proposal: 1)Instead of asking what is fundamental about math, we can consider the case of math in physics and ask what is fundamental among the subset of mathematical objects' directly in play in the equations and operations describing physics . 2)If ONE of these objects can be isolated and a high level definition associated with it. And if despite the high level of definition the 'service' is nevertheless manifestly unique (i.e. not like another 'object' ) and ubiquitously active in ALL physics equations and all or most operations 3) If that Object directly implies one or more Limiting Potential of maths 4) and if the limiting potentials -- provide a superior explanation of the varying productivity across the sciences - imply the limiting potential of math to describe physics and natural law generally - imply the limiting potential of math in all possible applications THEN pending scrutiny would this have the sort of characteristics sufficient to be a candidate proof math is not fundamental?
-- 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.
