Originally Posted by
lpetrich
Originally Posted by
Perpetual Student
How many times have we seen physics by quotations, pictures and analogy presented by those who do not understand that physics is based on mathematical models that have been validated through experimentation? I guess the math is either too time consuming or beyond their comprehension.
I recall from elsewhere that Farsight has claimed something like this: math cannot be primary because one must define the terms that one uses in it.
Well, of course. It's important to dismiss something you don't understand if you're afraid it might contradict your elaborately constructed mountains of nonsense.
Quote:
But math can be interpreted as a language, even if it's rather unlike natural languages.
Less inconsistent, less illogical, and less prone to ambiguity. Otherwise, yes, it has all the elements of language. Just ask Turing.
Still, when your maths are limited to about what one might expect of a reasonably competent high-school student, this may not be obvious. Farsight may simply fail to understand just how expressive mathematics can be. But I think it's more likely that he insists on trying to interpret everything through natural language simply as a defense mechanism. "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong." Unfortunately for him, easy comprehensibility does not seem to be a requirement for natural law.