it is surprising that you would take a stance that "then an abstract entity is about the world". i don't disagree with this but if i remmember correctly in a past post arguing against Dr. Dick's paper i thought you took a stance against the idea that mathmatics has to do with mapping reality.

this stems from your post:
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/26695.shtml

in which you stated:
" Dick goes further. He makes the assumption that mathematics is the attempt to map the real universe. Note his text (I'll also quote Dick since he likes to be quoted): "the reason mathematics is so important to science is that we are attempting to map the real universe". This assumption is a huge unwarranted assumption, and shouldn't be part of any pure mathematical work. It is applied mathematics gone headstrong into metaphysics, and that's a major reason why Dick's paper shouldn't be considered with any significant merit. "

but Harv in your post above to me you argue the same thing Dr. Dick was arguing.

regards, tim

• I'm melting.... I'm melting.... - harvey1 - September 17, 2003 - 15:57 UTC
  • apparent contradictions - sagefr0g - September 18, 2003 - 01:34 UTC
    • The reason for new observables - harvey1 - September 18, 2003 - 14:45 UTC
      • Martin Bojowald- maybe the new Witten - yanniru - September 18, 2003 - 19:30 UTC
        • Can't find the references - harvey1 - September 18, 2003 - 21:42 UTC
          • Copied from the big bang forum - yanniru - September 19, 2003 - 00:33 UTC
            • hmm... - harvey1 - September 23, 2003 - 15:02 UTC
              • I think Bruce has it right - yanniru - September 23, 2003 - 16:45 UTC
                • Bet? - harvey1 - September 23, 2003 - 18:03 UTC
      • i'm unable to communicate with Noether - sagefr0g - September 19, 2003 - 01:48 UTC
        • Something new? Nah... - harvey1 - September 22, 2003 - 00:45 UTC
          • nah, nah, na nah, nah - sagefr0g - September 24, 2003 - 03:46 UTC