak’s text), we conceive them as the completion of the rationals.  And such they are indeed:  only, with respect to the metric provided by the absolute value.   With a p-adic valuation, you get a different completion of the rationals, the p-adic numbers.   Lastly, the surreal numbers augment the continuum in yet a different unexpected direction.  (I have less than no intuition about any of this.)

The physicist Schrödinger is less sure:

The idea of a continuous range, so familiar to mathematicians in our days, is something quite exorbitant, an enormous extrapolation of what is really accessible to us.

-- Erwin Schrõdinger, “Causality and Wave Mechanics”, repr. in translation in: James R. Newman, ed. World of Mathematics (1956), p. 1059

And from an Intuitionist (close kin to a physicist):

This could be done  by seeing the continuum as something that is infinitely becoming, instead of already being.

-- Dennis Hesseling, Gnomes in the Fog:  The Reception of Brower’s Intuitionism in the 1920s (2003), p. 333

(Compare our old friend the actio/actum distinction.)
Might be fine for physics, doesn’t work for math.  ‘See’ it however you like; that uncompleted-account doesn’t jibe well with Cantor-style constructions.

~

One might say:  The continuum feels unproblematic enough, so long you take it for granted, as just some kind of smooth dense slippery thing, like mud.  Yet so soon as you pause to enquire more nearly, you are back in Saint Augustine’s predicament with regard to Time: “Quid est tempus? Si nemo a me quaerat, scio …”

~

Even in a universe which (like Wolfram’s) abjures the continuum, the continuum might turn out to be mathematically indispensible for its treatment.   Cf. the indispensible role of “imaginary” numbers in electromagneticsm or quantum mechanics, even though all observables must be real-valued.

Constructivist Angelology

But yet when considered, may help us to enlarge our thoughts  towards greater perfections of it  in superior ranks of spirits. … The several degrees of angels  may probably have larger views.

-- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)

Man’s understanding, though allied to the angelical, operates differently.  The angels understand intuitively, man by the painful use of the discursive reason.

-- E. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture (1942)

It is presumably not obvious to the chimpanzee (or, if this be setting his smarts too low, to the humble woodchuck) that for all m, n in Z, m + n = n + m.  Nevertheless, in his daily scurryings and burrowings, he will repeatedly meet up with particular instantiations of this modest truth.

            For the woodchuck (at any event the southern northeastern lesser striped variety) builds a number of nests and other temporary dwellings, each of which has the framework of a variously triangulated  polyhedron, built tinkertoy-fashion from a fixed number of sticks.  Now, gathering them one by one would take too long, nor can the tidy woodchuck stand to have any sticks left over.  So when constructing his summer dwelling -- an icosahedron, which needs thirty sticks (did I get that right? My calculating powers are not much beyond those of a woodchuck) -- he normally harvests a jubjub bush, which has twenty-two sticks of exactly the right specs and which blooms in the spring, then rounds it out with the eight-sticked glubglub bush, which sprouts slightly later. 

But then one year, the blooming of the jubjub was delayed, and the woodchucks despaired.  All but one, the enterprising Willie, who went doggedly (or groundhoggishly) ahead  and harvested the available glubglub, supplementing this  when the jubjub arrived slightly later.  This remarkable exploit was recorded in the annals: for 22 then 8, one may substitute 8 then 22.

            It was subsequently found that a mubmub bush (18 sticks) followed by a nubnub bush (12) would do just as well – und zwar, in either order!  This fact too was recorded.

            The years went by, then the centuries, and the millennia, and the annals grew to seven times seventy stout volumes, densely filled with such arcana as: a cube-for-cubs may be constructed of a lublub (7) plus a rubrub (5), and this in either order; and so on for billions of examples.  All this was considered a branch of botany, a purely empirical science.

            By this means, the woodchucks arrived at an analogue of Babylonian mathematics.

Interlude:   A physicist depicts the arithmetical state-of-play in a papyrus from Egyptian/Babylonian times:

It records the resolution of a great number of fractions  into a sum of aliquot parts,  the original numerator always being 2:  as, for instance,

2/97 = 1/56 + 1/679 + 1/776

But no rules are given for effecting such resolutions, and the whole treatise seems to be a mere compendium of results obtained by repeated trials.

-- James Jeans, The Growth of Physical Science (1947 [posthum.]; 2^nd edn. 1951), p. 11

            Until one day one Wisedome Woodchuck, a distant descendant of Willie, figured the whole thing out, and in a remarkable demonstration of only eighty pages (rather hard to follow, but sound), showed that m + n = n + m  was a perfectly general fact, replacing the seven-times-seventy volumes at a stroke, and freeing up his brethren for yet further architectural innovations, which previously had been shunned, as their particulars were not yet in the book.  The annals were placed in a museum, which the elder woodchucks might still visit, marveling at favorite exhibits (as who could forget that remarkable winter, when 5,878 + 519 turned out to be equal to 519 + 5,878?  A tour de force!). Meanwhile generations of young woodchucks (the pride and despair of their parents, who could not follow them into Canaan, with their aging brains) studied Wisedome’s proof, breaking their little heads against it.

