The biggest challenge for anybody claiming that "math isn't real" is providing a plausible explanation for why math has been so incredibly successful at predicting phenomena in the real world. How can something that's not real still predict real things?
-
-
Also feels like the wrong direction. Copernicus and Darwin and the whole process that decenters humans in the explanatory structure of the universe—then we go back to put us in the center to account for math (and/or wave function collapse)? Sense of humor required for this one.

-
I get why it feels that way, but I do believe there's an important difference between e.g. geocentrism as a doctrine and understanding that our observations occurring from the reference frame of Earth come with observation biases or relativity implications
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.