Hi Luis,
This is in response to your response to me:
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/16648.shtml
***Paul: I suspect you have not read Dick's paper. If you had, and if you understood what he did, you would realize that continuous math (I think that is what you mean by "fluid math") is the basis of his work. Luis: I have read his work.***
Then I can only conclude that you didn't understand what he did.
***Dirac functions are derived from reductionist math***
I'm not sure what "Dirac functions" you have in mind, but the Dirac Delta Function I referred to is defined, not derived.
*** The continuous math Dicky doo uses is to reality what digital technology is to sound.***
Let me see now. You're saying that continuous is to discrete as discrete is to continuous. Hmmm.
If so, then it is nonsense that deserves no further comment.
If you made a typo in constructing your analogy, then it might make sense. You might mean that Dick's continuous math is to reality as sound is to digital technology. Nice try, but it doesn't work.
A closer analogy would be, Dick's continuous math is to reality as the circuit diagram of an electronic sound system is to the sound of an orchestra.
The circuit diagram describes in general terms how you might go about constructing a device which, if built, could capture the sound of an orchestra and bring it to later listeners.
Dick's continuous math describes in general terms how you might go about constructing a model of the behavior of reality that could be used to predict the behavior of the universe for later experiencers.
It is optional whether the sound system uses digital or analog technology. It also doesn't matter whether the model constructed from Dick's math is continuous or discrete.
***We can replicate just about anything by quantifying it...***
Really? Not without stretching the connotations of 'replication' and 'quantification' in some unusual ways.
***but when we confuse our duplication for the item itself, we have placed the cart before the horse. ***
Yes. Your implication is that Dick has done so. Please tell us where.
***The fact is, we have no inherently holistic/fluid mathematical system. And I do not think we can get there with a series reductionist steps.***
This is the complaint of someone who obviously does not understand mathematics, what it is, or how it is done.
Warm regards,
Paul |