           

Meanwhile in Metropolis… The humans, learning of this, politely saluted Wisedome’s modest accomplishment, and experienced a pang of sympathy for woodchuck-kind; yet felt no inclination to visit their Museum of Particular Results: for which they felt, indeed, a kind of horror.  And even the general result, while true, is somehow to us not truly interesting. In any case we are all too busy wrestling with the Riemann Hypothesis, to have time to look back.

Meanwhile in Elysium, where throne the angels sensu strictior, the lowest order of angelic beings sensu lato, a mock compliment is paid to Andrew Wiles, who finally figured out that little Fermat puzzle, with which the angel-kind  are wont to amuse the nursery.  Not that the angels arrived earlier at his proof, nor any refinement thereof.  They simply scoop up a few infinities of integers with their fractal fingers, twist them this way and that—and see, it doesn’t fit!  Simple.

            Moreover, all facts about all structures of ordinal type omega, whether or not deducible by any finite axiomatization, are equally transparent to the angels. They just look.

            So, is Elysium the mathematical Paradise?  Not quite…

            In a remarkably lucid and accessible article*, which should be packed into every pupil’s lunchbox by a considerate mom, Gödel observes that our continuing failure to resolve Cantor’s continuum problem, left over from the previous century, is quite an embarrassment.  It means that we are unable to wrap our minds around the very simplest multiplication problem possible, beyond the finite ones that these days can scarcely stump a woodchuck. Namely, two times two (times two, times two – keep going).  He writes:

            “It is easily proved that the power of the continuum is equal to 2^(aleph-nought). So the continuum problem turns out to be a question from the ‘multiplication table’ of cardinal numbers: namely, the problem of evaluating a certain infinite product (in fact the simplest non-trivial one that can be formed).  There is, however, not one infinite product (of factors > 1) for which so much as an upper bound for its value can be assigned. […] It is not even known whether or not m < n implies 2^m < 2^n.” 

            We are  so to speak  staring helplessly  at a pile of sticks.

            Nor does the subsequent Cantor+Cohen demonstration of the independence of the continuum hypothesis  from a particular system of axioms for set theory   set the matter aside. Gödel had already anticipated Cohen’s result, and wrote:

A proof of the undecidability of Cantor’s conjecture from the accepted axioms of set theory (in contradistinction, e.g., to the proof of the transcendency of pi) would by no means solve the problem.  For if the meanings of the primitive terms of set theory … are accepted as sound, it follows that the set-theoretical concepts and theorems describe some well-determined reality, in which Cantor’s conjecture must either be true or false.

            Indeed Gödel suspects that the Cantor conjecture is actually, factually false: which means that somewhere, among the actual literal real numbers, there is hiding a set of cardinality intermediate between aleph-nought and its power set, with definite members which the angels could name.  Not, however, the lowest order thereof; this lies beyond them.  But at the next step up, the archangels hang these sets from mobiles over their infants’ cribs.  In fact a woodchuck may somewhere inadvertantly have used one of these sets for nesting materials, and even now lies sleeping on it – a night of troubled dreams.

            So much for a simple pancake-stack of omega-many deuces – the limit of the lower-angels’ ken.  What about the square root of omega-to-the-omega; or cross sections of fibre bundles on toroidal cap-omega-cross-theta space? For each level of angels, there will be something beyond them that they just don’t get.

*

There are two poles of the range of approaches to the problem of infinities.  One is that of the badger-like Brouwer, who simply sweeps the chessmen to the floor, folds up the board and goes home.  (An only somewhat more amenable figure, says Gödel, is Weyl, who allows as how there might be something to board games, but suggests we play checkers – or Chutes ‘n Ladders – rather than chess.)  The other pole says:  Infinities are tricky, but they all exist, and are present to the Infinite Mind. Gödel himself uses that term, e.g. noting that Ramsey’s admission of formulae of (countably) infinite length  might be constructivistic for an infinite mind  but not for our own.  Gödel does not, however, seem to feel much need for any desperate appeal to such a mind, in the course of an ordinary day, since he -- like Badger’s amiable friend the Water-Rat-- is a thoroughgoing Realist, and comfortable as such in his own skin.  For him the assumption of infinite classes “is quite as legitimate as the assumption of physical bodies, and there is quite as much reason to believe in their existence.”  The outwardly gloomy Austrian  is really the jolly Dr. Johnson of set theory.

            Only now there’s a problem, of a sort which did not confront the schoolmen, who never counted on the uncountable:  the Infinite Mind is all very well, but -- Which infinity did you have in mind?

            Who comprehends *everything*? God does, by definition. Yet He cannot be simply the crown on a tower of constructively ascending intelligences.  He is like an “inaccessible cardinal” – and not the first.  Nor perhaps ‘the last’, if there is no last.  Whatever He might be, there is Cantor in the wings, grinning, waiting to perform a Power Set on God, yielding – what?  -- Nothing one can begin to commence to pretend that we can approach with our sadly finite understanding.

