Conclusion
The debate between Jean-Pierre Changeux and Alain Connes is one of the most, interesting to take place in recent years. It re-frames in a very up-to-date context a whole series of traditional and difficult questions from the standpoint of the knowledge and experience of two of the leading protagonists of contemporary science. To the choice presented by the neurobiologist between a Platonist ontology and a neurocognitive psychology of mathematical activity, the mathematician replies with a conception that is objective (neither ontological nor psychological) of the thoroughly consistent universe of mathematical idealities. It is indeed in this three-sided arena that the major difficulties play themselves out. One of the great virtues of the book is to cast a spotlight on this confrontation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cavailles, J., 1938.Methode axiomatique et Formalisme. Essai sur leprobleme des fondements des mathématiques, Paris, Hermann.
Desanti, J.T., 1968.Les Idéalités mathematiques, Paris, Le Seuil.
Dieudonne, J., 1981. “Bourbaki et la philosophie des mathématiques,”Un siècle dans la philosophie des mathématiques, Archives de I’nstitut International des Sciences Théoriques, Bruxelles, Office International de Librairie.
Feferman, S., 1989. “Infinity in Mathematics: Is Cantor Necessary?”Philosophical Topics, XVII, 2, 23–45.
Field, H., 1980.Science without Numbers, Princeton.
Kant, E., 1781–87.Critique de la Raison pure (trans. A. J. L. Delamarre and F. Marty), Paris, Pléiade, Gallimard, 1980.
Kitcher, P., 1988. “Mathematical Progress,” in “Philosophie des Mathematiques” (P. Kitcher, ed.),Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 42, 167, 518–540.
Lautman, A., 1937–39.Essai sur I’unite des mathématiques et divers écrits (reprinting of books published by Hermann between 1937 and 1939 and, posthumously, in 1946), Paris, Bourgois, 1977.
Maddy, P., 1989. “The Roots of Contemporary Platonism,”The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54, 4, 1121–1144.
Petitot, J., 1995. “Pour un platonisme transcendantal,” inL’ objectivité mathématique. Platonisme et structures formelles (M. Panza, J.-M. Salanskis, eds.), Paris, Masson, 147–78.
Petitot, J., 2003. “The neurogeometry of pinwheels as a sub-Riemannian contact structure,”Journal of Physiology-Paris, 97, 265–309.
Putnam, H., 1987.The Many Faces of Realism, Lasalle, Illinois, Open Court.
Quine, W. V. O., 1948. “On what there is,” inFrom a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1961.
Quine, W. V. O., 1969. “Existence and Quantification,”Ontological Relativity and other Essays, 91–113, New York, Columbia Univ. Press.
Resnik, M.D., 1988. “Mathematics from the Structural Point of View” in “Philosophie des Mathématiques” (P. Kitcher, ed.),Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 42, 167, 400–424.
Shanker, S.G., 1987.Wittgenstein and the Turning-Point in the Philosophy of Mathematics, State University of New York Press.
Wang, H., 1985,Beyond Analytic Philosophy, Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
Wang, H., 1987.Reflections on Kurt Gödel, Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
Willard, D., 1984.Logic and the Objectivity of Knowledge, Ohio University Press.
Wittgenstein, L., 1956.Bemerkungen uber die Grundlagen der Mathematik, Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics (G.H. von Wright, R. Rhees, G.E.M. Anscombe, eds.), Oxford, Blackwell, 1978.
Wright, C., 1988. “Why Numbers Can Believably Be: A Reply to Hartry Field,” in “Philosophie des Mathématiques” (P. Kitcher, ed.),Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 42, 167, 425–73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petitot, J. Conversations on mind, matter, and mathematics. The Mathematical Intelligencer 27, 48–56 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02985861
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02985861