I am thinking something profound that applies to physics, based on math. Invalid proofs are usually mistakes made by amateur math heads, correct? I am not meaning students who are just learning the art, but, masters of the game. The cosmos must resemble math if causality is correct? Or, when is causality not?
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 4/09/2017 11:42 am, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: It seems primary, unlike spoken languages. Molecules, Atoms, and Galaxies, run on the math behind the physics, The problem here is with the idea that the universe "runs on maths". That is just begging the question. Maths gives a description of the universe, just as we could describe it in French, English, or any other comprehensive language. It is just that some descriptions are more concise than others, just as some languages are more concise than others. because if the universe ran on French, we would all say Zuit Alor's Mon Deiu! We'd also make a lot of boring movies, which we do never the less. I wonder if there is any math that has been proven wrong, if you want to knock down my assertion? Hopw would we prove it wrong? Lots of maths has been proven wrong: have you never seen an invalid proof? Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 4/09/2017 9:00 am, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I cannot see Math Not being real, because it would fail, enormously, if "laws" of the cosmos, did not work. In other words, we could describe the world via phlogiston mist, or, luminiferous ether (tip o' the hat to the 19th century scientists), so it works. If math didn't work, simple objects like planets would not reliably work, circling their parent star. Are there any counter-examples, where Math fails to describe? Or, does Math have real examples of failure? Please cite these. G'wan! Is English real? Is French real? .... The fact that maths can be used to describe physical reality does not mean that it is any more "real" than any other descriptive language. Descriptive success does not imply an independent ontology for the language, or that it is "primary" in any sense. Bruce -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