            All of which suggests, if nothing else does,  that God is something more and other than an alternately wrathful and affectionate granddad  with a perfectly enormous white beard – however much longer that beard might be, than the stubble which disfigures your chin or mine.  Who one day, apparently from sheer idleness, as one might choose chocolate, chose the Jews.  Who later, some say, cast a Jove-like eye  on a certain Palestinian virgin.  And who at present is very angry indeed with the Democrats (or the Ravens, or whomever).  Yet what He in fact might be, we cannot even begin to imagine anyone’s beginning to conceive.  (Cf. the suggestion of 1 Kings 8:27  that the heavens themselves have heavens (and so on up); and that the whole omega-tower of them  cannot encompass God.)

*     *     *

~ Commercial break ~

http://www.linguasacrapublishing.com/justice.html

We now return you to your regularly scheduled essay.

*     *     *

            We actually wind up with a sort of hamstringing of the Ontological Argument. Notoriously its conclusion does not really follow from its premise;  but now even its premise limps: “Since we can imagine a Perfect Being…”  But that’s just it, we can’t!  Not even little infinite bits of one! Yet paradoxically (and God reportedly loves paradox – at least Chesterton does, His publicity agent on Earth), this seeming stomping on the prostrate corpse of the offspring of Anselm, this despairing cry that somehow even Infinity does not suffice, so far from opening the agora  to legions of snickering atheists chanting “Toleja so!”, points somehow upward, -- outward,   -- onward ….  Praise Him!

Postscript:

John Locke himself, normally regarded as the Poster Boy for Empiricism, of I'm-from-Missouri common-sensicality, yet delivers himself of this (Essay, III.vi.12):

That there should be more species of intelligent creatures above us, than there are of sensible and material below us, is probable to me from hence:  that in all the visible corporeal world, we see no chasms, or gaps.

That is to say:  The gap between ourselves, and God, must somehow be filled, according to the Principle of Plenitude.

And again (IV.iii.23):

He that will consider the infinite power … of the Creator of all things, will find reason to think, it was not all laid out upon so inconsiderable, mean, and impotent a creature, as he will find man to be;  who  in all probability, is one of the lowest of all intellectual beings …

Angels of all sorts are naturally beyond our discovery, and all those intelligences, whereof ‘tis likely there are more orders than of corporeal substances, are things, whereof our natural faculties give us no certain account at all.

Since theism is far from central to Locke’s Essay, it is curious to see the emphasis on this scala naturae idea.

--------------

*”What is Cantor’s Continuum Problem?”, repr. Benacerraf & Putnam, eds., Philosophy of Mathematics.

~

Postscript:  For the possibility that the structure of certain mathematical truths relating to an infinite domain  might resist any but a case-by-case “Babylonian” approach, cf. the quotation from Michael Dummett towards the end of this post:

http://worldofdrjustice.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-is-truth.html

Compare further (re ascending ranks of abstraction and generality):

"The Ladder of Abstraction"

.

عزرائيل

"It is the evening of the day"

(words of a now-elderly philosopher)

Near the sunlit deck, towards sunset,

a butterfly  lands  on a leaf.

And I picture the Visitor

come set down beside me,

and give me a nod,

“It’s time.”

Smiling, I rise

and go with him.

[After dark, in the study, 

I was frightened  by a flying shadow,

which turned out to be a moth --

Michael versus Samael.]

[[ Foreshadowing  here. ]]

Thoughts 'n' Things

  Rudy Rucker, Infinity and the Mind, p. 38:

(**) Just as a rock is already in the Universe, whether or not someone is handling it,  an idea is already in the Mindscape, whether or not someone is thinking it.

This is itself a pleasant thought, recalling the ditty about God-in-the-quad; but in actual fact – I don’t think so.

(So you see—I am not an uncritical Platonist.  Platonic heaven must be so gerrymandered, as to exclude such things as cheese doodles and Sponge Bob Squarepants.)

The actual universe has (for example) -- whatever geometry it has:  regardless of whether there are rational creatures capable of understanding it, let alone deriving it.  Likewise the landscape of math.  But particular formulations of physics, and perhaps even of math – matrix mechanics v. wave mechanics, Cauchy analysis vs. non-standard analysis – do not exist in complete independence from their proponents.  They are, one might say, propositions, not objects.  The objects (or patterns, or whatever they are)  exist  even in the absence of  a person to spout propositions about them; but the propositions require a proposer.  – Nothing specially abstract here; the same thing is true of rocks.  This rock exists independently of any finite mind, but: “There lies a rock” and “Behold that rock!” and “What a rock that is!” must come out of some actual someone’s mind or mouth.

