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

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 03, 2010, 23:11 (5161 days ago) @ xeno6696

"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. -My thinking is more on the point that math exists somewhere, whether we develop it or not. (A point made by many philosophers, and others). Fractal formulas are fractal formulas with or without plant and tree dendrology as a human study to find them or compare them. I agree with you that 'math truths' exist whether we are lead to them by the study of the universe, nature or whatever. What is extraordinary is that plant growth follows those fractals. Why are they built into nature and expressed in the DNA? That is the point the ID folks raise. Certainly many organisms don't follow fractals. Snowflakes look like that because of the arrangement of water molecules. No fractal here, but a crystalization of a pattern. On the other hand coastlines can follow fractal patterns. I read "Chaos", by James Gleick , mentioned in the ID website, years ago. I think it is very important reading for anyone interested in our discussion.-Apropos of all this view is Dean Overman's "A Case Against Accident nad Self-oganization", 1997, a carefully explained discussion of the very tight design of the universe, discussing most all of the parameters that exist in very defined limits.