Mathematics and Experience: Between Rationality, Empiricism and Kantianism

Mathematics and Experience: Between Rationality, Empiricism and Kantianism 1) Historical entry: For the Greeks, mathematics was an attraction to the eternal truth. It was providing a “philosophical spirit,” carrying it to look up, not down. It made the intellect get used to dealing with abstractions regardless of their sensory simulations. Plato says: "The task of mathematical science is not to serve merchants in buying and selling as the ignorant believe, but to facilitate the path of the soul in its transition from the circle of mortal things to the contemplation of eternal fixed truth (1), for example, the number "3" in the Greeks has an objective existence independent of its tangible representations in our physical world (three pens), the latter is deficient and changing; therefore Plato did not hesitate to introduce mathematical beauty (numbers and geometric forms) in the field of the divine creation (2). After the intensive efforts of the Arabs in mathematics, the Westerners completed the course of human civilization, and its fruits were only from the beginning of the history of Newton (1650), which contributed strongly and somehow made mathematics: symbolic, for example, expressed geometric shapes with symbols allowed to produce forms that do not exist in the sensory world, and this was a liberation of another kind of mathematics from the world, and we will see the philosophical debate about these new creatures as in Leibniz and others, with the great knowledge boom that took place. Philosophically and scientifically, even on the mathematical side, I have done the quantitative aspect of mathematics and probability, and thus fused the mathematics and physics in a new way, so how can mathematics, which is the product of my mind in the audience of thinkers in advance and back to describe the unknowns of experience? How from one scenario (physical reality) does man get infinite scenarios (mathematical reality) and then uses the latter to describe the first? 2) Mathematics between (mental doctrine) and (experimental doctrine): Mental doctrine: The mind is the basis of knowledge and the meaning of the mind is the tribal laws (i.e. known before the interaction of the child with the world) which impose on the experimental data, we look at the world through causality and non-contradiction, which are foundations that we do not gain through interaction with the world, of course the rational recognizes that experience provides us with a lot of knowledge, but the experimental information is placed in a kind of mental vessels, the existence of our common sense. There are mental templates ready but latent in the child ignited with the first interaction with the world, causality is cognitive and not derived from the surrounding world only. God’s presence in this doctrine is straight and easy, so we judge the mind with no sense of security in it except by imposing an absolute divine right from which man derived these existential certainty, and also if we apply our causal existential perception of the world and reflect on its system (the guide of care) We cut that the world has a creator mastermind. The French mathematician Hermite (1901) responds by saying, "I think that numbers are not only the free product of our mind, but exist outside us and are necessary, and we encounter and discover them as physicists and chemists discover and the committees of Diodnieh and Alain Cooney say." Empiricism: All kinds of knowledge are derived from experience, however great our knowledge must be due to sensibilities, whether the knowledge is as strong and obvious as the causality, which Hume attributed to repeated impressions of the world, or experimental generalizations, which the problem of induction met terrifyingly throughout the history of empiricism,7 as John Locke and Hume's followers and mill on the truth of mathematics and logic are weak or not, to be given the most important logical situation in the twentieth century. 3) Kantian authorship: Between the reassuring rationalists and the experimental sceptics Kant tried (we talk about the triangle between the two angles of the equation of the triangle and the point after reading the book Hume and start in 1769) to build a common crossing, Cant can not be the interaction with the experience source judgments fixed just the perception of its violation in any world leads us to a contradiction, there must be something added to the experience of the same human to produce these tribal judgments is intuition, the source of tribalism is the same mind. In our world, when man interacts with the world, his tribal mental components merge with the experimental world, and despite the many efforts made by Kant, he has failed; the Euclidean geometry that Kant venerates and makes its contradiction lead to a logical contradiction: betrayed by other geometry such as Riemann’s, the problem of the applicability of tribal knowledge to the outside world has not been solved, especially in tribalism that cannot actually be achieved, such as other geometry, imaginary numbers, infinity, and so. It is also good to mention the basis of the Kantian project, which is also an example of intuition, which is our perception of time and tribal space, so he presented a very important work, the criticism of the abstract mind, where he discussed at the beginning how time and space are additional intuitions of the mind to see the world, and what he presented in this treatment was his discussion of: Is time and space only relations to things? Or is it a way of looking at things? And linking them or separating them, and thus to convert the raw sensory impressions to knowledge of subjects called experience, so no knowledge of time does not progress to experience but with all of them, but although all of our knowledge begins with experience, it does not emerge from experience, because it is possible that our experimental knowledge itself is a composite of what we receive from sensory impressions, and what about our cognitive ability (just stimulated by sensory impressions) is automatically issued and forms a difference. The perception of a relationship between two things, such as the causal relationship, based on our ability to perceive things within time and space, and let us hear here the introduction Kant: "All our knowledge begins with experience and no doubt about it, because our cognitive ability will not wake up to science if it is not done through topics that shock our senses, it causes on the one hand the occurrence of perceptions automatically, and moves understanding when compared and linked or separated, and thus converts the raw impressions senses to knowledge of subjects chronologically. About the raw material before the length of the exercise alerted us and made us skilled in distinguishing it from them. Here is the question of pure empiricism: where do you get these issues (or necessities)? And to what do you base their importance to live up to these absolutely necessary and absolutely honest facts? There is no other way except through the understandings and intuitions, which are either tribal (or necessary from outside experience) or given a dimension (i.e. from experience), and the latter cannot involve absolute necessity and totality (8). Kant does not concede to rationalists that ideas are purely mental and does not concede to experimenters that they are purely sensory; he disagrees with experimentalists, especially on the important and crucial point that mathematics is a tribal Turkic, which means that there are issues that provide us with information about the world, but the fact of them is nevertheless a necessary kiss, Kant has thus represented causality, which he expressed by saying: "Every change is possible according to the law of the link between cause and effect. In his book, he also strongly criticizes the rational project and does not recognize any perception outside of sensory experience that research into what is and what is the same is contradictory, and sums up his criticism of rationality by saying: "A light dove that slices air with its free flight may imagine that flying will be easier in empty space!", but he nevertheless strongly rejects that pure sensation can be understood which is what empiricality is based on, and we summarize Kantian authorship by saying: "thoughts without contents." But how can one trust the necessary validity of tribalism? Kant's doctrine is somewhat innate but different from Descartes's innate necessity in that the latter claims that ideas are completely independent of experience, but Kant has failed to answer for the relation of necessity to reality, how much subjectivity there is, and the interference of experience. More importantly, he has not succeeded in criticizing Hume's experience and interpreting causality as a relational necessity. If we look at Kant's method of analyzing causality and pushing the disturbing problem of Hume, you will find only complex abstract words to prove the objectivity of causality instead of interpreting it Seculologia; and you will find the most important thing in it, which is the argument discussed by researchers until now: when man sees something and let it be a house; he can flip the order of sensory perceptions, he notices the surface first and then the ground role and so on, but when he realizes an accident and the extent of a ship in the sea. So this arrangement is not subjective but belongs to the phenomena themselves and not to my understanding of them, and so in the perception of the sensory event there is a permanent rule that makes the arrangement of the sensory perceptions necessary. Hume error in understanding the causality of explanation by repeated observation of the sequence "a" and "b", because we will not be able to discern the compound "a" and then "b" (accident) in the first place unless there is a rule that makes it necessary for the order of our sensory perceptions to be so and not otherwise, in short: the very experience of an external incident may by implication require an understanding of the supreme necessity. Kant's argument took a lot of luck from looking, criticism and thinking, but we do not care about its length, complexity and futility, especially since logical positivism uprooted the tree from its origin with more logical unity, language refuge and analysis are their way, and the language response to the Hume connection when behaviorists and their interpretation of language acquisition (and mathematics as part of it) all this will be discussed in the next articles. References: 1 D. Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, p. 58 59. 2 Ibid., p. 60. (3) We will not speak in the statement of this is outside the subject of research, but we point out that most Arabs did not agree with the numbers of Greeks in the existence of objective mathematics - except for the Safa brothers, for example - but unfortunately most of the attention was impressed by Aristotelian logic, and can review the flaws of Aristotelian logic in the book of Aristotelian limit of Sultan al-Amiri, and in the text of Sharifa Ibn Taymiya says: "Natural science is the knowledge of external objects and the same and the same. Answer to the Logicians p. 133. 4 Roland Amnis, The Philosophy of the Quantum, translated by Ahmed Fouad Pasha and Yemen Kholi. 5 Jabri, Philosophy of Science, p. 136. 6 See the foreword of Muhammad Musa for his translation "The Origins of Mathematics". 7 See my article; Foundations of Experimental Science, 3rd issue of the journal Brahin. 8 Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Moses and Gift, pp. 45-71. 9 Abdurrahman Badawi, Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Kant translation. 10 John Cottingham, Rationalism, translated by Mahmoud al-Hashimi, p. 98. 11 Ibid., p. 99. 12 See my article; Causality Between Experimental Science and Philosophy, The Journal of Mask Detection. 13 John Cottingham, Rationalism, translation by Mahmoud al-Hashimi, p. 101. See, for example, Roger Scruton's book on this subject, Kant: A Very Short Introduction. - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Posted on 2015-06-02 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/philosophy/الرياضيات-والتجربة-بين-العقلانية-والتجريبية-والكانطية