From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 21 2006 - 08:04:34 MST
Although your wording is awkward it is possible you have a real insight here.
The relationship between mathematics and reality is of course a subtle
one. "Consistency" is a concept that applies to mathematical systems
not to "realities".
There are multiple mathematical systems that are inconsistent with
each other. It is possible that the optimal (in some pragmatic sense)
model of physical (or subjective) reality could involve using
different, mutually inconsistent, mathematical systems to model
different aspects of reality.
However, I see no reason to believe that this is the case, although I
recognize it as a theoretical possibility.
On 1/21/06, Philip Goetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Marc Geddes <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Let's just say that that I see no reason why reality
> > should be 100% consistent (in mathematical terms).
> > Suppose mathematics was not in fact the single unitary
> > thing that mathematicians think it is? Suppose that
> > there are in fact several different kinds of
> > mathematics needed to fully capture reality
> > ('dualities' is the technical term) and the different
> > kinds of math are not totally consistent with each
> > other?
> Um... the fact that math works, and it has for thousands of years, and
> if it were as you suggest, math in the world would be inconsistent and
> not work. 2+2=4, not 5.
> Suppose you take the world of people who understand math better than you do?
> Suppose you refrain from pestering SL4 with ideas that you know are
> not welcome here?
> - Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:10 MDT