> I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that mathematical constructs are part of the universe.
Well, one could say that we "create" them using our minds, which certainly are, but that's deep into philosophical territory.
> Mathematics "exists" because giving someone the genuine experience of doing mathematics when they really weren't would involve a simulation of almost unfathomable complexity.
Sounds to me like a misapplication of the method - the complexity arises from simulating the response of a person to math, not from simulating math. By that standard, all fiction is "a very real part of the universe".
> So I don't think the article, which is very well written and researched, deserves the middlebrow "Um, no" scorn that you treated it to.
That concerned on one statement, not the entire article (which I found fascinating as well). Yes, I have to admit that this is rather smartassy, but I actially feel that, quite independant of this article, it is an important and amazing realization that few people make.
Well, one could say that we "create" them using our minds, which certainly are, but that's deep into philosophical territory.
> Mathematics "exists" because giving someone the genuine experience of doing mathematics when they really weren't would involve a simulation of almost unfathomable complexity.
Sounds to me like a misapplication of the method - the complexity arises from simulating the response of a person to math, not from simulating math. By that standard, all fiction is "a very real part of the universe".
> So I don't think the article, which is very well written and researched, deserves the middlebrow "Um, no" scorn that you treated it to.
That concerned on one statement, not the entire article (which I found fascinating as well). Yes, I have to admit that this is rather smartassy, but I actially feel that, quite independant of this article, it is an important and amazing realization that few people make.