Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, March 03, 2010, 16:11 (5161 days ago) @ David Turell


> > I wonder whether it might be a fair test to ask whether something would continue to exist in the absence of human beings. I suspect that the laws of physics would manage to carry on pretty well without us. How about maths?
> 
> The math formulas in nature are truly amazing. The following is a discussion of fraactal formulas in nature. They are there with or without us. Studies of dentrology show that fractals describe branching patters as shown in the following essay from the dreaded ID website:
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/formulas-and-forms/#more-12123-Their argument here is truly one I've seen oft-repeated here. "A fractal requires a programmer in order to be generated, therefore fractals require intelligence to build!" They then extrapolate that to nature at large, especially life. -A flaw--I can find more, but I will use one and only one word for my refutation:-Snowflakes. -Okay, I'll explain a bit more. This ID argument operates under the notion that since we have to be intelligent in order to unravel the nature of nature, than nature itself must have been designed by intelligence. This parallels an argument used by dhw. I could rephrase this exact same argument to state "Because the universe cannot be described simply, it must have been created by intelligence." A further refinement: "Because some problems about the nature of the universe stump our best minds, it must have been created by a smarter mind." A final factoring: "Because we can't explain the universe, it must have been God." All of these arguments are identical. And fallacious. -One of the great insights of chaos theory is that it is incredibly difficult to observe the origins of something when you're caught in the midst of the system. Or, when you're in the middle of a "chaotic" phenomenon, you have no purchase because everything looks chaotic. In my mind, this is where we're at in terms of studying life. I stress again, that I think it's a wrong path to start with life as we see it now, and try to roll it back to the beginnings. In my mind, this is why ID fails, because it's arguing in effect, that the existence of a car itself is an argument for the existence of a human being. -The *right* path is to put as much effort as possible into creating life *in any way we can.* Shapiro and David are both right in stating that we won't know which method is the "right" one, but once we have "A" method for creating life, this gives us the purchase we desperately need to try and solve the problem of origins. (It will be another beginning itself!) Shapiro's skepticism is valid but really does nothing more than state "abiogenesis won't be the end of faith."-The fractal argument itself would have merit if there were no self-assembling systems at all in the universe, but we know there are, so the conclusion is held back by the existence of a mere snowflake. No, its not as complex as life, but it means that we're examining a question that turns on a degree between life and nonlife, which at present isn't exactly a solved problem.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"