            The unbridledly idealistic view in (**) conjures up a skyscape of untethered thought-balloons.  It is pleasant to contemplate, in a comic-strip sort of way, but not to be taken too seriously.  For one thing, unlike the situation with mathematical truths, where anyone at any place or time might discover them, there is no way for a rational creature in another galaxy or dimension to reach out and grab one of those thought-balloons by the tail;  he is required to blow his own bubbles.  Whereas the structures of mathematics are like fixed landmarks, which one encounters again and again, from different approaches.  For instance:  Yang-Mills gauge theories, discovered by the physics expedition; and connections on fibre-bundles, discovered by the math team; and lo, they meet in the middle.  Likewise group-theory.  Different body-parts of this have been grabbed onto by matrix theory, algebra (symmetries of solutions to equations), geometry (the Erlangen program), particle physics (glad you could get here; meet Sophus Lie), and in time it becomes clear that it’s all part of the same elephant.  Whether they come from physics, or mathematics, or computer science, two such explorers may not realise that they have come upon the same mountain, till they have circled around it a bit and compared notes.  And this happens repeatedly.  We may summarize in an epigram:  The mindscape of mathematics is a multidimensional torus:  whatever direction you set off in, you eventually wind up back at Hilbert’s Hotel.

It turns out that Shing-Tung Yau likes this montane metaphor as well.  Cf. The Shape of Inner Space (2010), p. 103:

A mathematical proof is a bit like climbing a mountain.

And he nicely outlines the Yang-Mills case (p. 290):

The physicist Chen Ning Yang was similarly astonished to find that the Yang-Mills equations, which describe the forces between particles, are rooted in gauge theories in physics  that bear striking resemblances to ideas in bundle theory, which mathematicians began developing three decades earlier, as Yang put it, “without reference to the physical world”.  When he asked the geometer S. S. Chern how it was possible that “mathematicians dream up these concepts out of nowhere,” Chern protested, “No, no.  These concepts were not dreamed up.  They were natural and real.”

            Contrast the case with “thoughts”.  Supposititious entities of the mindscape, even some popular thought-balloon, tethered to a billion different heads, need never be rediscoverable by another explorer, nor acknowledged as real should he simply be grabbed by the lapel by one of the thinkers, and treated to an exposition of same.  For example, the notion held dear by countless generations of schoolboys around the globe, of the uniquely funny nature of flatulence, will never appear among the gravely ellipsoidal thought-balloons of the solons of Fdrmrphlandia; even “funny”, for them, is not well-defined, and not particularly worth defining.

Now, probably Rucker meant to restrict the realm of “ideas” to just some of them.  Not, “Wouldn’t it be fun to dip Suzy’s pigtail into the inkwell!”, but things like “The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.”  Fine; but careful, here.  The Pythagorean theorem has  as its basis  a fact about Euclidean geometry, in every possible world; just as Fermat’s Last Theorem expresses (in a possibly somewhat contingent and imperfect way) a fact about the natural numbers.   But a fact is not the same thing as an idea.  As a matter of fact, there is a coffee stain on this shirt; but “the idea of this coffee-stained shirt” is no strut or girder of God’s architectonics.  An idea concerning a fact of mathematics, in a finite mind,  may bear – must bear -- but an imperfect relation to the fact itself (‘fact’ here used broadly: it may refer to a wildly transfinite complexus of relations, some of them perhaps perceptible only to angels).   Most people’s ideas of mathematical truths bear as much relation to the truths themselves  as does a crayon scribble to the Sistine Chapel  which it might (based merely upon memory of a fleeting ill-lit glimpse) attempt to depict.  To posit that all truths of mathematics exist as Ideas in God’s mind, is logically allowable, but really adds nothing, and is in any case unknowable. To identify these truths with the neuronal states of the pitiful meat-wads sloshing around in our half-cracked crania, is to add nothing at all, but is rather to detract.

[Appendix]  Karl Kraus apparently entertained a notion of independent or pre-existent thoughts.  He speaks of someone being

von der Präformiertheit der Gedanken  überzeugt, und davon daß der schöpferische Mensch  nur ein erwähltes Gefäß ist; und davon, daß die Gedanken und die Gedichte da waren  vor den Dichtern und Denkern.

-- “Heine und die Folgen”, reprinted in J. Franzen, The Kraus Project, p. 88

The whole ‘meme’ idea (itself a meme) is similar -- not that the various Chiclet-thoughtlets were truly Platonically pre-existing, but that, once hatched, they lead a promiscuous existence, wandering into people’s minds  like pollen into our air-passages.

~

Footnotes from the 19^th century:

Dedekind … allowed his philosophy of mind  much reign, with a ‘proof’ that “there are infinite systems”;  for he gave  as evidence “the totality S of all things, which may be objects of my thought”, since  as well as any of its elements s,  it contained also “the thought s’ that can be the object of my thought …This ‘proof’ did not gain a good reception.”

-- Grattan-Guinness, The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870 - 1940 (2000), p. 105

For Frege,

In contrast to subjective ‘ideas’ (Vorstellungen), ‘thought’ was intended in an objective sense, rather like state of affairs, sharable among thinkers  and indeed independent of anyone thinking then.

-- I. Grattan-Guinness, The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870 - 1940 (2000), p. 190

The Ladder of Abstraction (with added rungs)

The following  logically belongs in the “Abstraction” section of our essay Consilience in Mathematics.  But as that effort is growing overlong,  we begin to cultivate here a particular idea  building upon that of abstraction simpliciter :  namely, the tendency, in modern mathematics -- and indeed this may serve virtually as the defining characteristic of modern (even: modernist) mathematics -- to abstract from any given abstraction, layer upon layer, rise upon rise, to a virtual (topless/cloud-topped) Babel, reaching to the Beyond.

(Oh, and here again we have a term from the arts, Modernism, which, as it includes “abstract art”, metaphorically applies to mathematics.  Compare our earlier essay on Minimalism in Mathematics.)

In normal practice, mathematicians mostly talk to one another -- and indeed, mostly just to those within their own hyperspecialized neck of the woods.  But occasionally, one writes an undergraduate textbook, and thus must descend to earth, if only for the nonce, and address the laity.  Thus:

This “intrinsic” formulation of Calculus, due to its greater “abstraction”, and in particular  to the fact that, again and again, one has to leave the initial spaces, and to climb  higher and higher  to new “function spaces” (especially when dealing with the theory of higher derivatives), certainly requires some mental effort, contrasting with the comfortable routine of the classical formulas.  But we believe that the result is well worth the labor, as it will prepare the student to the still more general idea of Calculus on a differentiable manifold.

-- Jean Dieudonné, Foundations of Modern Analysis (1960), p. 141

We dub this the “ladder of abstraction”, taking the phrase from our teacher of yore. Referring likewise to ascent into functions-of-functions, and function spaces, and functions from one function space to another, and to the duals of all that:

Detached from any context, this construction is a pointless formality.  But as we move up the ladder of abstraction, we find that constructions such as this  become commonplace …

-- Andrew Gleason,  Fundamentals of Abstract Analysis (1966), p. 43

The metaphor of ascent is well attested.  Gödel speaks of

the infinite series of ever stronger axioms of infinity, each of which expresses a new idea or insight.

-- quoted in Hao Wang, From Mathematics to Philosophy  (1974), p. 325

A mathematician writes of

the inferential staircase  leading from the laws of physics  to the world that lies about us …

-- David Berlinski, “The End of Materialist Science”, collected in:  The Deniable Darwin (2009), p. 160

~

Saunders MacLane,  in his book Mathematics:  Form and Function (1986), p. 36ff, has a section called “Mathematical Activities”, structured somewhat like our own in the Consilience essay.  Some of the topics are the same (analogy, abstraction, generalization), while others, not relating to consilience especially, differ (conundrums, axiomatization, proof).  One, intrinsic structure, seems to relate to consilience, but is only briefly developed; and the last, completion, we have treated under the more Quinean label of rounding out.

Now, abstraction and generalization are related notions, but neither entails the other.  MacLane acutely adduces the example of group theory.  Originally, this grew out of the concrete examples known as groups of transformations.  Later, algebraists abstracted into abstract groups.  Whether a generalization has thereby been achieved, is (as Chomsky likes to put it) “an empirical question”;  and in this case, it turns out, it has not. “No new groups turn up in this process, in view of the famous theorem of Cayley, which asserts that every (abstract) group is isomorphic to a group of transformations.”  Thus, in this case, the ladder of abstraction has only one rung.  (By contrast, abstract rings do turn out to generalize upon their original model, rings of integers.)

~

Seeking analogues of the Ladder of Abstraction  outside of mathematics proper, I happened upon this:

Quine suggests that levels of abstractness, modeled on Russell’s Theory of Types, might be established.  “In the beginning  there are only concrete objects.”  These constitute type zero and are the values of bound individual variables.  “To be is to be a value of a variable.”  Next comes first-order classes and relations:  they constitute entities of type 1 and are the values of bound predicate variables.  Classes of classes, and relations, constitute entities of type 2;  and so on.

-- Harold Lee, “Discourse and Event”, in: Hahn & Schilpp, eds., The Philosophy of W. V. Quine (1986), p. 297

The resemblance to Russell’s Theory of Types had not escaped me, but I rejected mention of it, since, rather than leading -- as the Ladder does -- to ever greater depth (the metaphor is here in distress -- maybe think of it as a ladder down a mineshaft), it seems to lead mostly to More of the Same.  In other words, forming those strata, as described above, is less like the dizzying and ethereal Abstract Ascent of mathematics, than simply forming new sets via the Power Set operation (a new and larger set consisting of all the subsets of the original set).  Now this, if we start with a finite set, leads absolutely nowhere.  It’s just like counting.  If you start with the whole of the Natural Numbers, now the Power Set operation does become more powerful, leading to new and incomparable levels of infinity.    Whether this leads to true new depth, or is rather a mere formal exercise, I do not know, since I lack all intuition of any infinities beyond the countable, let alone the Power of the Continuum or Measurable Cardinals.  Perhaps it does;  espresso-sodden Berkeley conversations about Quality emerging out of Quantity, return to mind.

