Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

I'm giving you the benifit of doubt for now, you seem to know what you're talking about and i'd like to get to the bottom of this. But it sounds like you are touching on a entirely different topic when you start talking about physical worlds and empty space.. My claim is that math, and the fundemental building blocks of life are one in the same.

I'd rather let this article speak for my side, as it articulates what i've been trying to get across better than i possibly could. Maybe that will help us get over this language barier.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...h-excerpt/

"Giving" me "benefit of the doubt", really? Your phrasing reveals your intentions, as well as your regressive outlook on discovering new things.

Then you simply link to some random page on the internet. I can do that to:

http://aractus.com.au/
http://aractus.com/
https://blog.aractus.com/my-congratulati...ment-12550


You clearly don't understand what you're talking about when it comes to maths. I'm no mathematician mind you, but any decent mathematician would tell you that mathematics is an abstract field of study. The operative word being "abstract". You had nothing to say, whatsoever, when I informed you that the Apollo missions which landed men on the moon used Newtonian Mechanics and not Special or General Relativity. That highlights what I said in my previous post - in mathematics we use "what we can", what we think is relevant to daily life. Newtonian Mechanics was relevant, but it certainly wasn't "correct". It wasn't based on some fundamental truth, it was based on observations that meant we could be reasonably confident with the calculations for small distances and other specific areas of interest. Given the advancement in information technology over the last 50 years it would be entirely possible to land people on the moon using the calculations from General Relativity, and it would probably be preferred since the error margin would be much smaller. In 1969 and the 1970's however, IT was so limited that higher margin of error calculations with much lower processing requirements were preferred (i.e. calculations that could be performed on an ordinary pocket calculator which is about as powerful as the Apollo computers were at the time). If we didn't have Newtonian Mechanics, and we didn't know a way to simplify Special Relativity, then we wouldn't have been able to land people on the moon at that time.

Actualy, you completely misinterpreted what i said, shame on you...

I'm not putting myself above correction or education, i was saying that i would entertain the idea and i'm listening to your reason.

Link to a random page of the internet are you serious? I clearly stated my intentions with that you are acting rediculous. Instead of copy pasting the entire article i linked it so you could better comprehend my stance on the subject. And i don't see anything wrong with you sharing supporting arguments through reference either...

So much emotion on this forum, was not expecting this. And i would agree with you i don't know much about "maths". But i know enough to understand that there is too much a coincidence in it's applicability to nature, if could use your example the apollo mission. Because the universe operates under the same conditions! Now maybe my issue is the missunderstanding that i keep saying math is in nature, but rather i should say it's a tool developed to better desipher the apparent 'programing' if you will, of the universe.