Mathematics is effective because there are regularities in nature. (Is that tautological/true/trivial?)
Assuming it's at least true, it seems to me that the real question is why there are regularities in nature? Once one grants that there are, then it would seem obvious that a language that can describe them will be effective. Also, assuming it's at least true, another question is how do those regularities come about? That's a primary concern of my "Reductionist blind spot" paper. -- Russ On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > >> Well said/observed David, I too am a Lakoff/Johnson/Nunez fan in this >> matter. >> >> While I am quite enamored of mathematics and it's fortuitous application >> to all sorts of phenomenology, Physics being somehow the most "pure" in an >> ideological sense, I've always been suspicious of the conclusion that "the >> Universe *is* Mathematics". >> > > OK: Show how it is not, then. > > This discussion also begs the age-old question of whether we are >> "inventing" or "discovering" mathematics. >> > > No it doesn't. We are discovering it. We are slowly becoming wise. We are > uncovering the Structure of Everything. We are peaking under the Rug. God > is one smart dude. > > Similarly, it revisits the question of whether discoveries in mathematics >> portend discoveries in Physics (or other, "messier" phenomenological >> observations). >> > > They are independent. That's the wonder to which the subject refers. > > > -- 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 >
============================================================ 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
