I love you kiddo.
The objective reality is not within our perception of sight.
Sight is an inadequate process. In our vision the blanks are in excess of what we actually see. We fill the blanks with our imagination.
We never see the objective reality. We think we do.
What we are aware of is an illusion. A castle in Spain.
I would rebut this statement if I knew what you were saying.
However mathematics is nothing more than a language. Or more accurately it's a collection of languages. Euclidean geometry is one language, algebra another, calculus, probability, etc... they are all highly ordered languages. These are simply precise ways of conveying specific information.
If you say that language is separate from human thought, then that is simply where we will have to agree to disagree. I see language as simply a human construct and mathematics is as well.
My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
http://www.revoltingvegetables.com
An interesting thought. Is language independent of human thought?
You Latin, be a language if everyone stop using it, or would it simply be a language that is not used?
What about computer languages. If one day, the PDP-8 assembler language is never in use anywhere, does that mean it stopped existing for that day? Or does it continue to exist or simply not be in use?
What about the languages we have yet to create? I don't believe they exist, yet. But does that mean the order that allows them to be created does not exist?
Is there a Turing-complete language that will allow chip designers to quickly describe entire modern chip-designs? Not yet. But is it possible that there is enough order in the requirements to construct such a language? I don't know.
Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield
Yes. It is. In the way any of our scientific theories are creations of our thought.
It is not beyond our manipulation. We chose to have an incomplete instead of inconsistent version of number theory.
We have several geometries from with to chose from.
We even have several foundations of mathematics to choose from--At least two distinct set theories and a category theory.
We can if we choose to. Some do. But the community of mathematicians choose not to do so.
The prerequisite of mathematics is that it is accepted as mathematics. It takes work, we can make errors in creating it (though we are more careful in crating mathematics than any product of the human mind).
The logical consistency on which mathematics relies may be independent of us, but not our mathematics itself.
Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield
Who created the scientific theory of mathematics?
Nobody.
We chose the version of the number theory?
The number theory is not an election.
We choose our pattern of geometry yes.
Our geometry?
Science is not a creative faculty.
Science is about understanding the creative faculty.
Not an art. Science is about understanding of what is.
Art is about creation.
Science is discovery.