The answer here isn't a matter of right or wrong. This difference of opinion merely reflects two different ways of looking at the world. Mathematics is only a language that describes the universe. But it was the nature of the universe that gave birth to the language. The language and the universe can be seen as disparate elements or as a single entity. It all depends upon how one looks at things. As we have seen, either world view can be supported quite well in a debate. Two very intelligent gentlemen have represented their individual positions quite well. I think you ought to shake hands and call it a draw. Paul Stenquist
Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > Nope. Its absolutely clear what I mean. There is nothing philosophical about > it. I hold that Mathematics is an invention of man. The rules of nature are > only related to Mathematics because it is a tool we use to try to understand > and describe them. The way nature operates is also quite imprecise. If this > were not so we should not exist to carry on this really stupid argument from > which I now remove myself. There are enough people who get the message. > There is no need for me to go on with those who won't or can't. > > D > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 7:31 PM > Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section > > > Don, > > > > Then your arguement is a philosophical one, like "If a tree falls in the > forest does it make any noise?" Nature does have rules and order and > symetry, but mathematics is irrelevant until we try to explain this to > others? > > > > (And if I still remember correctly, Maxwell's equations don't have too > many numbers in them, just symbols, but I'd call them very precise.) > > > > As for the final comment, I'd translate it as "To ask someone to show that > the universe does not exhibit rules, order, and symetry that cam be > understood and see, with or without mathematics, is a task (errand) you > could only ask a fool (ignorant clown) to undertake. Others would refuse > the task outright." > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << Nature is not 'explained' by Mathematical rules, nor does it follow > them. Mathematics can only help us understand how some things in Nature > work. We do this by giving values and attaching labels. These values of ours > derive from Mathematics and have no independent existence in nature. For > example: Plank's Constant, determined by a brilliant man in his attempts to > understand Quantum phenomena, has no existence of its own ~it is a man-made~ > thing. Very few people actually understand the Mathematics of modern Quantum > Theory, let alone how it coincides, or doesn't, with what happens in Nature. > Atoms do not obey Plank's rules, they seem to obey none, or several, but > they are all Nature's own. > > > > I repeat for the nth time: Nature does not obey, nor conform in any way > to Mathematical rules. We can only observe what happens and try to > understand it using whatever tools we have. > > > > I don't understand your final sentence. This is probably the result of a > lack of communication. I have an idea what you're trying to say, but you > don't say it. >> > >
