Owen, > No one who accepts mathematics as it is, however, considers it a point > of philosophy. We do not argue about it, we try to grasp it.
I know what you mean, but that what you are talking about is people trying to grasp what theorems follow from given axioms; or what theorems mean; which connections one can draw between disparate areas etc... A quite different question is what axioms to adopt in the first place (foundationalism? yes? no? how?) and, as has been discussed here vividly, the relationship of axiom sets and the theorems to reality. Dismissing philosophy from mathematics does seem rather rash; the discussions in this area are quite interesting. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ And people like Benacerraf, Chihara, Field, Resnik, Shapiro etc (just to pick out a few which come to my mind immediately) have very illuminating publications. What they do is philosophy of math (not: relation math-physics), but as Glen has rightly said, everything is intertwined at one level or another, and I suspect that most of the confusion surrounding applicability of math to reality can be dissolved by getting the philosophy right (and that will include philosophy of math and traditional metaphysics). Reality is not confusing. Our mental models are often not in tune with reality, and that is what is confusing. 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
