Timeline for Does "Science" encompass Mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2016 at 19:39 | comment | added | Count Iblis | Max Tegmark has also put forward the hypothesis of a mathematical multiverse. To me this makes sense, you get rid of many philosophical problems if you dump the notion of a physical universe. If all that exists of our universe is nothing more than its formal mathematical description, then that description is a timeless entity, there is then nothing to explain about something having come into existence out of nothing. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 19:20 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2016 at 19:16 | comment | added | NietzscheanAI | Pete L. Clark - That's a pity. Just to clarify for the record: in response to your question about `laws of the physical universe applying to mathematicians', I mean: most mathematicians are happy to consider a perfect circle. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 19:12 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Sorry, your comments are too enigmatic for me to be drawn into a discussion. Just FYI, your practice of writing "more specifically" and then writing something brief that changes the meeting entirely caused me to give up. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:56 | comment | added | NietzscheanAI | More specifically, I mean "Don't apply to their mathematical conceptions", e.g. a perfect circle. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | NietzscheanAI | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | "It's not trivial in the context of academic practice because, culturally and historically speaking, pure mathematicians have tended to resist thinking that the laws of the physical universe apply to them." Well, now I am sure that I don't understand what you're saying. Which mathematician has expressed skepticism that the laws of the physical universe apply to him or her? | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:48 | comment | added | NietzscheanAI | It's not trivial in the context of academic practice because, culturally and historically speaking, pure mathematicians have tended to resist thinking that the laws of the physical universe apply to them. The notion that physical/statistical notions have a bearing on expressible pure mathematics (Deutch,Chaitin) is not common currency. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:44 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | ...That which lives in the physical universe is governed by the laws of physics. That applies to all human activity and in particular to all academic disciplines. In this way I can also reduce all academic disciplines to chemistry, biology, psychology and so forth. But these are trivial remarks, unhelpful both intellectually and in terms of a practical understanding of contemporary academia. I wonder whether I have misunderstood what you're saying. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:44 | comment | added | NietzscheanAI | If, as Deutch claims, all possible mathematics can be simulated by a quantum computer then mathematics is a sub-discipline of physics as a matter of fact rather than being an issue of definition. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:41 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | "What I'm getting at is that the question of whether or not mathematics is Platonic is open (but possibly not falsifiable)." Sorry, I didn't get it. I said that the Platonicity of mathematics is not a scientific question, and you hint that it might not be. But if it isn't, why is it relevant to the answer? "If mathematics can be reduced to questions about the nature of consistent human pattern perception, then it is within the realm of physics." This doesn't make a lot of sense to me... | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:37 | comment | added | NietzscheanAI | Pete L. Clark - What I'm getting at is that the question of whether or not mathematics is Platonic is open (but possibly not falsifiable). If mathematics can be reduced to questions about the nature of consistent human pattern perception, then it is within the realm of physics. Certainly, if science can be considered to be "hypothesize, experiment, potentially revise hypothesis, repeat", then Bryant seems to be saying that he thinks mathematics is a science, which I would personally agree with. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:33 | history | edited | NietzscheanAI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added quote form Robert Bryant
|
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:31 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | I guess I don't really understand the relevance of most of what you say to the question at hand. Is the existence of or contemplation of a "non-physical, Platonic realm" part of science? I would think not. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 18:27 | history | answered | NietzscheanAI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |