Wow. Kind of different than what I said about the conversation in question!!
You said "I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the claim that maths applies to reality is science, not maths." What makes you say that? Did you support this somewhere when I started to skim?
You called it a claim. How can mathematics as a whole not apply to reality? What quality of math makes the claim not apply to it?
That was an arbitrary comment which on second thought was irrelevant. I didn't support it. Care to question?
Also, I was vague. Something like "The claim that mathematics applies to reality in the way you cite..." would have been more appropriate. I take what I said back and replace it with that.
Now whether it can or can't be fact and assumption at the same time, I don't think I can say.Fact: Something that is true and we know to be true through logic. (I question here whether truth is a necessary condition of a fact, I believe it is and it just means that we cannot describe a fact unless it is based on pre-formed (man made for lack of remembering a better word) principles. And even then I question that we cannot know our own minds and so perhaps we are incorrectly assuming that we can use our minds to solve equations when perhaps we are not following our own rules... I hope that made sense, I'm in work so if it's unclear ask me to explain when I'm not at work
( ... )
Good definitions, but how are they derived, and can they be shown to be preferred? Stating definitions is unlikely to clear up a definition conflict, as here.
That's an interesting point - I'd rather say that the origins of something do not limit how it proceeds now, so can be disregarded.
The problem holds, and is in fact what I was trying to invoke in that conversation. Though now that I load your Wikipedia link I notice that it links to two online texts - Hume and Russel. Fantastic! *bounces off*
Comments 6
You said "I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the claim that maths applies to reality is science, not maths." What makes you say that? Did you support this somewhere when I started to skim?
You called it a claim. How can mathematics as a whole not apply to reality? What quality of math makes the claim not apply to it?
Reply
That was an arbitrary comment which on second thought was irrelevant. I didn't support it. Care to question?
Also, I was vague. Something like "The claim that mathematics applies to reality in the way you cite..." would have been more appropriate. I take what I said back and replace it with that.
Reply
Reply
Good definitions, but how are they derived, and can they be shown to be preferred? Stating definitions is unlikely to clear up a definition conflict, as here.
That's an interesting point - I'd rather say that the origins of something do not limit how it proceeds now, so can be disregarded.
The problem holds, and is in fact what I was trying to invoke in that conversation. Though now that I load your Wikipedia link I notice that it links to two online texts - Hume and Russel. Fantastic! *bounces off*
Reply
Reply
I'm kind of waiting for alias_sqbr to fall on my argument like 1.0T bricks.
Reply
Leave a comment