Topoi

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 51–60 | Cite as

Philosophy, mathematics, science and computation

  • Enrique V. Kortright
Article

Abstract

Attempts to lay a foundation for the sciences based on modern mathematics are questioned. In particular, it is not clear that computer science should be based on set-theoretic mathematics. Set-theoretic mathematics has difficulties with its own foundations, making it reasonable to explore alternative foundations for the sciences. The role of computation within an alternative framework may prove to be of great potential in establishing a direction for the new field of computer science.

Whitehead's theory of reality is re-examined as a foundation for the sciences. His theory does not simply attempt to add formal rigor to the sciences, but instead relies on the methods of the biological and social sciences to construct his world-view. Whitehead's theory is a rich source of notions that are intended to explain every element of experience. It is a product of Whitehead's earlier attempt to provide a mathematical foundation for the physical sciences and is still consistent with modern physics.

A computer simulation language is, in fact, a theory of reality; one that is often based on extremely simplistic notions. Simulation languages have evolved from the various programming languages and not from the development of their underlying world-view. The use of an established theory of reality, such as Whitehead's, as the basis of a simulation language is proposed as a way of extending the usefulness of computer simulation as an experimental tool for the theory.

The λσ simulation language is a first step in this direction. Based on Whitehead's notion of concrescence and a formalization in the typed λ-calculus, λσ provides a notation and method for the construction and simulation of real-world phenomena. Both philosophy and computer science stand to benefit from such an attempt. Whitehead's theory gains a testing tool, while computer science gains a significantly more advanced simulation language.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, J. and Constable, R.: 1985, ‘Proofs as Programs’,ACM Transactions on Programming Languages 7, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeson, M.: 1985,Foundations of Constructive Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bernays, P. and Fraenkel, A.: 1958,Axiomatic Set Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, E.: 1967,Foundations of Constructive Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, E.: 1970, ‘Mathematics as a Numerical Language’, inIntuitionism and Proof Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Churchman, C.: 1968,The System Approach, Dell, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Code, M.: 1985,Order and Organism, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Constable, R.: 1986,Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, O.: 1966, ‘SIMULA — An ALGOL-based Simulation Language’,Communications of the ACM 9, 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dijkstra, E.: 1976,A Discipline of Programming, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Forrester, J.: 1968,Principles of Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Garey, M. and Johnson, D.: 1978,Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  13. Greenspan, D. and Casulli, V.: 1985, ‘Particle Modelling of an Elastic Arch’,Applied Mathematical Modelling 9, 215–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenspan, D.: 1989, “Particle Simulation of Biological Sorting on a Supercomputer’,Computers Math. Applic. 18, 823–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyting, A.: 1956,Intuitionism, an Introduction, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, A.: 1962,Whitehead's Theory of Reality, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kortright, E.: 1991, λσ:A Forma. Method for Simulation Based on the Typed λ-Calculus, Ph.D. dissertation, Center for Advanced Computer Studies, Lafayette, LA.Google Scholar
  18. Kortright, E.: 1990, ‘λσ: A Simulation Language Based on the Typed λ-Calculus’,Advances in Modelling and Simulation 25, 13–23.Google Scholar
  19. Kortright, E.: 1991, ‘Particle Simulation in λσ’, inProceedings of the 1991 Summer Computer simulation Conference, Society for Computer Simulation, Baltimore, MD, pp. 110–114.Google Scholar
  20. Kortright, E.: 1991, ‘Parallel Simulation in λσ’, inProceedings of the 1991 Simulation Technology Conference, Society for Computer Simulation, Orlando, FL, pp. 356–361.Google Scholar
  21. Kreutzer, W.: 1986,System Simulation, Programming Styles and Languages, Addison-Wesley, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Lakatos, I.: 1976,Proofs and Refutations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Lango, J.: 1972,Whitehead's Ontology, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Lebel, J.: 1985, ‘System Dynamics’, in Cellier, F. (Ed.),Progress in Modelling and Simulation, John Wiley, New York, pp. 119–158.Google Scholar
  25. Levin, L.: 1989,Elements of the Theory of Computation, unpublished manuscript, Boston University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Martin-Löf, P.: 1975, “An Intuitionistic Theory of Types: Predicative Part’, in Rose, H. and Shepherdson, J. (Eds.),Logic Colloquium, pp. 73–118, Elsevier North-Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Martin-Löf, P.: 1985, “Constructive Mathematics and Computer Programming’, in Hoare, C. and Shepherdson, J. (Eds.),Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, G.: 1982, ‘Zermelo's Axiom of Choice: Its Origins, Development, and Influence’, inStudies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Vol. 8, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Negoita, C.: 1985,Expert Systems and Fuzzy Systems, Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Nilsson, N.: 1971,Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Pritsker, A.: 1984,Introduction to Simulation and SLAMII, Halstead Press, New York, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  32. Pugh III, A.: 1973,DYNAMO II User's Manual, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Randers, J.: 1980,Elements of the System Dynamics Method, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Robbin, J.: 1969,Mathematical Logic, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  35. Schriber, T.: 1974,Simulation Using GPSS, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Sherburne, D. E.: 1966,A Key to Whitehead's Process and Reality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Thom, R.: 1986, ‘„Modern” Mathematics: An Educational and Philosophic Error?’ in Tymoczco, T. (Ed.),New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Ullam, S.: 1986,Science, Computers and People, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Whitehead, A.: 1958,Modes of Thought, Capricorn Books, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
  40. Whitehead, A.: 1960,Process and Reality, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Whitehead, A.: 1965,A Philosopher Looks at Science, Philosophical Library, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique V. Kortright
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNicholls State UniversityThibodauxU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations