[FOM] The boundary of objective mathematics

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Eray,

A physically "plausible" interpretation of mathematical theories still  
relies upon a base assumption that your physical model is related in  
some way to the facts of the matter, otherwise the exercise is futile.

Space and time are good examples to consider especially since in his  
1916 GR paper Einstein recognized that space and time were merely ways  
of thinking about the world. They have no ontological status beyond  
this thinking. The curvature of "space-time" being just a very  
convenient way to characterize the effect of the gravitational field.

By this reasoning, the discrete nature of current physical models is  
merely an artifact of the way physicists currently think about and  
formalize their models.

Ultimately the fundamental questions here relate to a deeper  
consideration of our apprehension of the world as it applies in both  
these cases (mathematical and physical). For example, if the question  
of objectivity relates to an absence of bias in our consideration,  
then we will do well to recognize the bias in our existing models  
derived from simple matrix notation and the very notion of  
orthogonality.

Sincerely,
Steven

--
    Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
    Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
    http://iase.info
    http://senses.info



On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Eray Ozkural <examachine at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... The point that Paul makes is that mathematical
> theories have an objective (or non-fictitious) meaning only if they
> can be given a physically plausible interpretation. (I tried to
> advance such a point on sci.math previously) So, for instance, if our
> universe is indeed made up of  finite space ...