DragonPetter
- 830
- 1
Illuminerdi said:Yeah, there's a concept called reification that applies doubly when talking about Langan. Reification means treating an abstract construct as though it's something that actually exists in nature. This is done with IQ all the time, in that it's assumed to be some inherent quality someone possesses rather than something someone scores on a test. In Langan's idea, there's an even greater level of reification in assuming that math is something the universe has. The universe doesn't know math—math is the tool we created to describe the universe. Why do imaginary numbers exist, for instance?—Because our math system needed to be corrected in order to describe some natural phenomena.
Langan's story is unfortunate. It's one of arrogance.
Yes, and while a lot of scientists/mathematicians could get away with false assertions like that and still have credible works, his "theory" seems to be entirely planted in false premises like this.