Mathematical Modelling

Mathematical Modelling

1 + 1 = 2

2 + 2 = 4

This is of course true

In the strictly limited terms

Of the pure maths world


In the daily world of this

No two things are really the same

So to add and make a 2

We need to insert a category

between the the things

and the numbers we use


This might seem a trivial point

A case of nitpicking

Or just being "difficult"?


But perhaps a math

With no extra concepts

Like categories to count with

Might be quite practical?

And even

Like the world itself

Rather beautiful?



Where the concept "category"

Is now regarded as the reality

It`s existence as concept

No longer noticed


The math based on concept

Seeks to create it`s own reality

Blind to itself

It knows not

That this is what it`s doing


Shaping a world

Where it isn`t based on concept

But is this a world

Where life can live in?


A math without concept

Is this the world

Gaudi`s Cathedral "explore`s"?

Were Fuller`s dome`s

A form from that world?

Did Schauberger show us

How it worked?*


But without the familiar concepts

It seems easier to ignore?


Surely in a world

With so many

Many individuals

With searching minds

And numerical skills


A few could give

This math a go?

Explore our world

With a math non-conceptual?


If you can`t be lost

If you have no destination?

Then exploring without concepts

Might seem not so daunting?

And

Practice a playful math

While prepared to withhold

from the grandeur of theorising?

(Linguistically speaking the word theory derives from Theo, like the word theology. That may or may not be worth bearing in mind? Or perhaps ignore the desire to believe one might know the "mind of God" and simply . . . . . . well as suggested above and indeed as practised by some? A method that might not suit many, especially perhaps those motivated by good grades [read Persig`s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for an exploration of that - and perhaps as a primer for a math without concept?])

* Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller both occasionally lectured to groups of engineers and scientists. During these lectures the audience was held spellbound and found themselves in agreement with what they were hearing. Yet afterwards those same audiences could hardly remember anything they had heard. Perhaps this illustrates how for those used to working via Concepts a method without Concept is at one level easy to understand but at another so apparently contrary to how things "should be done" that although it might seem better it is easier to ignore. Apart from waiting for exceptional or unusual individuals like Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller to appear (and for people like Persig to explore) how is this approach to be continued or explored?

Intuitionism (the School of Maths) which I only came across yesterday (17th May 2011 - I`m adding this in) by accident (too early to say if it was more serendipity than accident) seems to . . . . . well I`ll put it in the next Post