ASK A QUESTION

RECENT RESPONSES

CONCEPT CLOUD


CATEGORIES

  • Panelist Login

Mathematics, Mind

SEE ANOTHER QUESTION
in Mathematics
in Mind

How do we resolve the fact that our finite brains can conceive of mental spaces far more vast than the known physical universe and more numerous than all of the atoms?

For example, the total possible state-space of a game of chess is well defined, finite, but much larger than the number of atoms in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number). Obviously, all of these states "exist" in some nebulous sense insofar as the rules of chess describe the boundaries of the possible space, and any particular instance within that space we conceive of is instantly manifest as soon as we think of it. But what is the nature of this existence, since it is equally obvious that the entire state-space can never actually be manifest simultaneously in our universe, as even the idea of a board position requires more than one atom to manifest that mental event? Yet through abstraction, we can casually refer to many such hyper-huge spaces. We can talk of infinite number ranges like the integers, and "bigger" infinite ranges like rational numbers, and yet still "bigger" infinite ranges like the irrationals.

In what sense can we say all of these potential huge spaces exist (and they must, since we can so easily instantiate well-formed members of them, at will) yet we don't have even the slightest fraction of sufficent space for them in our known universe?

October 11, 2005

Response from Daniel J. Velleman on October 12, 2005
Consider a small finite set--say, the set of members of your immediate family. You understand this set by knowing a list of all the members of the set, and being familiar with all of them. Now, the point of your question is that that approach clearly won't work for infinite, or even very large finite, sets. My grasp of the state-space for chess, or the collection of all integers, cannot involve being familiar with all the elements of the collection. So what does it involve? You hint at a couple of possibilities in your question: In the case of the state-space for chess, you say that "the rules of chess describe the boundaries" of the state-space. So your understanding of that set consists in knowing the rules that determine what is in the set and what isn't, even though you don't have a complete list of the elements. You also refer to the fact that "we can so easily instantiate well-formed members" of these collections. For example, I can generate as many positive integers as I want by counting, although I could never list all the integers.

One of the reasons math is so powerful is that it is possible to draw conclusions about large, and even infinite, collections of objects based on just knowing the rules for what counts as a member of the collection, or knowing how to generate elements of the collection, even if you don't have a complete list of all the members. For example, by reasoning about an arbitrary integer x, I can determine facts that will be true of every integer I generate by counting--even if I count further than I have ever counted before, thus generating integers I have never considered before.

Now, you also raise the question of the "existence" of these collections. This is a tricky question, on which people disagree. Many mathematicians believe in platonism, which is the view that these objects do exist--not as part of the physical universe, in which, as you observe, there isn't room for them, but as part of some separate universe of abstract objects. This view raises difficult questions--for example, if these objects aren't part of the physical universe, then we can't interact with them using our sensory organs, so how can we ever acquire knowledge about them? How can their existence make any difference to us? You might want to check out the article about platonism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

There are alternatives to platonism. One alternative is intuitionism. An intuitionist would say that the set of all integers doesn't exist. We have the ability to generate integers by counting, but there is no collection containing all the integers "out there" (somewhere), independent of our counting activities. General statements about integers are not statements about some independently existing infinite collection of integers, but are rather predictions about what will be true of any integer we might generate by counting. Intuitionism was developed by L. E. J. Brouwer--check out the article about him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosohy.

By the way, there's an interersting quote from Voltaire that is relevant to your question. Voltaire said that the infinite "astonishes our dimension of brains, which is only about six inches long, five broad, and six in depth, in the largest heads."
Response from Alexander George on October 13, 2005

To add a word or two to Dan's great response: there is no question that mathematics deals with infinite collections, but what those are, what we mean when we make claims about them, which claims are correct — these have been hotly disputed issues for thousands of years. (In the history of mathematics, concern for these foundational questions has waxed and waned. There have been times, for instance in the early part of the twentieth century, when disputes over these issues, were very heated and split the mathematical community. There have been other times, for instance now, when mathematicians have been less interested in these issues — although of course there are always exceptions, like Dan.) The basic question — what does it mean to call a set "infinite"? — is so fundamental that it's simply astounding that we don't know how to answer it.

On one way of looking at the matter, what Dan called "platonism", to say that a set is infinite is simply to have given a measure of its size. To say that a set is infinite is much like saying that it's got 17 elements in it: if you counted up the elements in the second set you'd find there were 17 of them, and if you counted up the elements of an infinite set you'd find there were infinitely many of them.

But on another of way looking at the matter, this is insane. How can one finish counting up the elements in an infinite set? Isn't that what "infinite" means, that the process of counting never stops? On this way of looking at things, to call a set "infinite" is not to describe the size of some actual collection, but rather to mark it off from all finite collections: finite collections are ones for which the process of counting their members eventually stops, while infinite ones are collections whose elements we can keep on generating without end.

The first conception accepts the existence of the actual infinite: a collection that actually contains infinitely many objects. The second conception rejects this as unintelligible and talks instead of the potential infinite: to say that a set is infinite is not to make a claim about the size of an actually existing object but rather to say that each of its elements can potentially be brought into existence. (The two conceptions will be confused if you think that an entity that can potentially be brought into existence really exists after all — and has the property of potential existence attached to it. See here for some comments on a comparable error.)

Print PRINT Send2friends E-MAIL
E-MAIL THIS ENTRY

Recipient's e-address: required
(separate multiple e-addresses with commas)
Your name: required
Your e-address: required

Track TRACK

TRACK THIS ENTRY

If you provide your e-mail address, you will be automatically notified whenever this question receives a response. Your e-mail address will not be used for any other purpose, and it will not be given or sold to anyone.

E-mail:

SHARE
SHARE THIS ENTRY

del.icio.us
Digg! Digg
Facebook
Twitter
reddit
StumbleUpon