Still, I am inclined to doubt it.  The very fact that the fellow can say “and so on”  virtually proves as much.  For there is no “and so on” to true mathematical abstraction.   There is nothing mechanical about such ascent -- it is more like a miracle.  You can proceed only one step -- nay rather, one leap at a time;  and the interval between leaps may take decades or even centuries.   Above the calculus lies Function Theory;  above that, Topology.  Above that, Algebraic Geometry. Far, far above us, hovers Category Theory, unreachably aloft.  And far, far above and beyond that, soars Topos Theory.  What comes next  is known only to angels.

To vary Nestroy’s celebrated epigram -- “Bis die Topologie gehts noch, aber von da bis sheaf theory  zieht sich der Weg.”

Additionally, Quine introduced the term semantic ascent.  There is some similarity to Gleason’s ladder of abstraction, but the ascent doesn’t go very high, and Quine himself -- perhaps surprisingly for a logician -- is wary of the upper reaches, preferring basic-level entities  behaviourally grounded.

Here the Russian author A. D. Aleksandrov, instead of envisaging a ladder,  uses the metaphor of layers  or (appropriately enough) of nesting, like Russian dolls, in the procession to affine or projective geometry and on to topology:

The properties of space are stratified … with respect to their depth and stability.  The ordinary Euclidean geometry was created by disregarding all properties of real bodies other than the geometrical;  here we perform yet another abstraction within geometry.

-- Aleksandrov et al, eds, Mathematics: Its Content, Methods, and Meaning (publication in the original Russian: 1956;  Eng. tr. publ. 1963), vol. III, p. 133

~

The more I think about it, the more this Ladder of Abstraction idea seems possibly fruitful.  Not so much as in the Theory of Types, but as in the scala naturae, which encompasses angelology.  (Compare also graded algebras.)

By contrast, mere ungraded “abstractness” in itself is of little interest. Thus, to take MacLane’s Group Theory example:  the so-called “abstract” groups (MacLane himself uses the sneer-quotes here) mean to lift aloft from Groups of Transformations, in that they retain the laws (associativity, inverses, and all that) while becoming agnostic as to the nature of the elements of the group.  But, first of all, groups of transformations are, compared with, say, pickles, already quite Abstract;  so the word adds, really, nothing.  Indeed, as soon as you say that two apples plus two apples are four apples, and that in the same sense  two penguins plus two penguins make four penguins (well, and a few more, after a while, if the sex mix is right), you are already indulging in such abstraction.

~

I tried looking up “abstraction” in the index of the various math textbooks and philosophy treatises on my shelves, and basically came up with  bupkes.  Thus, in Dummett’s omnibus volume, Truth and Other Enigmas (1978), we find no reference to abstraction per se, let alone to the Ladder of Abstraction, but only to “abstract objects” -- i.e., pickles versus the Meaning of ‘Pickle”,  the Idea of a Pickle, the set-containing-a-pickle, the… sandwich containing a pickle, the -- but enough.  Mathematics is so far beyond this, no comment is required.

~

The ethic -- even, the aesthetic -- of abstraction for its own sake, sociologically chronicaled here (“On Vulgar Numbers”), eventually evoked a backlash.

The Bourbaki group sought to present the entire abstract structure of all mathematical concepts in one set of volumes, the Eléments de Mathématique. In that treatise, the real numbers, which most of us regard as a starting point, only appeared midway into the series, as a special “locally compact topological group”.

An opposing idea, promoted especially in the Russian school, is that a few well-chosen examples can illuminate an entire field.

-- David Mumford, Forward to Mircea Pitici, ed., The Best Writing on Mathematics 2012, p. xv

~

For the latest in fine reading, check this out:

http://www.linguasacrapublishing.com/justice.html

For more about abstraction, here:
         http://worldofdrjustice.blogspot.com/search/label/abstraction

Gabriel’s pep-talk to the bugs

We all know how Blessèd Saint Francis  preached to the beasts and birds.  A less-well-known episode  is the Archangel Gabriel’s sermonette to all bugkind, shortly after they were created (out of little clods of clay).

Gabriel, before the assembled multitudes:   Well! bug-buddies.  Great to see you all here.

Bugs:  (buzz)

Gabriel:  Now, have you all heard of the scala naturae?

Bugs (billions of blank looks -- blank even for bugs)

Gabriel:   Okay, didn’t think so.  Anyhow, scala naturae means “ladder of Nature”.  It is the scale and scheme of things.   It reaches all the way up to …. [here Gabriel raises his forefinger and nods significantly] and down to the very depths of Earth.

Now: --  House built on a weak foundation, will not stand -- oh no.  No?

(Bugs wag their antennae in agreement.)

Gabriel:  And a ladder would waver, that were not firmly planted on the ground.

Bugs (antennae tingle in anticipation;  collective held breath)

Gabriel:  That’s where you come in.

(Their little breasts swell with joy and gratitude, and they march off in their millions.  “We’ll be good bugs,” they vow.)

