Extrapolating Math To Human Concepts

Humans and Mother Nature don't always act the same.

Under topics such as ThereAreNoTypes there seems to be a recurring issue of applying math concepts to non-math concepts - RealWorldEntities. For example, in "traditional" math you can safely say things like "x will always be a subset of y" and rely on that assumption forever and ever. One does not have to consider the cost of changing that assumption later. But with real-world things that is not always the case. Marketers, managers, lawyers, law-makers, etc. can get pretty creative (in a good and bad sense) and turn the tables on previously-established concepts.

Of itself that doesn't mean math is out of luck on such things, see NonMonotonicLogic for one example of a system designed to deal with such things. There aren't inherent limits on what can be analyzed by mathematics, because it is just a way of formalizing how we think, in a way that allows rigorous conclusions to be drawn.

Further, there are often multiple ways to model something with math. A given approach may make an interesting mental exercise, but not necessarily be the final word.

Changing technology is another monkey-wrench: before we had PDA's as one device and a cell-phone as another. Now a given device can be both. If there were laws governing cell-phones before, now the issue of whether cell-phone laws should cover a dual device pops up. An actual case of this type of thing is Canada courts trying to make a distinction between voice phone lines and data phone lines. The lines are so blurred now that Canada is thinking about overhauling huge chunks of its telephone laws.

A similar thing is happening in the US; the traditional telcos are arguing that various VoiceOverIp services are in fact telephone companies, and should be taxed and regulated as such. The VoiceOverIp companies disagree, of course.

See ClassificationProblem

CategoryMath