K¸Ø¥en÷¿ne¼thB.

K¸Ø¥en÷¿ne¼thB.

@whateverscience.bsky.social

Typical male who thinks he’s smarter than he actually is. Likes snacks and planet Earth very much & 1, 6, 30, 138, 606, 2610, 11070, 46386 ... https://www.instagram.com/elizabethichadok?igsh=MTcxYnVjYnh2c3gyZA%3D%3D&utm_source=qr

38 followers18 following3K posts

Yet, even after decades of advances in computational cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience, I believe a question Gödel raised but did not fully pursue remains. What role does human cognition play in justifying mathematical knowledge?

More broadly, neither formal rigor nor greater descriptive detail establishes that a model captures the phenomenon it purports to explain. As I’ve noted, a formal model raises its own question of justification.

Gödel’s work suggests that a psychological investigation is warranted, if not necessary. He thus turned to cognition and mathematical “intuition.” But I’d argue he didn’t sufficiently pursue the line of thinking, despite the considerable scholarship devoted to interpreting his notes.

K¸Ø¥en÷¿ne¼thB. reposted

Replying to @whateverscience.bsky.social

A little background knowledge, casually spoken. Russell and Whitehead (1910-1913) were trying to establish the logical foundations of mathematics, a project derailed by Gödel (1932).

K¸Ø¥en÷¿ne¼thB. reposted

Replying to @whateverscience.bsky.social

In his 1922 introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, Russell distinguishes what happens in our minds when we mean something and the logical conditions that allow one fact to represent another. The psychological question, he says, is not the logician’s concern.

BlueSky changed their app to fit my tablet “properly,” so I presume was their thinking. And I was just now starting to not get used to writing on social media. This may require a period of adjustment for me.

K¸Ø¥en÷¿ne¼thB. reposted