|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 09:40 PM EST |
But the fallacy is that because something can be shown to be *mapped* to math
under some formalism that it *is* math.
I could just as well take any mechanical invention, say the steam engine or
light bulb, and also map it to a mathematical formalism and show that it can be
derived purely from mathematics. But it does not mean it is math. It just
means that the physical universe is governed by mathematical law.
Similarly, any visual creative work can also be expressed by a mathematical
formula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupper%27s_self-referential_formula
But that equivalence does not mean that art is nothing but math. It just means
that math can encode any image.
Similarly, math can encode any software, but that does not mean that software is
merely math.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|