Embed Notice

@freemo If you subsume everything under math, that would work i guess. It just makes math such a wide term that i begin to doubt it actually means anything anymore.

Say if physics can be described by math, and what it means to have a new idea too, at some point you are just saying "a thing exists" by saying it is math. A bit pointless?

I would restrain math to the basic thing (calculating with known quantities after we make an abstraction), and keep the connection to physical things (like emotions as complex processes of a biological and electrical nature) separate until we have a mathematical model of them that actually works - including simulating the real thing with any accuracy.

If you don't do that, i think you are assuming an ability that does not exist, and as such making a mistake of proposing something that is not feasible.

Sidenote: i did mention the lack of clarity if anything beyond language is needed for meta talk about emotions. That part stands independently of the ontology mixed into math thing.