🚀 go-pugleaf

V for Vendicar wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> No, sorry, now I cannot even see where you're coming from on this.
> 
>   As I sympathize with his position, I will answer - I doubt if he will have 
> the capacity.

Who is 'he'?

>   1 is an abstraction devoid from physical reality.  We map the concept of 1 
> on to physical realtiy and we base the concept of 1 on our observations of 
> what physical reality is.

An axiom. So?

>   We observe that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
>   We observe that 1 (generalized object) + 1 (generalized object) = 2 
> objects
> 
>   We then abstract away the concept of 1, the cocncept of 2 and the concept 
> of  addition.

Boring...

>   However, we have only emperical evidence that our abstraction is correct.

Because you say so?

> It may be that once in every 10**200 tries 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples.  We 
> don't know since we haven't done the experiment enough times, and even if we 
> did, we would conclude that the experiment was in error.

Boring...

>   So we must recognzie that the abstraction could be wrong.

I have a mouse in my pocket too!!!!!!

>   Now if the basis of all mathematics might not properly map onto the real 
> world, then what does that tell us about the applcability of mathematics to 
> predicting the ultra small scale or ultra large scale behaviours of the 
> universe?

Nothing, if you don't have substantiating observations...

> Perhaps it is that one chance in 10**200 that has generated the 
> universe as we know it.  Perhaps 1 vacuum - 1 vacuum = 1 vacuum + 1/10**300 
> something else?

You are a loon?

>   Perhaps when subdividing time intervals 1 + 1 = 1.5 or 3 or 2 or -1 
> depending on when the subdivisions are added.

Do you write SiFi? I hope not...

>   Does 1 have any meaning in a universe devoid of material existance?  If 
> not, then how, and at what point does the applicability of mathematics fail?

What music belongs here?

>   How much time passes when there are no clocks available to measure it?

I'm starting to hear it....

>   What is the size of a particle that is alone in the universe?

do, di do du...

>   What we do know (within the limitations of human knowledge) is that 
> mathematics is a logically consistant mesh of numerical and logical 
> relationships.  We have painstakingly construced mathematics so that it is 
> so and have chosen a basis which provides us great utility in numerically 
> predicting how things work.

There it is! Twilight Zone!!!!!!!

>   What we do not know - and what we trust on faith - is that the 
> abstractions of mathematics correctly map onto the physical universe in all 
> situations, at all energies, and in all situations, no matter how extreme.

We, faith, your construct. Known as a strawman to most...

>   It could be and to some extent, has been argued that the complexities of 
> quantum mechanics result from the divergence of the physical universe from 
> the abstracted laws that we have observed to govern macroscopic objects.

I see you are overwhelmed...

>   The clearest recognition of this is in the suggestion that an uncertainty 
> term - an indeterminate statement of truth - should be added to boolean 
> logic.

Zero, one, and your reality. Wow....