Glen, > So, I agree with you that it's a model; but I disagree that it's a > mathematical model except in the pathological limit-case where all of > reality is somehow defined as "mathematics". A strong Platonist might > well say that all reality is mathematics. And if that's your point, > then it's well taken!
Have you read Tegmark's Mathematical Universe? http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 Through my research into the scientific realism debate and structural realism, I think one is hard pressed to attribute anything other to reality than a relational structure. See for instance here: http://apperceptual.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/hello-world/ But mathematics is the study of relations/structure/patterns. I have a somewhat longer post on my blog defending the mathematical universe view, I would be very interested in your comments if you have time and interest to read it. http://www.complexitystudies.org/2008/06/24/comments-on-tegmarkbackreaction-2/ > I find such an extreme limit case degenerate, though, because it > obviates the need for one of the two words. If all reality is math and > all math is reality, then we don't need both terms and we shouldn't use > both terms. We could just say stuff like: > > "Bobby, go and do your reality homework!" [grin] No, the one is the math structure itself (reality); "math" as we call it is the reflection of the structure in an embedded (in the math structure) cognitive system (human etc) (which is of course part of the larger reality -> it is simply a nested structure with some parts mirroring other parts). Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
