i thought the question posed in the op was in itself religious.
from any other viewpoint, the makes no sense.
gregor: your posts are interesting. i confess, though, that i can't quite figure out how the demonstrations you provide either do or do not speak to anything to do with evolution in a darwinian sense. they seem to speak more to questions of modalities of change. which isn't the same thing, simply as a function of the time-frame involved and the imputing of a directedness to very long-term biological processes (an imputing that may or may not be a massive example of a teleological fallacy, there is no way to know).
but it seems that you have a set of assumptions about the formal language of mathematics and the kind of information about the world that it can generate that i find curious--the sort of thing that make some physicists imagine that there is are theological dimensions to string theory. this is itself a religious question because it only functions when you cross frames of reference. but it's a bit hard to tell: can you explain how you understand the relation between mathematics, its formal expressions, and theology or theological questions?
the obvious response would probably be that you see mathematics are a device that lets you describe the underlying rationality of physical phenomena even as it is itself a type of metaphysics (the language and its procedures). but it'd be better if you could explain it a little.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|