Talk:Foundations of Mathematics
Depending on the venue, we discuss at length “the singularity” and “true AI”. I believe we currently have software that can independently obtain a bachelor degree, perhaps even a PhD. But I’m not interested in that. What would intrigue me would be if we developed a chunk of software that could emulate Mozart or be truly self-aware. Now THAT would be a true achievement. But I don’t believe we’re going to achieve either conventionally by rewarding precision regurgitation. In order to develop true AI or synthetic self-awareness, we need to nurture minds with what I call frame-shifting, the art of reframing problems. The same applies to any future advances in mathematics and physics.
In the article it states that the core of science is math. I think this needs to be changed to the core of science is observation, because you can do math without observation, but you cannot do the scientific method without it.
- That is true. But I think what was meant by "core of science" was maybe that mathematics was the "natural language" of science (well, physics anyway...). Science is the branch of mathematics that is based on the observation of nature is maybe a more accurate sentence. But then, is it fair to say "science is a branch of mathematics"? Can you do physics without maths? I don't know. I could be wrong... ValdhaornaIstri (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)