The events surrounding the computer revolution (1960) wrecked chaos with the relative values of computing and maths, and thus with their relationships as scholarly bodies. Those who led the development in Silicon Valley had very little respect for the opinions of the higher mathematicians and even less for the authority of academic maths. They treated maths as an obsolete discipline which had been finally overtaken by its superior digital companion.The academic mathematicians, too, were mostly scathing about the arrival of computers. They called them “glorified calculating machines”.

The computerists treated the attitude of the math gurus towards “applications” (which most of the the academic mathematicians avoided at every opportunity) with contempt. And I’m afraid the computerists found the ancient, timeless, Platonic study in a state of delusion with its notion of transfinite sets.  Maths had effectively gone “hyper-abstract” in the 19th century. This meant that young talented mathematicians could —and would— automatically “do their own thing”: there was effectively no accountability to civic values, public priorities or common sense. The result of this unlimited freedom was that young researchers were apt to pursue weird lines of reasoning. Math had quietly transformed itself into… a platform of unlimited abstruse creativity… and one which had become unintelligible to the average intelligent layperson.

It also had a ske because mathematics tended to be introspective and myopic, and there were worrying traces of cognitive fog everywhere in maths’ routines. A famous comment was that Plato had created the scholarly subject of philosophy via his opinion that “only the timeless is real” and “the meaning of words stems from their quasi-mathematic ideals”.

I’m afraid neither the attitudes of the maths gurus nor those of the computerists will do. The maths gurus had no inkling of the basis of the intelligent public’s attitude to maths down the ages: that maths was a wonderful discipline needed to pull off ambitious massive public projects.

The computerists have “believed what they wanted to believe” with their notion that the magic of computers is down to their electronics.  They perceived that the mathematicians had set their minds against applications, so they didn’t want to let them (the mathematicians) take the credit for today’s potent computer power. The discoveries which led to much improved electronics made a difference, of course. But it was not the leading factor.

Computers are useless without good software and computers are, in effect, simply automated maths.  This means that a lot of thinking is needed to programme the machines. it is the maths-like thinking of the programmers which is the root source of the hardware’s magic.

AI is in a slightly different case. The neural networks which deliver AI outputs are, in effect, simply looking for bits of verbal text which have been used repeatedly and effectively in the past.  They also study the relationships of these tried verbal bites to each other. It is a cumbrous and very expensive way to scan the whole verbal record of humankind and select out verbal memes which lay hidden from view. But AI can only make potent verbal text out of significant uses of these already passe memes. A considerable element of guesswork is involved. That this carries great dangers hardly needs to be said.

It was no accident that many of the giants of philosophy had been mathematicians (Pythagoras, Plato, Pascal, Descartes, Russell, Whitehead, Ramsey, Popper, Lakatos), because mathematics tended to be introspective and myopic, and there were worrying traces of cognitive fog everywhere in maths’ routines. A famous comment was that Plato had created the scholarly subject of philosophy via his opinion that “only the timeless is real” and “the meaning of words stems from their quasi-mathematic ideals”.

I’m afraid neither the attitudes of the maths gurus nor those of the computerists will do. The maths gurus had no inkling of the basis of the intelligent public’s attitude to maths down the ages: that maths was a wonderful discipline needed to pull off ambitious massive public projects

The computerists, for their part, have “believed what they wanted to believe” with their notion that the magic of computers is down to their brilliant electronics.  They perceived that the mathematicians had set their minds against applications, so they didn’t want to let them (the mathematicians) take the credit for today’s potent computer power. The discoveries which led to much improved electronics made a difference, of course. But it was not the leading factor.

Computers are useless without good software, and computers are, in effect, simply automated maths.  This means that a lot of thinking is needed to programme the machines. It is the maths-like thinking of the programmers which is the root source of the hardware’s magic.

AI is in a slightly different case. The neural networks which deliver AI outputs are, in effect, simply looking for bits of verbal text which have been used repeatedly and effectively in the past.  They also study the relationships of these tried verbal bites to each other. It is a cumbrous and very expensive way to scan the whole verbal record of humankind and select out verbal memes which lay hidden from view. But AI can only make potent verbal text out of significant uses of these already passe memes. A considerable element of guesswork is involved. That this carries great dangers hardly needs to be said.

If you want to join the conversation send your thoughts to per4group@gmail.com.  CHRISTOPHER ORMELL September 7th 2026