[FOM] The boundary of objective mathematics
Steven Ericsson-Zenith
steven at semeiosis.org
Tue Mar 24 17:16:39 EDT 2009
Dear Eray,
A physically "plausible" interpretation of mathematical theories still
relies upon a base assumption that your physical model is related in
some way to the facts of the matter, otherwise the exercise is futile.
Space and time are good examples to consider especially since in his
1916 GR paper Einstein recognized that space and time were merely ways
of thinking about the world. They have no ontological status beyond
this thinking. The curvature of "space-time" being just a very
convenient way to characterize the effect of the gravitational field.
By this reasoning, the discrete nature of current physical models is
merely an artifact of the way physicists currently think about and
formalize their models.
Ultimately the fundamental questions here relate to a deeper
consideration of our apprehension of the world as it applies in both
these cases (mathematical and physical). For example, if the question
of objectivity relates to an absence of bias in our consideration,
then we will do well to recognize the bias in our existing models
derived from simple matrix notation and the very notion of
orthogonality.
Sincerely,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info
On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Eray Ozkural <examachine at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... The point that Paul makes is that mathematical
> theories have an objective (or non-fictitious) meaning only if they
> can be given a physically plausible interpretation. (I tried to
> advance such a point on sci.math previously) So, for instance, if our
> universe is indeed made up of finite space ...
More information about the FOM
mailing list