|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM EST |
I'm certainly not arguing in favor of the patentability of
software or math, so there's no need to shout about that.
Circles are part of our mental model of the universe. They
don't really exist otherwise.
To say that an object has the shape of a circle really means
that it is similar to other objects we have called circles
so that we can expect it to behave like them.
Boolean values are useful; I use them all the time. But
when we investigate things on a very small scale, they
become meaningless. There is no way to evaluate the truth
of a statement like "quark A is at such and such a location
with such and such a velocity."
On very large scales, concepts like before, after, at the
same time depend on the position and relative motion of the
observers.
So to say that these things exist independent of us humans
is, I do not think, correct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|