Seems to me that you know what you are talking about. The Pythagoreans did not think it irrelevant whether or not numbers exist in nature - but that is not now considered scientific - now it is called magic. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 16:31 Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section >Hume is famous for a reason. (My own view, however, is probably more in >line with Kant's reply to Hume.) But this also fits well with the >modern "scientific" approach to human understanding. By this I mean >that what we think is a product of the brain which is a physical object >that works by some set of rules like a computer (but probably a >completely different set of rules.) The rules may lead to incredibly >complex behavior, but this no different from anything else in nature. > > All I'm saying is that we have had great success modeling nature with >math, e.g., pi, e, etc. appear in our representations of the laws of >nature. The actual philosophical status of numbers is interesting but >irrelevant. We have used them very successfully to model the world, >they exist in our thinking, and can affect our thinking. Whether or not >they exist in nature is another question. > >You know, I swore I would not get involved in this discussion. I even >avoided several threads with different names. It kept appearing in a >different guise, however, and finally caught me. I do have this great >picture of me with the statue of Hume in Edinburgh. Maybe I'll change >me PDML portrait . . .;-) > > >Steven Desjardins >Department of Chemistry >Washington and Lee University >Lexington, VA 24450 >(540) 458-8873 >FAX: (540) 458-8878 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
