On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Prof David West wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:13 -0600, "Owen Densmore" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm completely of Tegmark's ilk:
I assume that means you would also adhere to the sentiment
attributed to
Einstein:
"How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of
human
thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably
appropriate to the objects of reality?" Which contains the
fallacy, "independent of experience."
Well, if Al agrees, I'm OK being in his camp! Phooey on your fallacy.
Thought - and mathematics! - is but a refined metaphor of experience.
(following Lakoff)
Fine. But none the less, why is it that the subject line is so
enigmatically true? .. why do we observe: The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?
I presume you'd say that experience weld Science and Math together.
So? That does not negate the wonder of The Unreasonable Effectiveness.
My friend Nick to whom I addressed all this (we spar over the
importance of math) might claim that Math is not particularly
effective. Do you?
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
