On 1/13/2014 3:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
On 1/13/2014 1:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: Reification
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
physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a
thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea.
Like reifying arithmetic.
I do indeed!
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,
the number 2?
It's part of an explanation of where the chairs and tables etc come from.
Of course Bruno and Max would say that it's the whole of the explanation; that tables and
chairs are just mathematical objects. I don't know about Wigner, but I'm pretty sure the
other three saw mathematics as describing our models of the world - but not *being* the world.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.