[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Whoa laddie! Mathematics is not a code, and it is not based on > observation. Observations of the world might inspire a Mathematical > concept which wonts for proof, but do not factor into the proof itself. > > Mathematics is the study of provable truth using logic, which > provides a structure for science (the aggregation of predictive > knowledge through hypothesis and observation) to work with, not the > reverse. Mathematics also provides a structure for the development of > codes. > And yet, Godel tells us that you can only create logical systems that cannot be both complete and provable at the same time.
> What I think you are mistaking here is the expression of Mathematical > constructs. This is a language or possibly several languages, not a > code. > > Godfrey > > PS: > ... > PMDL == Pentax Mathematics Discussion List > PPDL == Pentax Pun Discussion List > ... > > On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >>... I'm frequently amused by the scientists and secular >>humanists who describe what they think they see using a code they call >>mathematics. Of course since that code is based on what they have >>observed it fits this little circular universe perfectly. This of >>course proves to the weak minded that what they observe is indeed >>real. >>Doubt is the precursor to real knowledge. Arrogance is self defeating. > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
