Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Should the reality be "illogical"?No, they are not, to those that care about such things.
People are still disagreeing, hence the lack of standardisation.
Maths is less open to disagreement, because it deals in pure logical forms.
Except that standardization is a formal presentation of an observable mathematical function such as watching a rainbow.Thus it is simpler to reach standardisation. But this does not in any way evidence that the universe is mathematical.
Thta's a strawman.So if the world standardised its language to English, that would be evidence of the English nature of the universe?
are you aware of how many meanings the word "cat" has in spoken and narrative languages?It's called language.
In the UK we have a standard term for all cats... it's the word "cat" (unsurprisingly).
It enables us to more efficiently describe what we are referring to.
First thank you for the compliment.It's not that this particular argument lacks sophistication, and if English is not your first language you're doing far better than many could hope for, it is simply that I find this argument wrong.
Again, it's not that I think the conclusion is necessarily wrong, just that your argument with regard to the standardisation of mathematical language being evidence of the mathematical nature of the universe is fallacious.
It is a non sequitur (or at least appears as such).
Mathematics has a language. It is standardised.
IMO, because the causes for regularly recurring phenomena are becoming known in greater detail almost daily. The one empty frame on wall with the questionmark will be filled with a mathematical equation, not a "Word".
We are "discovering" the natural functions of the universe (the constants) which are the essence of nature.
How many definitinitions of "cat" are there? You might be surprised.The same way that we in the UK all understand the label "cat".
Standardisation is all about efficiency of communicating, not the preeminence of what is being communicated.
True, but I found an intuitive comfort in the elegance of that kind of simplicity.I have seen parts of it before, and will endeavour to watch it again, but at 1hr 24 it is lengthy.
It proves itself to be accurate and complicated predictions can be tested.Again, I don't necessarily disagree with your/their other arguments, just the one (at the moment) that suggests that the standardisation of the mathematical language / symbols somehow is an argument for the mathematical nature of the universe.
Strawman, the universe doesn't speak, it functions and in very specific ways. From the beginning. The only language which can accurately describe these functions is by specific symbolic representations of a number, or a function, or a ratio, is in the language of maths.I do not think that the conclusion you draw from it follows, any more than the universe's nature would be English if we all spoke that language.
IMO, it is fundamentally arguing for or against the importance of the philosophical implications or the mathematical implications (potential) of the essence of the Wholeness. IO, if we want to know, we have to know what it is, how and why it does what it does it, not what it feels like.[/quote]And I didn't intend to draw this out, either, as I thought the point I'm making is fairly obvious. Language barrier, perhaps?
Last edited: