Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes: > On 19/08/18 00:34, David Kastrup wrote: >> As any theoretical physicist will tell you, anything that involves >> actual hardware also is maths. > > Are you telling me that maths PREscribes reality?
No. Reality's math is inseparable from reality. The Schrödinger equation models state spaces, not states. > If hardware is maths, then how comes physicists aren't creating the > reality we would like to live in? Determining the laws of the universe does not give you a handle for changing them. > The whole point of patents is that they describe what happens in > reality, what we usually do not understand of the maths, or how we tip > the maths to work in our favour. The math holds regardless of whether you can think of a way to make use of it. > I like to draw a little distinction between mathematics and science. > A mathematical proof says "this is logically correct". A scientific > proof says "this is not reality". Theoretical physicists aren't > scientists, they're mathematicians. I doubt they'll be considering your verdict authoritive. > Patents are there for technologists, for people who deal with > scientific proofs, not for mathematicians dealing with mathematical > proofs. A patent deals with "this is how we get reality to do what we > want", not with "this is what logic says should happen". > > Newton is easy to prove MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT. He is also easy to > prove SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG. So you say that Special (and General) Relativity should be patentable? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
