Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 17:11 (5055 days ago) @ David Turell

One quick explanation...
> > 
> > Math at its very roots is based upon axioms; axioms are tautologies. You can make the argument that since math is based on tautology it has no objective reality at all.
> 
> And I'll reply with the old tautology: in evolution it is survival of the fittest. Who else would survive?-Survival of the fittest isn't used in modern biology. I learned it as a bad approximation, but I get your point.-The comparison isn't quite the same, you and the author are amazed that a human language describes the natural world so well. Slow down and consider how exactly math is applied in physics. We don't begin with abstract math and try to explain physics with it, we observe nature and build mathematical abstractions for what we see. -EVERY human language attempts to model reality in some way, math just happens to be a highly precise language.-So I really, truly--do not understand the amazement you and the author have for human use of mathematics. I don't see you praising english for its ability to specify subject and object!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum