Are you arguing against mathematical realism by saying certain mathematical objects are only discoverable through the observation and modeling of physical phenomenon? A pure math realist would respond that the object in question stills exists, whether or not it was discovered.
culture 1 : 2+2=4
culture 2 : 2+2=5
translation between culture 1 and 2:
2==2
4==5
180==360
if you could agree on specific definitions: this is a triangle, this is interior, this is an angle, and this is a degree; you would be unable to come to opposing conditions on the sum of interior angles
because the philosophy of mathematics has so many branches with even more leaves i just went with the vague 'opposing' of one branch to cover as much ground as possible
in doing so i was moreso hoping to encourage others would define their own philosophical views on mathematics
i suppose if i was 'arguing against' anything it was more against a sort of mathematical formalism that states math only exists in the mind, or the axioms defined by human minds
if one can construct fractals and then encounter a plant like this it would seem validating to infer the mathematics being utilised by both the plant and the mathematician does indeed exist outside both
i rarely get an opportunity to debate the philosophy of mathematics and i was trying to use this article about this common found mathematical object whose form expresses that computation explicitly to open a dialogue in that capacity
with that in mind, what are you trying to say philosophically with your question?
from your question i am inferring.. perhaps incorrectly, feel free to correct me.. that you think all phenomena are computed
what are the philosophical consequence of such a view?
Realism is the correct philosophical view? Formalism? Some other?
