On 17 Dec 2013, at 03:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Liz My $.0001. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:23 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: On 17 December 2013 14:03, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical realitythan the physical reality. An evil demon could be responsible forour belief in atoms, and stars, and photons, etc., but it is maybe impossible for that same demon to give us the experience offactoring 7 in to two integers besides 1 and 7.But that's because we made up 1 and 7 and the defintion offactoring. They're our language and that's why we have control ofthem.If it's just something we made up, where does the "unreasonableeffectiveness" come from? (Bearing in mind that most of the non-elementary maths that has been found to apply to physics was "madeup" with no idea that it mighe turn out to have physicalapplications.)I'm not sure your premise is true. Calculus was certainly inventedto apply to physics. Turing's machine was invented with thephysical process of computation in mind. Non-euclidean geometry ofcurved spaces was invented before Einstein needed it, but it wasmotivated by considering coordinates on curved surfaces like theEarth. Fourier invented his transforms to solve heat transferproblems. Hilbert space was an extension of vector space incountably infinite dimensions. So the 'unreasonable effectiveness'may be an illusion based on a selection effect. I'm on the math-funmailing list too and I see an awful lot of math that has noreasonable effectiveness.Well, maybe my sources are misinformed (Max Tegmark for example). Iimagine the "selection effect" comes about because it's hard tothink of completely abstract topics, so a lot of maths problems willoriginate from something in the "real world". My point was that theyweren't invented (or discovered) with the relevant physicsapplication in mind (with exceptions where the physics drove themaths, like calculus).Thing is that Tegmark, and others, seem to forget that the "space ofall possible math" is not well behaved.

`tegmark is naive about math. But apparently he seems to go on comp,`

`which, thanks to Church thesis as a very well behaved notion of "all".`

`Indeed a constructive one as the UD and elementary arithmetic`

`illustrate quite well.`

We know this from Godel's theorems. So, how does it get to have wellbehaved probability densities of "reasonable effectiveness"? Are we"just lucky" or is there some kind of mechanism that allows us to"sniff out" nice math?Penrose talks of mathematical intuition. Is he "not even wrong"?

`Intuition comes from the third hypostase (the first person, S4Grz1,`

`etc.)`

(The lack of application in some cases would I suppose fit with MaxTegmark's suggestion that maths is "out there" and different partsof it are implemented as different universes.)What kind of "physical universes" are required for mathematicalentities that are not provable consistent in finite time N and yetare provably inconsistent in N+1 time?Maybe interaction is the secret. So far math is being treated asit where an eternal timeless creature. What if it isn't? What if itevolves too?

`By definition, arithmetical truth is out of the category of time`

`dependent things. Dont' confuse it with human theories which can of`

`course evolve.`

Another answer is that we're physical beings who evolved in aphysical world and that's why we think the way we do. That not onlyexplains why we have developed logic and mathematics to deal withthe world, but also why quantum mechanics seems so weird compared toNewtonian mechanics (we didn't evolve to deal with electrons).There's a very nice, stimulating and short book by William S. Cooper"The Evolution of Reason" which takes this idea and develops it andeven projects it into the future. http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Reason-Cambridge-Philosophy/dp/0521540259Surely the maths we "made up" to deal with the "classical" worldapplies to quantum mechanics, too? Or are you saying that we had tomake up a new load of maths to deal with QM, and that "quantummaths" is incommensurate with "Relativistic maths" and "Newtonianmaths" ?I think that they are "discovered", not made up, in a way thatreflect the explanation of "the world" that persons have. The onlything that physicists have over laymen is that they learned somecanonical math that was discovered by others previously.It is as if Math is a cybervirus that lives in human minds,evolves therein and reproduces itself via language.

`This asks for non-comp, and so asks for you presenting which theory`

`you work in.`

Bruno

-- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for theuse of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and maycontain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or maybe constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,distribution, or copying of this communication is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this message in error, notifysender immediately and delete this message immediately.”--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.