From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 03:25:12 MDT
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:04:34 +0100 (BST), Simon Gordon
> --- Samantha Atkins <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Math is the abstraction of the way logically
> coherent systems work. If it did not map well to the
> > Universe then the Universe would be incoherent
> > chaos. That it isn't doesn't make it permissible
> to claim that such coherence itself is a manifestation
> of the abstraction for expressing,
> > capturing, manipulating coherent algorithms and
> > relationships..
> There are some semantic issues here: when someone
> makes a statement like "the universe is a
> manifestation of mathematics" they are talking about
> mathematics as a noun. "Mathematics" in this case
> should be read as "the platonic reality" or "the
> domain of all abstract entities". It should be noted
> that there are plenty of abstract entities which we
> would not consider to be mathematical, but would
> nevertheless be included in the ideal platonic domain.
I am not a Platonist.
> Yes its hardcore platonism and i admire your zealous
> doubt of it, but i think if you did a survey of
> sl4ers, most would concurr that this is by far the
> most intuitive way of philosophizing mathematics.
If the above is what you mean by "philosophizing mathematics" then I
don't find it at all useful for more than intellectual entertainment.
I don't see what that what most sl4ers may concur on has anything to
do with the question.
> see mathematics as simply an adjective, a process by
> which humans analyse the reality around them, is to
> underestimate the coherence of the world around us and
> overestimate its distinctiveness amongst all possible
That is not what I did. I am attempting to point out that the
universe is not a manifestation of mathematics in that the universe is
not generated from, composed of, or derived from mathematics.
Mathematics (n) did not manifest it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT