Are you arguing against mathematical realism by saying certain mathematical objects are only discoverable through the observation and modeling of physical phenomenon? A pure math realist would respond that the object in question stills exists, whether or not it was discovered.
because the philosophy of mathematics has so many branches with even more leaves i just went with the vague 'opposing' of one branch to cover as much ground as possible
in doing so i was moreso hoping to encourage others would define their own philosophical views on mathematics
i suppose if i was 'arguing against' anything it was more against a sort of mathematical formalism that states math only exists in the mind, or the axioms defined by human minds
if one can construct fractals and then encounter a plant like this it would seem validating to infer the mathematics being utilised by both the plant and the mathematician does indeed exist outside both
i rarely get an opportunity to debate the philosophy of mathematics and i was trying to use this article about this common found mathematical object whose form expresses that computation explicitly to open a dialogue in that capacity
with that in mind, what are you trying to say philosophically with your question?
from your question i am inferring.. perhaps incorrectly, feel free to correct me.. that you think all phenomena are computed
what are the philosophical consequence of such a view?
Realism is the correct philosophical view? Formalism? Some other?