QUIN? – ECCE!

Those of you who may have had occasion to follow, in another place, my periodic outpourings, my strange and mystical musings upon the penguins (shimmering in perfection,  upon the mind’s own ice),  may well yet ask yourselves:  What might all this lather of math  have to do with any of that?

            And the answer is simplicity itself.  We, the race of Men, having been created but a little lower than the penguins…. No, excuse me, of course I mean:  … created (as regards  complexity) but a little lower than the angels, right, the angels   – and, in obstreperousness, but little better than the devils – anyhow we, we are much too much of a mouthful/an eyeful/an earful/a soulful/    to survey all at once.  And so I …  project us onto the penguins,  these being (to use the topological term) a hyperplane in Peoplespace;  thére   the better to survey our kind  in petto.  -- Even so do the very angels, peering over their edge of clouds, survey (e’en)  us.

The Theology of “Angel”

[Dr J to Dr K:]

Not of angels -- but of Angel, in the Buffyverse.

As you may know, it is a peculiarity of M.X. Murphy, that although he has battled the Devil in every case he ever took -- quite consciously and explicitly  in the later ones (as yet unpublished),  still and all he does sincerely pray   that the Devil may yet repent, and be saved.

(For a sample of this strange attitude, click here:

http://murphybros.blogspot.com/2011/08/murphy-on-prince-of-lies.html  )

The closest thing I’ve seen, to what such repentence might look like, is the character of “Angel”, in the series of the same name.  (He appears as well in “BtVS”, but  in that context  doesn’t go anywhere near as deep.)   The series as a whole is not explicitly Christian, or even Theist, but -- its faithful adherence to this deep idea, over several years, is impressive.

Now:   Do you yourself know of any parallel -- in literature ancient or modern, in folklore, in theological writings, to Angel’s case?  Cf. & ctr. the Ancient Mariner, whose penance lasts forever -- yet it feels imposed, not embraced;  and it -- how to phrase this… only goes as far as it goes;  whereas Angel’s has no limits whatsoever.  His repentence is deep and pure -- beyond our understanding, really -- perhaps in proportion to the evil he had previously wrought.  In which case -- How bright and shining would be the true repentence of Satan !!!

[Dr K to Dr J:]

This is a very deep matter which requires more research. Orthodox and Catholic saints and doctors run the gambit between saying that the Devil can and/or will never repent.

I don't think that enough work has been done to ground human willfulness/sinfulness with that of Satan's--not as a matter of the original fall being Satan's, but that they are all part of a unified fall. Otherwise, the myth is too immature, describing a Deity who loses control of his creation and finds it smashed by a naughty boy.

The problem is, if we grandfather Satan into our fall and call it just a dynamic exploration of free will, how do we praise the faithfulness of the Archangel Michael?

Murphy’s Most Perplexing Case

A missing person -- a bum guy and a wrong dame.  Par for the course in Murphyland.  But when he meets his client, Murphy cannot believe his eyes.  And when she states her business, his ears too seem like liars.

A tale  ‘twill harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, and make thine each particular hair to stand on end, like quills upon the humble woodchuck.

Read it for free over at our sister site:

Cash On Deliverance

Maximal/Minimal

[Warning !  The videos linked-to are rated NC-53 !!  No-one under the age of 53 or so should watch them !   And even these, only after making Confession, and taking Communion. -- Everyone else -- Read the Gospels;  Smash the State;  and get married; OK ? ? ? ]

Maximal, in that:  Everything is at stake.

Minimal, as regards the artistic means.

("Heroin".  The Velvets.)

This one is meditative, ethereal;  and minimal, principally in the singing.  Quite beautiful organ, which strains not at all  to achieve its effect.  Reed's signature sassybrash streetwise delivery  is here muted.  [Update 5 Jan 2013.  Evil forces manipulated by the Illuminati  have just removed this. Internauts!  Strive to retrieve...]

This one is minimal  in the violin-drone.  Notice that the violinist here is apparently an angel, blessedly content to play but the single note assigned to him.

Both these performances are redemptive:  strange, in view of the lyrics, and the lifestyle of the bandmembers at the time.  For this paradox, compare our remarks about "Backstreet Girl", here:
http://worldofdrjustice.blogspot.com/2011/06/de-musica-de-gloria-incipit.html

In this early recording, as in the later Stones recordings, the vocals are drowned.  If this was the only version you knew, it would be nonsense;  but knowing the full performance, you realize that it captures the essence, which is indeed but the drone (“Ommmm”), later disintegrating into a screechyscream as the addict starts coming off his high.
It pretty much sounds like a badly-mixed rendition of the original album version.
I included it  not for itself, exactly, but as part of the ongoing meditation about Minimalism.
The Velvet's were so much about Lou Reed's precise and penetrating enunciation;  yet here they are lost almost entirely, and the song still works.  Trending towards that ideal, treated here in as much detail as the topic needs:

http://worldofdrjustice.blogspot.com/2011/09/monostich-xxix.html

The album version (which I, well, basically grew up with) remains unsurpassed on its own hyperplane; but the first-mentioned live version represents a reflective step back, and maybe up.

