Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Thursday, March 04, 2010, 14:45 (5166 days ago) @ xeno6696

I've taken a dangerous dive into what for me are the deep and mysterious waters of mathematics. I suggested that the laws of physics would operate independently of human beings, but expressed my doubts about maths. 
Matt: "For the very structure of our universe as we have unraveled it, we have done so via mathematical objects. An atom is an atom, whether or not we humans exist." Perhaps I ought to duck out of the discussion at this point, simply because this is such foreign territory for me, but I'll press on because you will put me right if necessary and I will have learned something.-The moment you talk of atoms and other natural objects (David mentioned trees), I think of the natural sciences, and although of course maths comes into these in one form or another, I don't see maths as laws governing the natural processes of cause and effect, but as patterns extracted from those processes. Is it wrong to define maths as the study of numbers, quantities and shapes? If it's not, then I would suggest ... very tentatively! ... that numbers, quantities and shapes are part of the language we use to systematize our observation of nature, whereas the laws of physics, though we express them in words, operate actively and independently of our observation. Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second, there are 2240 lb to the British ton, snowflakes are hexagonal, but these are all man-made formulae. Their artificiality is shown by the fact that the US ton is 2000 lb! Physics, chemistry, biology and the related sciences all deal with actions and interactions that would go on even if there were no humans around. The numbers, quantities and shapes of natural objects would still be there, but I see these formulae as a human description of the results of the physical processes, as opposed to the processes themselves. Is this nonsense?-In your response to David's post on fractals, you have interpreted his statement that "the math formulas in nature are truly amazing" as support for ID. This suggests that for David there is an intelligence applying mathematical principles TO nature (= God), whereas by rejecting ID you are suggesting that there is an intelligence formulating those principles FROM Nature (= man). If I'm right about the latter, can you argue that maths exists independently of man? -*** I see from the latest posts that David agrees with you that 'math truths' exist, and he refers us to Dean Overman's discussion of "the very tight design of the universe". Am I looking for too rigid a distinction between maths and physics? Could one perhaps say that mathematical calculations are needed to measure or predict the physical effects of physical causes, and that without humans such calculations are not needed and cannot be made, except by a possible God?