"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote
> somebody wrote:

> > Easy. Mathematics can represent *anything*, since you get to make up
your
> > own axioms.

> Except for two things: all the equations are actually pretty simple,
> none of them seem to change.

Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder.

> It's not really the case you can represent *anything* with mathematics.
> You cannot represent God (pretty much by definition of God), and you

That's because "god(s)" are not anythings. When one shows that
they/he/she/it is, there's no reason why you won't be able to model
they/he/she/it.

> cannot represent a partially-inconsistent system (one that is
> inconsistent sometimes but not other times,

Then you incorporate time into your equations/model.

> or in some places but not
> other places).

Then you incorporate places into your equations/model.

> Just as a couple of offhand examples.

Isotropy/homegeneity of space/time has nothing to do with whether
representation is possible. Since observation can be thought of as a
representation, anything observable automatically has one representation at
least. Whether that model can be simplified, and can have predictive powers
or not is the question, and if it has redundancy, it can. A reality that can
not be expressed with a simplified model, would, in essence, be random in
*all* aspects (again, redundancy leads to prediction). I cannot imagine how
intelligence of any sort can arise in such a reality.

Post a reply to this message