(October 18, 2011 at 10:26 pm)IATIA Wrote: Our problem at the quantum level is that we cannot see the 'eggs'. Any attempt to look, changes them. Right now, we do not even know if we have 'eggs'.
To develop a precise equation, all variables would have to be accounted for,including the variables of observation, then there is the variable of the observation of the observation and on ad infinitum. We can probably never create an equation that will be absolutely precise, but we can get close enough to pursue further knowledge of our universe.
Our problem at the quantum level is we do not really understand the quantum level. Can't remember who, but someone put it to me once that our approach to finding out about very small particles is akin to an alien finding out how a complex machine works without being able to look inside it, and resorting to launching machines at each other and trying to guess how they work based on the bits that come out.
But that's not the point. The point is, ALL math is objective. We cannot directly relate the math of the universe with the math we know and understand, but only because we haven't discovered it. For example, we know the math behind the distortion of space and time by mass, but we can't predict the distortion with zero error because we can't measure mass with zero error. That's just the numbers you put in, though. The math is objective and complete.
Pendragon, your posts are little more than playing with words. Asking questions like "how does math exist" amounts to about as much as asking how, for example, invisible pink unicorns don't exist. You are in effect using definitions of "math" and "exist" which suit the argument you are trying to make. Math, by your definition (from what I can gather from your posts) is subjective - to you only - and doesn't really exist, is not used by anyone except you when you're trying to make a point, and has no known practical or theoretical use.
