So deliberate misinterpretation and just making stuff up is the best argument you can make? When counting bananas, for example, at some point the number of bananas will be so large that the gravitational pull of all the bananas draws them into a black hole. Some more thought that just came to me is that based on Jacob Bronowski's findings, mathematics starts from our current perspectives. Pictures and recordings then, are the only best solution. He was not speaking of modern philosophy of physics. It's simply a nonsensical statement. .
Math is a modeling language, and is as good as the understanding of what it is being used to model. Here is a conundrum for you. The point here is that math can predict the universe, within the limits of our understanding, because the universe is mathematical. Zeph, ya must be patient with me, I am clueless on the geography of the area. And I'm arguing that math isn't always the most efficient tool.
The one with the well defined standards, or the aesthetic? How would you express that fact, which we know to be true, without using mathematics? This is required because humans have limited brain capacity - and we already do the delineation on the most fundamental level: the self vs. This is only about 3. And they do change their minds. All else is senseless argumentation. The fact that the universe can contain intelligent beings such as ourselves, who are then able to produce self-referencial models of both themselves and the universe, should tell you something. You must realize that, if you do not fully separate these activities from your serious research, perhaps eliminating them altogether, and relegate them to the pub or similar places you may find your future in jeopardy. I guess it must be frighteningly frustrating when the logic is too advanced for you.
That we use base 10 is an accident of biology. Who are you to judge anyone's post while you make no counter argument nor comments to be judged yourself? However, if that is the case then a full description of reality may never be available from inside the simulation. That does seem to be the case with you currently. In the end, mathematics is a human invention that is useful, limited, and works about as well as expected. The Dream of the Perfect Map.
Our choice of logical axioms may likewise be guided automatically in our intuitions. The bottom line is that if you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. I guess i should have simply described two masses in orbit, and not told you one was antimatter until much later then? On the other hand the mathematics doesn't allow model even the system of six gravitating bodies in deterministic way - such a system is too complex for it. Third, I have no knowledge of your beliefs on the topics so how could I be directing at you? Keys hide in no one thing. Should this happen, please contact our customer services centre immediately. Where did that number 3 come sailing in from? This is a matter of interpretation. Einstein used maths from a book which gathered dust on a library shelf for apx 60 years.
Structure is deeper than particles, fields and energy. You feel the answere is always yes, I feel the answer is only sometimes. Show me any well known math formualtion where mass is in absolute values. Tolerate exploration on all frontiers and assist those you can in finding the universe's or perhaps multiverse's gears. This is a strawman argument.
The question is why would this be possible for the qm realm, when it is clear we have evolved to synthesize experience only at the macroscopic realm. Numbers are a concept and we only created them in order to understand the concept of limits. Even then, it's only an approximation, as the parameters of the receptor to perceive the reflected light isn't defined. The math is basically this: A 1. We're still at a point in cosmology where most infer velocities for radio redshifts centered near critical ionization velocities without much thought put into the inherent politics of such inferences -- even when those inferred velocities are anomalous.
Frankly, these complex concepts cannot be explained mathematically in a compact enough form for the human mind to hold. A layperson may not understand the systematical catalog, magnetic motors, cold fusion and similar stuffs. Hyde out of the academic closet and do my part to push the boundary a little. Instead, he argues for the opposing viewpoint, the non-Platonist notion that is a product of the that we tailor to describe reality. Ergo emotions are real, yet not well defined by mathematical models. This is in stark contrast to the way most of us first perceive mathematics — either as a sadistic form of punishment or as a bag of tricks for manipulating numbers.
A concrete example of this would be simulating a massive parallel construct in series. A given volume of bananas would not condense into a black hole. Yes, if someone can't understand logic they are either refusing to think or have a neurological disorder. In addition, it could be that the universe vanishes 5 minutes from now, even though our models don't predict any such occurrence. A more effective formula would describe transistors at all scales, but such a compact formula does not exist I speculate the dividing the micrometers the decreasing the denominator, the former neglected effects would require more variables and awesome steps of computations. Therefore demonstrating that math as we know it is, itself, a form of language.