|
|
|
|
|
|
by naasking
825 days ago
|
|
|
> Gold isnt lead. Lead isnt wood. Cells are not bits of metal. Bits of metal do not polymerise. Bits of sand do not form weak covalent bonds... That's not the argument. Both gold and lead are aggregates of fields. They don't have the same macroscopic properties but they do have the same microscopic properties (or attoscopic if you want to nitpick). > The idea that reality is essentially mathematical and not essentially physical is pythagorean magical thinking. Science says the opposite. Science says no such thing, and nobody is saying that reality is not physical. Those who adopt a mathematical universe hypothesis, or the like, say that reality is physical but that the physical is a subset of the mathematical. > Physics does not study "2". It studies there being earth and the sun and a force between them, summarised as "2 masses" etc. Mathematics is the study of structure. Physics is studying the structure of reality. There is therefore an obvious and inescapable link between mathematics and physics that you are simply not going to refute by repeatedly asserting that mathematical structures have nothing to do with physics. Of course any structures that have a formal correspondence have important equivalences, because that's literally what formal correspondence means. |
|
|
> They don't have the same macroscopic properties
Exactly... see the above...
Whenever you taalk about "formal" equivalece you mean: ignoring the causal semantics for the formula describing the system.
"2 + 2 = 4" is eqv. to "2 + 2 = 4" even when talking about wars, people, cars, animals, ... sand, cells, brains, bodies...
NO, obvious not. This isnt hard, this is obvious.
It requires some extraordinary magical thinking to suppose that field configurations of sand are equivalent to arbitary systems... this is obvious nonesense