I don't believe that I 'failed to state' anything. You implied that the foundations of string theory were somehow less relevant because of the age of the math used.
My point was that the math would be no less relevant if it were created yesterday or found in cave drawings created 30,000 years ago. Math is math. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:38 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > “Just out of curiosity, why would math from the 1800's be any less > relevant > than math from today?...” – Chuck > > Chuck, rather than using the fallacy of ‘failure to state” (http:// > www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#state ) along with > misdirection, what are you asserting here? Are you suggesting that > math doesn’t advance over time?... > > Oh, and one simple math equation might answer your own question > simply: > E=mc2 > > My main point which appears to have been missed by you was that string > theory is based upon math. Math is but a representation of reality. > Math is not reality. Therefore strings, not being founded in the > material world, are “not any different in nature than the beliefs > people hold about what appears to be outside of themselves already > discussed.”...my main point. > > “…Did the meaning of 2 + 2 change when I wasn't looking?” – Chuck > > Again, what are you claiming, if anything? Such Red Herrings are > beneath your talents Chuck. > > > On May 10, 12:45 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, why would math from the 1800's be any less > relevant > > than math from today? Did the meaning of 2 + 2 change when I wasn't > looking? > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:20 AM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to strings, branes etc., I’ve done some research and > > > reading and, while interesting, find it not any different in nature > > > than the beliefs people hold about what appears to be outside of > > > themselves already discussed. In fact, if anything, it is even more of > > > a dream since it is based upon math…and math from the 1800s at that. >
