# 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.

## Observation[edit]

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)