4 ms·

You didn't address a single point I made, repeating yourself is not a valid form of argument. You are effectively claiming that all maths are physics, if you d

You didn't address a single point I made, repeating yourself is not a valid form of argument. You are effectively claiming that all maths are physics, if you don't see the absurdity of that claim, which you continue to ignore, I can't help you. Beyond that, you're arguing with a stawman > hat still doesn't support your point that math that doesn't appear to have a natural analogue, I never made that point, and if you think I have, you've failed to understand the point actually being made. What is the physical analog of the square root of -1? If all math is physics, then what physics does that predict? Maths are a language invented by humans, some of those language describe physics, some don't, that's not a conjecture, that's a fact.

naasking 10y ago
> You didn't address a single point I made, repeating yourself is not a valid form of argument. You didn't make any points, you merely repeated the dogma that there exist maths that have no physical analogue, which I already addressed in my first post. I merely provided more context on the philosophy of mathematics so you can read up on why your position is problematic at best. > You are effectively claiming that all maths are physics No I didn't. I pointed out the least problematic and most accepted position on that question, which refutes your claim that your position on mathematics is obviously the only valid position. Your question about the sqrt(-1) is perfectly exemplary of the elementary misunderstanding of what your position entails. Abstractions don't exist a vacuum. I can just as easily ask you of the physical analogue of the number 1. It's a meaningless question. Mathematics is an abstraction describing structure, and many things share the structure of the number 1. The structure of the sqrt(-1) appears in many places, like in wave mechanics. The fact that you conflate maths with the particular syntax we use is another elementary misunderstanding. A grammar also has a structure, and we use that to represent the structure of mathematical objects, but math is not about syntax. Finally, on the matter of absurdity, I suggest you reread my previous post. While you amazingly seem to think it's devoid of content, I can assure you that I point to two primary philosophies of mathematics, one which disagrees and one which sort of agrees with you, but still doesn't support your claims. It's up to you if you actually want to learn what mathematical truth is really about.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > > You are effectively claiming that all maths are physics > No I didn't. Great, then you agree with me, all math isn't physics, and there's nothing more to talk about. Here's what you don't seem to grok.. from your own original rebuttal... > The fact is, the basic structure of our world is mathematical in some way. I agree, I've never once disagreed with that position, you simply failed to understand the point being made and that you're continuing to try and argue it is just... boring now.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > Great, then you agree with me, all math isn't physics, and there's nothing more to talk about. No I don't. I'm disagreeing that your position is self-evident as you've claimed, and you've still failed to recognize that.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      Oh I recognize it, that's called sarcasm, perhaps you've heard of it.

naasking 10y ago

> You didn't address a single point I made, repeating yourself is not a valid form of argument. You didn't make any points, you merely repeated the dogma that there exist maths that have no physical analogue, which I already addressed in my first post. I merely provided more context on the philosophy of mathematics so you can read up on why your position is problematic at best. > You are effectively claiming that all maths are physics No I didn't. I pointed out the least problematic and most accepted position on that question, which refutes your claim that your position on mathematics is obviously the only valid position. Your question about the sqrt(-1) is perfectly exemplary of the elementary misunderstanding of what your position entails. Abstractions don't exist a vacuum. I can just as easily ask you of the physical analogue of the number 1. It's a meaningless question. Mathematics is an abstraction describing structure, and many things share the structure of the number 1. The structure of the sqrt(-1) appears in many places, like in wave mechanics. The fact that you conflate maths with the particular syntax we use is another elementary misunderstanding. A grammar also has a structure, and we use that to represent the structure of mathematical objects, but math is not about syntax. Finally, on the matter of absurdity, I suggest you reread my previous post. While you amazingly seem to think it's devoid of content, I can assure you that I point to two primary philosophies of mathematics, one which disagrees and one which sort of agrees with you, but still doesn't support your claims. It's up to you if you actually want to learn what mathematical truth is really about.

gnaritas 10y ago
> > You are effectively claiming that all maths are physics > No I didn't. Great, then you agree with me, all math isn't physics, and there's nothing more to talk about. Here's what you don't seem to grok.. from your own original rebuttal... > The fact is, the basic structure of our world is mathematical in some way. I agree, I've never once disagreed with that position, you simply failed to understand the point being made and that you're continuing to try and argue it is just... boring now.
- naasking 10y ago
  > Great, then you agree with me, all math isn't physics, and there's nothing more to talk about. No I don't. I'm disagreeing that your position is self-evident as you've claimed, and you've still failed to recognize that.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Oh I recognize it, that's called sarcasm, perhaps you've heard of it.