Harv,

I have a pretty good idea of what you are trying to say but you have utterly no comprehension of what I am trying to say.

This is what I've been trying to say. Mathematics is a game having nothing to say about reality unless you interpret the results you obtain in mathematics and apply those results to the world. The interpretation process is how you 'hook' mathematical equations to the world. Science does this through the act of making hypotheses (often based on mathematical concepts) and finding empirical support. But, in no way can the real world concepts (the hook) be considered as derived from strictly formal processes. The derivation of real world concepts is not part of mathematics (mostly deductive reasoning), but is based on largely inductive approaches.

I know that Harv! I have a very good understanding (in fact probably better than your understanding) of exactly how science proceeds. What you miss is that I have looked at that process and conceived of a way of setting it down as an abstract procedure, including the need for verification. Once that is done, a lot of dead end ideas become quite obvious! If you would look at the procedure instead of just holding forth that "authorities never make stupid mistakes" and you might learn something.

Try criticizing my steps instead of where you think I am going!

Have fun -- Dick

• Round and round we go - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 15:22 UTC
  • I understand your criticism! - doctordick - March 29, 2002 - 16:19 UTC
• True, but you must treat it as a tool - harvey1 - March 29, 2002 - 16:36 UTC
  • Trust your feelings Luke! - doctordick - April 1, 2002 - 17:42 UTC