The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Is the Universe Made of Math? [Excerpt]
Replies: 11   Last Post: Jan 29, 2014 9:50 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
altergnostic

Posts: 2
Registered: 1/13/14
Re: Is the Universe Made of Math? [Excerpt]
Posted: Jan 14, 2014 5:10 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> altergnostic wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>

>>>
>>> "Both math and physics are ASPECTS of reality."????
>>>
>>>
>>> You got that all wrong!
>>>
>>>
>>> Both math and physics are ASPECTS of *YOUR* reality, not reality itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> You simply are *structured* to view reality physcally and mathematically...
>>>
>>> you are projecting...
>>>
>>> you are reading into it, not reading from it.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's an illusion! A very persistent stubborn illusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Starmaker
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a differece between reading 'into' Nature, and reading 'from' Nature....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You people do a lot of 'reading into Nature'....I wish you would stop this nonsence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You people give Nature a bad name?

>>
>> Potato, potahto.
>> Admittedly, reality just is, period. Any added adjective is of our own
>> making, and serves to help us understand and, yes, relate to it on a
>> rational basis.
>> That doesn't mean there are both adequate and inadequate descriptions (or
>> projections, if you like). If i project my belief that reality is made of
>> frutyiolpfs, which are transcendental objects made of love and clay, is
>> that SCIENTIFICALLY valid?

>
>
> The answer is Yes! If "frutyiolpfs" passes observation and experiment,
> and you are structured to
> view reality as frutyiolpfs, then it is scientifically valid.


Ah, there you go. There are conditions that make a claim scientifically
valid, as you enumerated. Currently, frutyiolpfs are not valid, as there is
no model nor evidence of transcendental entities made of love and clay (to
the point where the sentence has little meaning).
If frutyiolpfs was to pass scientific scrutiny, it could very well be
stated they are aspects of reality.
Currently, math and physics are as much aspects of reality as time-wasting
discussions are aspects of sci.physics.relativity. Falsify this claim, i
dare you.

>
>
> Change the structure of your brain and you change your reality, the way
> you view the universe.


Change reality and you change reality, yes. Currently, reality includes
this structure if the brain, and math and physics seem to work when
describing nature, se we are allowed to infer they are discovered, not
invented, aspects of reality. You are also allowed to say they aren't and
we are all just brainsturbating, as i agreed: reality just is, any
advective is of our own making. So, with all that in mind, i still feel
safe to say that reality has physicality and mathematicalicality, i think
Gaia knows what i mean and says it's fine, if this helps us understand her.

>
>
> Currently, you are structured to view the universe as
> mathematically...somewhere else...maybe another
> planet, some alien on a flying saucer may have a different brain
> structure...frutyiolpfs.
>
>
> How do you think the alien from another planet flies the flying saucer?


By doing the opposite of rejecting all his science because he was just
projecting. ;)



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.