Stephen, thanks. To add: mathematical 'ways' (I tried to use a most generalized term) are products of our any (human, of course) logic, WE humans developed and try to squeeze ALL nature into it. Probably: disregarding what does not fit (or: whatever we - so far - did not discover of the world). We don't know how truly infinitesimal our 'perceived reality' is. Looking back into human mental development, new domains, aspects, directions emerge all the time and we have no indication that we are close to any completion of our knowledge-base. Applied math serves every level and mishap faithfully (from the Flat Earth, Newton, Relativity , QM and beyond.) Even nonquanti math cannot be trusted: it is also a tool for the human ways of thinking. Let us be happy with whatever we learned and do not make it more than what it is. Kim's: > ...I will say that without mathematical (not methamatematical) >knowledge, one cannot aspire > to understand reality (in the terms a physic understand it)....< The parenthesized ending sais it all, even grammatically corrected I could paraphrase it: within the 'one plane model' of math. No qualia like "emotional" etc. no aspatial - atemporal aspects.
John M --- Stephen Paul King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All, > > Pardon the comment, but is it not obvious to all > that Mathematics is a > realm of which faithful representations of our > Physical universe span an > infinitesimal portion? Even those of us that do not > swallow the sweet Blue > Pill of Platonia can see this. ;-) > > Onward! > > Stephen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jose Ramón Brox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:17 AM > Subject: RE Lobian Machine > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>So apparently those who do not scale the dizzying > heights of > >>metamathematics have no hope of understanding > reality? > > > > I never said that, but you simply can't take a > theorem about a specific > > area, that is true > > within a context and take it out from that context > to try to use it "in > > reality", to > > "give" social explanations. That's what > pseudoscience do. > > > > I will say that without mathematical (not > methamatematical) knowledge, one > > cannot aspire > > to understand reality (in the terms a physic > understand it). > > > >>There will come a time very soon when all of this > comp stuff will > >>need to be translated into terms the LAYman can > understand easily. > >>Russell Standish has already made the attempt. I > appreciate gratly > >>his attempt. Stop wanking off that mathematics is > the ONLY script in > >>which reality is encoded. It could well turn out > to be music. > > > > You are thinking it the other way around - the > incorrect one. Music is a > > small, small part > > of physics, and therefore, it's represented by a > (quite simple) > > mathematical model. > > Reality is more complex than that model, and other > aspects of reality can > > be modelled by > > math different from the one used in the music > model, so the reality can't > > turn out to be > > music in that sense. > > > > Well, I'm speaking about the mechanical phenomena > of music, that are > > simple, not about the > > way our brains interpret it, that can be quite > complex and enjoyable > > (that's why we say > > it's an art). > > > > Jose > >