Philosophy and mathematics

Mathematics and Philosophy are two academic fields that are similar, in that they explore the more
abstract question about the universe. And at the core of both fields' lies logic and it appears that
experts in these fields regard reasoning and ideas as the most reliable source of knowledge. In this
essay, I will explore the similarities and differences of Maths and Philosophy, provide a philosophical
argument and one mathematical proof, then sees how the two differ and how to criticize the
conclusion, then see if criticism may lead to new knowledge or justified beliefs.

Mathematics and Philosophy two of the oldest collections of human endeavours. The most
contemporary definition of what is Mathematics; “It is the science of structure, quantity, change,
and space and the interactions between them. While mathematical ideas can be inspired by
everyday observations, it is a characteristic feature of mathematical truth that it is derived with
logical reasoning on the basis of sound definitions. “The tool used to get to the truth, is a
mathematical proof, rigorous logical reasoning of a claim or theorem. Philosophy can be described
as “an academic study of anything”, and its tool of reasoning is an argument, logical sound
argument.

Let’s formulate a theorem and construct a proof. Definition let N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …} and we call N a
set of natural numbers.

“Prime Numbers: a natural numbers p ≥ 2 such that it only has 1 and p as it’s natural number divisor
is called a prime number. Ƥ = {2,3,5,7,11,17,...}, it is worth to note that there’s no mathematical
formula for the that predict the sequence of prime numbers. So now what is left to check whether
this set finite? That is, is there pn such that for all p element of Ƥ, p ≤ pn? Thus pn be the last and
biggest prime. Euclid has already proved this, Theorem: The set Ƥ of prime numbers is not finite.

Proof. Let us assume the contrary, i.e. suppose that there are exactly finitely many

prime numbers p1 ,p2 ..., pn for some n ∈ N. We know that there are prime numbers

such as 2 and hence n ≥ 1. That is, the finite set P = {p1 , p2 , ..., p n } is the set of all

prime numbers and it is not empty. Now consider the product of all these numbers

plus one: k = p1×p2× ... ×pn +1.

This number k > 1 has a prime divisor p and hence p ∈ Ƥ. Then p divides the

product p1×p2× ... ×pn and the number k and hence it divides also 1 = k − p 1 p 2 ...p n ,

which is impossible. This means that we have a contradiction and our assumption

was wrong. Thus, the set Ƥ of prime number cannot be finite.” Q.E.D

What we assumed on the proof: Lemma: Any natural number n > 1 has a prime divisor p ∈ Ƥ. This is
proof by contradiction, one of the most useful tools of mathematical proof. Some questions that
may arise after the proof, what does it mean for a set to be finite or infinite? Is there a largest
number? I will address these questions later in the text.
Now let’s look at Philosophical argument. I will look at the Chinese room by John R. Searle. First, we
look at the bases of the argument. Alan M. Turing developed a test called The Turing test, also
referred to as the Imitation Game; “it requires three terminals each of which is physically separated
from the other two. One terminal is operated by a computer, while the other two are operated by
humans. One of the human’s functions as the questioner, while the second human and the
computer function as respondents. The questioner interrogates the respondents within a certain
subject area, using a specified format and context. After a pre-set length of time or number of
questions, the questioner is then asked to decide which respondent was human and which was a
computer. If the interrogator can’t tell the difference then the computer is said to have Artificial
intelligence (AI)”.

Modern Researchers have gone further to classify types of AI, first is the weak AI, this is a computer
that can only mimic some portion of human behavior or mind, like a calculator for counting, camera
for taking a picture, pretty every computer that exists right now. Then there's Strong AI, this is a
computer that actually thinks like a human, whatever that our brain does Strong AI does it too,
which means it has human abilities and mind like a program. And is required to pass the Turing test.

Searle argues that there’s more to thinking like a human than simple manipulation of symbols, that
our mind uses semantic not just syntax. Semantics is the meaning of the symbols, the syntax is just
the orderly arrange the symbols, that is 1+1 = 2. To refute the claim for AI Searle made a thought
experiment, called a Chinese room, it goes like this: “Suppose you don’t understand Chinese and you
are placed in a room with a rule book in English for matching Chinese symbols with other Chinese
symbols, the rule book identifies the symbols by their shape and does not require you know
understand. E.g. take square shape sign from box 1 and put it next to circle shape from box 2.

Now, Imagine people outside the room understand Chinese and the input some Chinese symbol in
the room, which you'll now take the rule book to find a response. Say the rule book is written in such
a way that the response is indistinguishable from that of people who knows Chinese, in this manner,
you have response will pass the Turing test for speaking Chinese, but you still don't know or
understand the Chinese language. And furthermore, there's no way you can understand the
language from the room, even though you are communicating with the natives". This is what a
computer does, it manipulates symbols and not attach meaning. With this thought experiment,
Searle concludes that symbol-manipulation devices are not sufficient to guarantee cognition. And
conclude that machine can’t understand things or language like a human being does. This is what is
known as an argument by analogy, a very useful tool in philosophical reasoning.

