There's are mathematical structures where geometry is valid. There are mathematical structures where our physics is valid. There is a world where a unicorn exists (same structure, different world). — noAxioms

What, valid in the sense that the model and the world both exist and are in an empirical relation?

So we are in the land of epistemology and not ontology? We are talking just about what we agree to be observable rather than what we might believe in terms of our ontic commitments?

We simply never were interested in what might “breath fire” into our equations? I really was wasting my time? :up:

We simply never were interested in what might “breath fire” into our equations? I really was wasting my time? :up: — apokrisis

Breathing fire is vastly overrated. Exploring the math can do that job. No need for unicorns.

Breathing fire is vastly overrated. Exploring the math can do that job. No need for unicorns. — jgill

Spoken like a mathematician but not a physicist or metaphysician?

Spoken like a mathematician but not a physicist or metaphysician? — apokrisis

True enough. I don't have a Professional Degree in metaphysics. But I respect those who do. :cool:

Burn, :rofl:

What, valid in the sense that the model and the world both exist and are in an empirical relation? — apokrisis

I cannot agree to a statement that just says something exists without being specific about in which way it exists. They're both mathematical structures, or parts of such structures at least. That's a very different statement than stating that they exist (in some unspecified way).

So we are in the land of epistemology and not ontology?

Always coming back to this, eh? But no, as I stated up front, I'm not talking about epistemology. Apparently telling you this 20 times is not enough.

We are talking just about what we agree to be observable rather than what we might believe in terms of our ontic commitments?

This has nothing to do with sorting things into categories of observable or not.

We simply never were interested in what might “breath fire” into our equations? I really was wasting my time?

I was interested in it, but all I saw was magic or begging. I admit I cannot understand the terminology behind which such thinking is hidden. So no, I'm not going to read large volumes of ancient literature only to find out it is presuming idealism of some kind, or begging existence in order to explain existence. Maybe they're not doing that, but every time I actually think I understand what is being asserted, that is what I see. I do see fire breathing, but only by presuming fire already in the that which does the breathing.
I do have that respect for the supposed professionals, but only where I don't see fallacies.

There's a long queue of mathematicians outside the physics department.