4 ms·
We have a model of physics which is pretty accurate. The engineers who designed the skyscraper did not even use this model, they used a much simpler one, with k
by guipsp 4y ago
We have a model of physics which is pretty accurate. The engineers who designed the skyscraper did not even use this model, they used a much simpler one, with known errors. Why? It is simply good enough™. But you can't claim it is even "true" when we know more accurate methods.
- bheadmaster 4y agoMy claim is not that the model itself is true - I'm claiming that the underlying mechanisms that rule the world are true and are not subject to change by social consensus. The model is "good enough" for the purpose of creating a building, but that doesn't make the act of "creating a building" any less real, nor the underlying rules that govern matter any less true. Our descriptions are not real - the rules themselves (which we may not know exactly) are real. Therefore, mathematics - the set of rules that corresponds to how reality works - itself exists in reality regardless of social consensus. Society can't change them by making a different consensus.
- guipsp 4y agoNothing about mathematics describes how the world works.