From the mathematical proof and philosophical argument, we see that in both cases we arrive at a
conclusion without any empirical evidence like in other fields in science (Physics, etc.). In these
fields, rationalism seems to be the most reliable tool for knowledge, but one can’t help but feel one
of the conclusions feels final while the other is provisional, that is, prime numbers are infinite, that’s
final while saying machine can’t understand or have mind seems debatable. I will go as further as to
say the philosophical argument give “justified belief” while mathematical proof gives knowledge.
Justified belief simply means the relationship that a person has with a proposition base on a valid
logical conclusion which may not be determinant (for truth) at the time, Also known as a personal
propositional attitude of truth.
Now let's look at the debate that arises from Searle conclusion. Before I unpack the argument of
Searle, let's look at what Alan Turing meant, I will use an analogy. Let's suppose one of the AI
researchers has used the Bayes statistics to learn basic skills, Speech recognition, Reinforcement
Learning Algorithms, and all the other machine learning algorithms to create a neural network
structure "brain" then a humanoid body which outside looks and sounds the same as human, the
body is designed in such a way that it perceives/feels different pressure and with the machine
learning learn to differentiate types of pains (pressure or heat) and it has passed the Turing test.
Now suppose you walking at University Avenue and this humanoid approach and commence a
conversation since it passed the Turing test you'll be convinced, it is a human, because it looks, feels
and sounds like a human. And at that point, there's no way you'll ever know you interacting with a
machine. I can go as far as to claim this humanoid can be a viable and productive member of the
society with all its analytical skills. So this is an AI, the argument about whether it has consciousness
is unnecessary because it is producing the same results as the person who has consciousness.

Now we have to ask if this machine is thinking like a human. As Searle argues. let’s look at how
people think, when you are a kid, you learn through experience, from the testimony of others, they
tell you this is a banana and your brain takes that picture and save it, then use it as a template of
what is a banana for future references, all the senses make their own templates, that's how we
learn. And we access this knowledge and call that thinking. Machine learning is “algorithms and
statistical models that use computer systems to effectively perform a specific task without using
explicit instructions, relying on patterns and inference instead”. So when the machine is shown a
banana it will analyse the shape, texture and all the physical properties of banana and find patterns,
assign a unique statistic thus have semantics, and this is thinking, the machine is thinking! It
perceives so it aware. Of course, this machine is still manipulating symbols to give output. Is this how
our human mind works? No, but we got the same results, so the machine is as capable as we are.
We can use the machine “brain” as a model to understand our minds, but we can’t deny it’s
personhood at this point nor its ability to think.

This argument helps me demonstrate the fact that Searle's argument’s conclusion cannot be
regarded as knowledge, even though it has merit, so at best it can be a justified belief, at least not
knowledge like what the mathematical proof concludes.

Now let's look at some questions or criticism of the maths proof. A Set is a collection of object which
we call elements in one structure, each element is unique. A finite set is a set with an element that
can be counted, to a number n, where is a natural number, we call this number a cardinality. So an
infinite set is one with infinite cardinality. One can ask why does the number k have to have a prime
divisor? The proof assumed familiarity with the lemma that any n>1 has a prime divisor. Knowing all
this makes the proof understandable and thus conclusive.

Some assumption was that there’s no largest number in natural, so you can pick pn to be as big as
you can imagine the set will still have pn+1. It is on this point that I have my own argument, we say
there's the largest number because of every n < n+1 but this just saying you found the biggest paper
and show up with a pile of papers. My claim: 1 is the biggest number. What about 2? That's just 1
and 1, what about pi? That’s 1 and 1 and 1 and some proportions of 1. Imagine putting two humans
in a costume and call it the biggest human. Let express this argument in mathematical notions.
Let V be a vector space, that is; “it is a non-empty set V with an addition operation between its
elements and a multiplication operation of its elements by numbers in K, that satisfy the properties
called axioms of a vector space”. K is a mathematical object called field. Real numbers set is 1-
dimensional vector space, this means it has one canonical basis and that basis is 1. a basis of a vector
space is a system of d linearly independent vectors {v1, v2, . . . , vd} such that for every v ∈ V there
exists a unique set of scalars {λ1, . . . , λd} ⊂ K such that v = Σ λivi, for example 3 = 1+ 1+1 in a reals
vector space.

So 1 is the biggest number, what does this mean to our proof? If you look carefully you can realize
that this argument talk about 1 as an object where else the proof talks about the quantity relation of
numbers, that is the cardinality, so cardinality of 2 > cardinality of 1 and you can't say set of
cardinality 4 = set of cardinality 2 times 2. so when we talk about the biggest number we refer to
number corresponding to the biggest cardinality and since there's no biggest cardinality then there is
no biggest number, and the proof this stand, knowledge attained, unlike in the philosophical
argument. But this argument helps us understand the notion even more. This happens in maths, a
famous example is that of Bishop George Berkeley criticizing Newton calculus the modern analyst
accept mysteries in the form of infinitesimals, and illogical reasoning to get the results they want.
Which was then resolve by having a better definition of limits.

What I discover from my study of Philosophy is that, it enables us to think about any question
without our physical limitation to verify it and still find a merit in our abstraction, it gives us ideas
and models on how to define and ultimately understand things, I feel most of the results of
philosophical argument are provisional that's why there so many debates in philosophy, but being
provisional does not mean it is not true or it's true, just mean it is indeterminate, not testable at the
moment. Mathematics is essentially philosophy the difference is that maths uses explicitly axioms
and rigorously proven theorem with nothing left undefined, thus its conclusions seem to be final,
that is we can't have two different conclusions for the same concept only one has to be right, whilst
in philosophy one can have valid different argument for the same phenomenon. Which I term
justified belief since it's different from just believing blindly.
 References
Vasco, B. 2011. Fundamentals of Mathematics Sets, Logic and Relations. Cape Town: University of
Cape Town.

Searle, J.R. 1990. Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer Program? Scientific American. 262 (1):26-31

Margaret, R. 2017. Turing Test. Available:

https://searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/definition/Turing-test [2019, March 10]

CrashCourse Philosophy. 2016. Artificial Intelligence & Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #23.
Available: https://youtu.be/39EdqUbj92U?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&t=325
[2019, March 08]