mwengler comments on The Emergence of Math - Less Wrong

1 Post author: AnotherIdiot 02 November 2012 01:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: mwengler 04 November 2012 01:26:41PM 0 points [-]

I suspect because he is unwilling to throw out non-physical mathematics, which I've argued above is a requirement for your theory of mathematical truth.

Do you then like Anotheridiot's theory as a theory of physical mathematics? As an engineer, it seems to me that if you restrict yourself to stuff that is actually useful in creating machines (in a very general sense), you find, perhaps, only 100/infinity % of those creations require non-physical math, and for the sake of loosening the bound, lets take the "littlest" infinity of all the choices, whatever that means.

Even machines that think about infinity are finite, witness the astonishing finiteness of the human mind, even the really good ones.

Comment author: TimS 04 November 2012 06:33:08PM 0 points [-]

No, you've misunderstood me. The OP's theory of mathematical-truth-as-physical-object is hopelessly flawed.

But you are wrong about infinity. It is hard to built modern technology without calculus, and impossible to have calculus without infinite sums (integrals) or infinite limits (derivatives). If you are trying to make a point about academic / non-physical mathematics, you might have a point (depending on how cutting edge physics turns out to work) - but infinity does not advance the ball.