Georgina Woodward
Georgina,
A river does NOT provide a real-world example of a moving system. You have got things the wrong way round, as usual. The river is just a high-level consequence of a whole lot of underlying physics: one has to look at the physics. One can't identify what is actually going on until one looks in detail at the low-level physics.
And the problem is: why is the world moving? There is a big difference between 1) the physics’ equations that purport to represent movement, and 2) a viable moving real-world system. A set of equations with associated numbers can’t represent the real-world, moving, mathematical system. This fact has been mentioned by a number of prominent physicists. The fact is that physics has no explanation for why the world would ever start to move, or continue to move, or why the numbers would ever jump. There is something missing, that equations can’t represent, no matter how many fancy equations you throw at the problem.
On the other hand, computer programming has shown how to represent a viable, moving (but symbolic) system. One needs to use logical connective symbols in a computer program 1) to represent the mathematical system’s knowledge of itself, its own numbers that apply to its categories, and 2) to represent the mathematical system moving itself, jumping its own numbers that apply to its categories, in response to that knowledge.
You need to use computer programs, with their logical connective symbols, to represent a moving system.
