Can you travel in time?

[Max™]

I can plot a course through spacetime which would take me back to 2 seconds ago, if you provide me with a FTL ship, or a stable wormhole (though I'm fairly sure it would be impossible to traverse a wormhole, for various reasons I won't go into) with which I can build a CTC.

[thinking]

I can plot a course through spacetime which would take me back to 2 seconds ago, if you provide me with a FTL ship, or a stable wormhole (though I'm fairly sure it would be impossible to traverse a wormhole, for various reasons I won't go into) with which I can build a CTC.

that is mathematical

so what really

[Max™]

Math is merely a language we used to describe the Universe.

You saying there is something wrong with being fluent in multiple languages?

[thinking]

Math is merely a language we used to describe the Universe.

You saying there is something wrong with being fluent in multiple languages?

no

but your assuming that the language of mathematics has always got it right

it doesn't obviously

[Max™]

There is no value in claiming that math is invalid.

It is based on reality, math is the simplest language which arises upon study of the Universe, and it is uniquely suited to describing and understanding it.

Unlike physics, math contains absolute proofs, science currently can only assume from the inability to show a disproof, that a statement must hold true until shown otherwise.

Your argument is incredibly flawed, just because you can improperly model the Universe with mathematics does not mean you cannot properly model it.

It does not follow.

[thinking]

There is no value in claiming that math is invalid.

It is based on reality, math is the simplest language which arises upon study of the Universe, and it is uniquely suited to describing and understanding it.

Unlike physics, math contains absolute proofs, science currently can only assume from the inability to show a disproof, that a statement must hold true until shown otherwise.

Your argument is incredibly flawed, just because you can improperly model the Universe with mathematics does not mean you cannot properly model it.

It does not follow.

yet the mathematics must be still based on the physical objects present in our reality

not on pure mathematical abstractions

[Max™]

Again you have it reversed, the pure math exists because it must.

There is a subset of that math which describes the physical objects we observe in this Universe nicely.

Well, that is an assumption, to be fair we currently only have two sets of math which describe there "ends" of the Universe nicely, but do not play nicely with each other.

The goal is finding a single set of equations which fully describes the Universe, math is not an enemy, nor merely an abstraction, it is a tool.

It is like you are arguing against language because of poetry.

[thinking]

Again you have it reversed, the pure math exists because it must.

There is a subset of that math which describes the physical objects we observe in this Universe nicely.

Well, that is an assumption, to be fair we currently only have two sets of math which describe there "ends" of the Universe nicely, but do not play nicely with each other.

The goal is finding a single set of equations which fully describes the Universe, math is not an enemy, nor merely an abstraction, it is a tool.

It is like you are arguing against language because of poetry.

what I'm trying to convey is that , we , many people rely to much on mathematics

sure mathematics is a handy tool , but it has its limits

as do all things

[Max™]

Well, technically math is not delimited, Godel and whatnot.

Math is more powerful than verbal language, any limitation of math will be reached long after words have failed.

[thinking]

Well, technically math is not delimited, Godel and whatnot.

Math is more powerful than verbal language, any limitation of math will be reached long after words have failed.

as long as the mathematics on the right track of course