Liz, et al, The so called 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is obvious in a universe where reality math actually computes reality. That couldn't be any simpler or clearer.
Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:06:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> On 1/13/2014 1:29 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: >> >>> On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote: >>> >>> Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: >>> Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced >>> concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when >>> an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if >>> it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is >>> the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, >>> but merely an idea. >>> >>> >>> Like reifying arithmetic. >>> >> >> I do indeed! >> >> :-) >> >> Fallaciously? ;-) >> > > Quite possibly, of course! But in my humble opinion, Max Tegmark and Bruno > and Eugene Wigner (and Galileo, Gauss, Einstein etc) do have a point, that > maths does seem to "kick back" and to be "unreasonably effective", and I > think that it's worth thinking about why that is, even if it leads us into > what may be wild flights of fancy ... just in case they turn out not to be. > >> >> In your model of the world, with chairs and tables and planets and >> people, where is the number 2? >> >> It's part of an explanation of where the chairs and tables etc come from. > > (Perhaps!) > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
