----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Totally specious slippery slope. Angels and cherubs do no work in our best theories of the universe. If they did I would have no problem with them. As it is, it's said that, when Emperor Frederick the Great responded to Laplace's potted version of Newtonian physics by asking, Where is God in this universe of yours, the mathematician replied, Your Highness, I have no need of that hypothesis. However we do need math for mathematical physics, which tells us that the world pre-existed us, and was governed by laws that are mathematically describable when we weren't here. So we certainly do have a decision procedure: do we need to be realistic aboutr maths to make our best theories of the world go? Answer: absolutely. So let's be realistic. jks =============== Oh boy is there a lot of question begging in the above; I don't know where to start so I'll just amend Laplace: We have no *need* of the hypothesis that mathematics pre-exists humankind or that nature is ultimately mathematical. As one of my engineering friends puts it 'mother nature don't know math.' Quantum mechanics makes it *very difficult* to be a realist in the every day sense of the term, as you've said on this very list. Feel free to appeal to Arthur Fine and I'll feel free to appeal to John Wheeler. :-) I'm done on this one. Ian