[Note:  I may actually have attended this concert; hard to tell.  The camera angle isn’t from where I sat;  and so long ago …]
Musical oddity of the album version:  The drummer, who in principle  keeps the rhythm for the whole band, eventually drifts off into her own tempo-space.  Yet this somehow does not spoil the song -- perhaps because it acurately reflects the way drug-users, nodding out, lose contact with one another.

One of the young commenters on YouTube said:  What do you mean by Hair-Oh-In?? Joan of Arc ???

Answer:  Yes !!!  That is what he was trying to mean.  Take up your rosary, bless you, and say prayers to the Maid of Orléans ….

Wondering what had become of him in later days, I checked Wiki, and found this:

“On April 12, 2008, Reed married longtime companion Laurie Anderson in a private ceremony in Boulder, Colorado.”

God bless the blushful couple ! 

Actual footage of the wedding-ceremony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5je_eK0V1w&feature=related
This one is reminiscent of "Jesus, Help Me Find My Proper Place", in its concerted attempt to recapture simplicity and innocence.  And it goes farther, in that it sacrifices professional for entirely amateurish singing.  Just as God made us, that is.  That is genuine humility.
Laus deo.

But the Baby Bear’s Porridge was Ju-u-ust Right…

Our Canadian Colleague comments, concerning a recent post (“Why is there Something rather than Nothing, Grandpa?”):

>> patterns not specifically tailored to the cerebral convolutions ... of ... the humble woodchuck.

>I think you are disagreeing here with most of the Christian theologians who have ever lived. Surely God created the universe just for us, so everything in it ought to make sense?

Now as it happens, I am at present reading a book that addresses this very issue -- but by a physicist, not a theologian (though he is a Christian):  Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma:  Why Is the Universe  Just Right for Life? (2006).   The enigma in question refers to the program of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle.   This exists in various strengths, such as the Weak Anthropic Principle -- basically “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here -- and if we weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to know it” -- and the Strong Anthropic Principle -- in short, that the universe was fine-tuned so as to bring forth -- Hi Mom! --  intelligent life -- with no doubt many variants in-between, such as the “Feeling off my feed but should soon be right as rain” Anthropic Principle.   Since book-length discussions of these are easily available, I won’t comment further.

*

The alert reader will have noticed, however, that so far I have sidestepped the challenge issuing from the hyperborean forests.

Before replying publically, I passed this note to my Spiritual Advisor, Dr. Massey:

Now in fact, I am unable to conceive that the universe was created "just for us" -- certainly not just for H. sapiens;  *possibly* for all rational species, of which there may be a great many.    This view is not heresy, I hope?

To my immense relief, he thus replied:

No heresy there. Certainly, we must, by revelation, hold that only humans are created in the Imago Dei (I'm here, btw, using the nominative of the technical term, but after the preposition "in" in Latin, it would have been "in imagine Dei". I had originally typed just that, but thought better of it.)
In fact, a fairly straightforward reading of Genesis 1 would conclude that God did not create the universe for Man, but rather out of sheer goodness. Man was given an important caretaker role over that creation, but it wasn't made *for* him. Further, scripture attests a speaking animal in Numbers 22.

This keeps happening:  By a process of mediation and reasoning, I arrive at a conclusion that seems potentially alarming, only to discover that it is a doctrine tolerated or even advocated by the Holy Mother Church.

Even better, the learnèd doctor goes on:

In fact, a rereading of the delightful passage in Numbers 22 reveals that animals are experiencing the supernatural world on a level we humans are not. Balaam's ass, to be sure, cannot speak until the LORD "opened his mouth." But Balaam is not able to see the Angel of the LORD until God "opened his eyes."

Surely, after having his eyes opened, we do not conclude that Balaam is not really seeing the Angel. In the same way, we are not permitted to conclude that it is not really the donkey speaking. (In answer to some commentaries that say that God was merely speaking through the dumb animal.)

The Angel further points out that he would have spared the donkey and killed Balaam if they had come any closer.

So animals are, according to scripture, walking around and quite normally and naturally seeing what is invisible to us. And what do they see? They see a world filled with the servants and angels of God all around.

I have often noticed this phenomenon myself, particularly among the ducks.

*

A viewpoint somewhat more congenial to the thesis fathered above upon Christian theologians, may be found in Islam.  Although the Qur’an is overall strongly theocentric, in the matter of Adam  it is more anthropocentric than is the Torah.  For in Sura 2:31-33 we learn that God taught Adam the names of things, then stumped the angels and had Adam himself instruct the angels in the names;  and in verse 34, God orders the angels, “Bow down to Adam”:  which they did, but Iblis (Satan) refused, and thus became a kafir (unbeliever).

As for whether the cosmos itself was specifically made for mankind, 2:29 says only “It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth.”  This says nothing about other galaxies, let alone the cosmos as a whole, let alone Riemannian manifolds and E8.