Beitiathustra in Mathemagic Land
I was thinking...
I guess this point was already made in a way in this blog. I just have a different way of going about it, I suppose. My division would rather be one of "mathematizing" the cosmos.
There seem to be two divisions. First, either the universe, and the knowledge thereof, is understood mathematically or it isn't. Second, either mathematics is "out there" to be discovered by man, or it is invented by man - purely as a construct of logic. This would give us four logical possibilities:
1: The universe is understood mathematically, and that is discovered.
2: The universe is understood mathematically, and this is invented.
3: The universe is understood a-mathematically, but mathematics is discovered.
4: The universe is understood a-mathematically, and that is invented.
Think about it: Biology really isn't a science, because it has no laws that are formulated as mathematical algorithms. All laws of physics are just words used to describe a mathematical formula. Newton's Second Law: F=ma. But back to the choices. Choice four is sort of the fundie way of looking at the universe, disturbing to say the least. [the universe is understood only Biblically, and math is invented]. Choice three makes no sense to me. If mathematics is really out there, and is discovered, how could that not tell us something of the universe? Choice two has problems of its own, for if we look at the crushing defeat of axiomatic number theory, following Hilbert's Program, we see that we could not understand the universe at all. If math is solely invented, and not discovered, it will always be subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
This leaves us with choice number one. [I guess this would make me a quasi-Platonist....]
