On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks for restating your position on the relevancy of the math used > in string theory. That is what you are stating, right?...that the > math in string theory is relevant. Also, that it is ‘real’ somehow? > That it is meaningful somehow? That it actually impacts our lives in > some non-philosophical way, right? Admittedly, I’m guessing on most of > these points and await your true thinking. > Uh, yea. If the math used to describe string theory is free of error then it is relevant. I'm not sure why this should be a huge issue but, whatever... > Lastly, we disagree that ‘math is math’ in the sense that math from > one era is as ‘relevant’ as math from another. I used the example of > E=mc2. . . something that I don’t see addressed by your response > unless that is that you somehow wish to equate the math ‘found in cave > drawings created 30,000 years ago’ with it. Is that your > position?...that all math, from the simplest to the most complex is > just as ‘relevant’? I suggest that there are different levels of math > and of math complexity. I further suggest that math is a human > construct…*only*. > First, E=mc2 is not math. It is a relationship that is described by an algebraic equation. I didn't feel the need to point that out so I ignored it. Math is a language. It is a tool that is used to convey concepts. Nothing more or less. If a caveman 30,000 years ago had created a mathematically correct construct it would be just as correct today as it was 30,000 years ago.
