Listers, (Bruno, Torgny, et al.): some (lay) remarks from another mindset (maybe I completely miss your points - perhaps even my own ones<G>). I go with Bruno in a lack of clear understanding what "physical world" may be. It can be extended into entirely mathematical ideas beside the likable assumption of it being 'geometrical ' as well as geometry 'completely physical'. I don't see these terms agreed upon as crystal clearly (maybe my ignorance). * Then again "pure"(?) Math, the logical entirety, is in my views different from the "applied"(?) math of the diverse sciences, (please note the cap vs lower case distinction, as borrowed from the late mathematician Robert Rosen) the latter applying the former's results to quantities. (I don't want to digress here into my views about the restricted (topical) aspects of those sciences, omitting the rest of the totality that, however, may have an effect of those figments derived as 'scientific quantities' within their boundaries. It may come up in a separate (different) thread). To (I think) Torgny's remark "> > reality and hence everything could not be expressed solely in terms of physical substance and properties.<<" I would add: also depends on a possible extension of the meaning 'physical'. * Then there is the reference to 'axioms'. These "true" postulates are formed AFTER a theory was thought through to maintain the validity of that theory. So I don't consider them "proof", rather as a consequence for the statement it is supposed to underlie. I believe these are Bruno's (supporting?) words: > Arithmetic too need extra (non logical) axioms, and it is a matter of taste > (eventually) to put them in the branch of physics or math.< * Please, excuse my 'out-of-context' remarks, I wanted to illustrate a different line of thoughts - also generated in a "human" mind.

## Advertising

John M On Nov 26, 2007 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 26-nov.-07, à 04:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev: > >> > >> > >> > >>> As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately > >>> geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory > >>> of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the > >>> (probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to physical > >>> substances and properties. > >> > >> I think that everything is reducible to physical substances and > >> properties. And I think that all of physics is reducible to pure > >> mathematics... > > > > You can't have it both ways. If physics was reducible to pure > > mathematics, then physics could not be the 'ontological base level' of > > reality and hence everything could not be expressed solely in terms of > > physical substance and properties. > > > Are you not begging a bit the question here? > > > > > > > Besides which, mathematics and physics are dealing with quite > > different distinctions. It is a 'type error' it try to reduce or > > identity one with the other. > > > I don't see why. > > > > > > > Mathematics deals with logical properties, > > I guess you mean "mathematical properties". Since the filure of > logicism, we know that math is not really related to logic in any way. > It just happens that a big part of logic appears to be a branch of > mathemetics, among many other branches. > > > > physics deals with spatial > > (geometric) properties. Although geometry is thought of as math, it > > is actually a branch of physics, > > Actually I do think so. but physics, with comp, has to be the science > of what the observer can observe, and the observer is a mathematical > object, and observation is a mathematical object too (with comp). > > > > > since in addition to pure logical > > axioms, all geometry involves 'extra' assumptions or axioms which are > > actually *physical* in nature (not purely mathematical) . > > Here I disagree (so I agree with your preceding post where you agree > that we agree a lot but for not always for identical reasons). > Arithmetic too need extra (non logical) axioms, and it is a matter of > taste (eventually) to put them in the branch of physics or math. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---