Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
My point is ...math is unavailable in my reasoning.
I think however I can visualise very well.
When I visualise what I create is complex.
Once the atom was considered differently and viewed as a single unit but as time saw more research the atom is found to have many parts.
I always think this way such that even when I wonder about a photon say my imagination presents pictures of what it may look like etc.
When I imagine nothing, space, I see something very complex, such that I have trouble fitting all I imagine is found in an empty part of space.
Anyways that's not at all important and I am sorry that I comment upon it.
And I understand and accept how useful and important math is in helping us quantify reality. I think there is more than we can describe.
Thanks for the wonderful input.
|
You raise a very important point Alex.
Amongst mathematicians/Philosophers etc, there is even disagreement as to whether numbers themselves exist - numeracy being one of the more simpler forms in the field of mathematics. Generally there are 3 broad groups where mathematicians and philosophers fall into on the issue of whether numbers are real and exist in the sense that a cricket bat or coin exists.
Platonism, Nominalism and Fictionalism.
Platonists view numbers as abstract entities that basically exist outside time and space - the numbers don't interact with reality like a car would for example. So the Platonic stance is that numbers exist but they are more interested in their context and location and that location is not in our reality.
Nominalists are a little bit more practical in that they view and use numbers to describe things in our reality - they kind of attach or couple numerical values to real objects. They are sort of practical Platonists in that they arent concerned pedantically about whether numbers are abstract or exist outside our reality.
Fictionalists dismiss numbers as real and prefer to think of numbers as not existing anywhere at all. They also claim that mathematics itself is inherently FALSE. The way fictionalists deal with the success of mathematics/science in our practical world, is that they merely contend that success or efficiency is NOT a reflection of truth.
The Platonists do have an advantage when dealing with imaginary numbers (i), zero, infinity and transcendental numbers (like pi and e) - they merely treat them as abstract objects that exist outside out normal space-time regime (no different to the number 57 or the fraction 1/3).
There are many mathematicians, scientists and even philosophers who really aren't concerned about these issues - if it works and pays the bills and keeps the board of directors happy, then that's all that matters. Sort like Corporatised puppets dangling in the profit winds of the pseudo free market regime. Sadly, most of today's scientists, mathematicians and in particular physicists are disappointing corpocratic puppets who are dishonoring the great feats of the giants who came before them.
It's really sad to see the great discipline of Physics in particular collapse into a pathetic dogmatic cult religion.
