Here again we agree in some ways. Yes, math is a language. It is a tool used to convey concepts. As an aside here, I’ll add that because of this, it is subjective rather than objective.
However, when you say that an equation is not math, even taking into account the semantics of the thing, in context (string theory) you are incorrect. See: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/index.html Which leads to: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math2.html Which leads to: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math3.html This all comes from the site: http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html Your last paragraph, being non sequitur, I’ll just ignore for now. On May 11, 11:12 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
