Alex,

You speak very highly of mathematics, but at the same time you are making a mockery of math by saying that all of mathematics reduces to the existence of zero and one. This is not a credible position to hold.

On the other hand, I say that one unifying principle is reduced to multiple principles which continue to reduce (top to down) to explain mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology (and not necessarily in that order). The necessary existence of intelligence, affects what kind of biology should exist, which affects what kind of chemistry should exist, which affects what kind of physics should exist. The existence of physics then has ramifications for chemistry, which has ramifications for biology. Each principle in each discipline is related to other areas which is all geared to satisfy the one unifying principle.

Warm regards, Harv

• Harvey, math is EQUIVALENT to exist-does not logic. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 21:23 UTC
  • Much too simplistic - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:04 UTC
    • Harvey, symmetry breaks due to interactions. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:09 UTC
      • That doesn't answer the dilemma - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:13 UTC
        • Creation principle? From Adam creating gods? - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:18 UTC
          • That didn't answer the question - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:25 UTC
            • What principles? All principles of physics are mathematical. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:29 UTC
              • Not all - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 23:00 UTC
                • Unification simplu mean same root for all phenomena. - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 00:01 UTC
                  • Alex: gravity as refraction - dolphin - January 15, 2002 - 05:30 UTC
                    • Alan, things just ARE solutions of math equations. - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 09:00 UTC
                      • Existence is non-equivalent - dolphin - January 21, 2002 - 06:36 UTC
                      • Reductionism in science a major pitfall today... - mwangi - February 3, 2002 - 20:59 UTC
                        • testing - mwangi - February 4, 2002 - 19:09 UTC
                  • It's still just a principle - harvey1 - January 16, 2002 - 05:17 UTC
                    • Not just principle, but it is a FACT also. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 21:19 UTC
                      • It is a fact in an 'after the fact' manner - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 21:33 UTC
                        • People can be wrong, math can't. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 21:54 UTC
  • Much too simplistic - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:05 UTC
    • Harvey, symmetry breaks due to interactions. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:10 UTC
  • Much too simplistic - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:06 UTC
    • My quotation symbol < wasn't working so I'm trying *** (nt) - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:06 UTC
    • Harvey, symmetry breaks due to interactions. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:11 UTC
      • That doesn't answer the dilemma - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 22:15 UTC
        • Creation principle? From Adam creating gods? - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:20 UTC
          • Maths can be a "god of the gaps" too? - dolphin - January 15, 2002 - 05:32 UTC
            • No. Gods are human construct. Math not. - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 09:02 UTC
            • Alexander as contrarian - spazcon - January 15, 2002 - 19:37 UTC
              • Why should math be a god? God is being (creature), math is not. - alexander - January 16, 2002 - 04:36 UTC
                • Who can answer this... - carefuluniverse - January 16, 2002 - 07:51 UTC
                  • Mike, people (mostly like you-with no education)make fallacies. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:34 UTC
                    • Math relies on non-equivalence principle - dolphin - January 21, 2002 - 06:41 UTC
                      • Math is logic. Universe obeys logic. No gods found or needed. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:45 UTC
                        • But there's a gap in your knowledge? - dolphin - January 22, 2002 - 10:11 UTC
  • Representation of objects in Math not the same as object itself. - mwangi - February 3, 2002 - 20:47 UTC