| WereKitten said: On the other hand we've been proving day in day out for thousands of years that everything as far as we can see and test works along mathematical models. And that strict and economic rationality has been the best way to develop such models of the world behaviour. I'll never question the value faith or art or wit can have in subjective lives. I'll always question when they are used as the wrong tool for the job.
|
I WILL question your statement above regarding EVERYTHING is able to mapped to mathematical models. Exactly what kind of mathematical models would be able to account for the ability to invent? What mathematical models prepare one for "black swans"? We see art, and we see the subjective. We aren't able to model that mathematically. And these things, the art and the "black swans" are some of the most important things we deal with in life.
Consider this bit from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model
Philosophical considerations
Many types of modelling implicitly involve claims about causality. This is usually (but not always) true of models involving differential equations. As the purpose of modelling is to increase our understanding of the world, the validity of a model rests not only on its fit to empirical observations, but also on its ability to extrapolate to situations or data beyond those originally described in the model. One can argue that a model is worthless unless it provides some insight which goes beyond what is already known from direct investigation of the phenomenon being studied.
Again, back to causality here as a reason mathematical models end up being limited, when one can't prove causality is universal.
So, on this note, I have to ask, please give the math which is able to answer what the sound of one hand clapping is or be able to confirm that, if wishes were trees, would the trees be fall, as you stand where you live. However, I should also note that you can use math to create some really awesome fictional worlds with their own unique physics.
