[ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

[Jef Allbright]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:
>
>> This question is similar to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
>> The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
>> question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
>> defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?
>
> I don't think mathematics is contingent on the existence of a material
> world.

Yes, you've already claimed that is your position.


> If it were, then 17, or its primeness, would disappear if
> enough of the universe disappeared.

Here aren't you simply affirming your consequent?


> That would be an extreme form of
> anti-platonism.

To deny the validity of Platonism is considered extreme anti-Platonism?


It seems you've failed to process my point about the systems-theoretic
nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?  Of course this
is an ancient argument and I have nothing new to add.


- Jef