Role of interpretation

Role of interpretation

[Vaughan Pratt]

Not that there's been much warring with set theory, foundations of
mathematics, or universal algebra lately on this list, but it occurs to
me that what I wrote a couple of days ago at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sokal_Affair#Analogy_with_religion

namely how I view the Sokal Affair, might be equally applicable to such
wars.

Wars can result from differences of opinion. e.g. ownership of
territory, interpretations, cardinality of the set of Gods (I hold that
it is a square, hence not a prime like 2 or 3, but am open to all
arguments to the contrary), or from perceived slights (gloves thrown
down, tactless cartoons, etc.), or failing economies (starvation, etc.),
or psychopathic dictators (Hitler, Mobutu), etc.

These alternatives suggest that perhaps not a great proportion of wars
are attributable to differences of interpretation.  9/11 however seems
to me inextricably linked to problems of interpretation, in particular
how such core references as the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, etc., each
held to be *the* word of God by its disciples, are to be understood and
applied, about which there is presently great disagreement just where it
seems to matter most.

Whatever strategies turn out to reconcile these differences effectively
may be just as effectively applied to category theory, lattice theory,
universal algebra, foundations of mathematics, and whatever else ticks
off the conservative end of the mathematical spectrum.  Which presently
rather ticks me off, I consider them a bunch of dogmatic atheists.  Why
can't they be a little more agnostic?

Let's make agnosticism a legitimate belief system.

Vaughan