Russell McMahon wrote:

> But it as often as not has no metaphor which is grounded in reality as 
> we know it. 

Most of mathematics -- the language in which most physical theories are
expressed -- has no metaphor that is grounded in reality as we know it
(with our senses). 

Look at real numbers. We use them every day, but we just use them, glancing
over the finer details. It's no surprise that it took several thousand
years from the first abstractions about numeric systems to a more
consistent definition of real numbers. Which probably most of us are not
completely familiar with. And being familiar enough with their most common
applications, one doesn't have to understand the nitty gritty of number
theory or set theory to use them successfully. But that doesn't mean that
this doesn't exist, or that the concept of real numbers would be "grounded
in reality as we know it". It's just easier to not look at the "irreal"
quality when using them than with other systems :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist