From: Daniel Radetsky (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 21 2006 - 13:54:42 MST
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:48:52 +1100 (EST)
Marc Geddes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Let's just say that that I see no reason why reality
> should be 100% consistent (in mathematical terms).
I assume that you are not denying the law of non-contradiction here, but
instead you mean to say that no mathematical system could describe reality and
be 100% consistent as you suggest later.
> Suppose mathematics was not in fact the single unitary
> thing that mathematicians think it is? Suppose that
> there are in fact several different kinds of
> mathematics needed to fully capture reality
> ('dualities' is the technical term) and the different
> kinds of math are not totally consistent with each
Why should I suppose that?
> It's also a dogma that mathematical truth is eternal
> (time independent). I see no reason why this should
> be so. Suppose that mathematical truth can in fact,
> shift slightly with time?
As the other poster said, why should I suppose that either?
> Combine the two ideas above and you have an idea for
> 'mathematical causality'. Mathematical causality
> could the process of the different kinds of
> mathematics becoming more consistent with time.
Okay, but so far I have no reason to believe that either of the two ideas
necessary for me to believe in mathematical causality, so I don't see why I
should believe in mathematical causality at all.
You present a very strong challenge to the status quo of mathematics.
This is fine, but it means you should give very good arguments if you don't
want me to think you're just a crank.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT