>>35
Unless you build something on top of an ASSOC list that has the same properties as a set, what you're saying is nonsensical.
Please, show us a physical entity, for description of which Lisp's list aren't flexble enough.
but you still need math. For example, good luck quantitatively describing the magnetic field without vector calculus.
Can you present us a physical experiment, which would prove that magnetic fields are infinite and continuous?
Math gives us models, which can then be applied to physical situations.
"can be" doesnt mean "should be". One can apply Biblical creation theory to physical situations.
Math is not a description of the physical situation itself, it's a framework to measure some quantitative aspect of the situation.
It is a language. And, as language, it could be replaced by some easier and less vague language. Lisp, for example.
Math often isn't connected to reality in the sense that some models don't apply to anything in the 'real world', or don't give us a useful answer.
Actually, most of math is fantasy. When one says that reality is "continuous", one talks about his beliefs, not what one really knows.
A vague notion of 'something without boundary'
And the whole modern science is build on a vague concept?
that is useful when building some mathematical models (the Calculus), accurately describes properties on things like the real number line, but is
Why can't one go some other way, and devise Calculus without infinity? You don't need infinity to count physical quantities.