tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post2220662639921655457..comments2020-04-29T08:55:29.230-05:00Comments on Cosmic Yarns: Why is the Universe Mathematical?Robert Scherrerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17341214577362261827noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-2880957316941835202015-12-26T10:09:42.819-06:002015-12-26T10:09:42.819-06:00Since at least the 1930s, those biologists interes...Since at least the 1930s, those biologists interested in evolutionary theory have been impressed enough with mathematics to accept Fisher's mathematical characterization of core portions of evolutionary processes (via rather simple probabilistic processes). In general, though, biological and ecological systems present a much greater challenge than the systems physicists generally choose to focus on due to the importance of temporal dependencies ('historical contingencies' due to evolutionary processes) and nonlinear scaling. These challenges seem to be less matters of needing new mathematical structures than matters requiring radically different computational approaches. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08556886228549069703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-13641042575119237642015-12-14T11:13:07.896-06:002015-12-14T11:13:07.896-06:00"just a selection effect". Excellent poi..."just a selection effect". Excellent point.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09108679494313978075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-2168741977077574202015-12-14T10:31:17.014-06:002015-12-14T10:31:17.014-06:00As far as I can tell, the people who remark on the...As far as I can tell, the people who remark on the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" are physicists. But physicists are good at math (or at least they were in high school). Not surprisingly, they are interested in those parts of the observable universe which lend themselves to quantititive observation and mathematical descriptions. Stuff they can't measure and write equations for are simply NOT physics (OK, there's some chemistry in there too - the kind that physicists like). Show me a biologist or a psychologist who is as impressed by mathematics as Wigner was. In other words, maybe there is no mystery; just a selection effect.Dr. Decaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-28386836261077993652015-12-12T23:28:41.969-06:002015-12-12T23:28:41.969-06:00The universe involves finitness at every level of ...The universe involves finitness at every level of its construction and mathematics is finiteness personified, and that's the reason that it works to the extent that it does. However, it's far from prefect in representing the Universe. Indeed, the unquestioned commitment to mathematics and measurements by the physics establishment means that it has failed to grasp the fundamental nature of the Universe. See the essay "Waves and The Cave and the true nature of the Universe" for a strictly rationalist and materialist perspective of the Universe: home.spin.net.au/paradigm/waves.pdf<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09108679494313978075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-62734375130535525912015-12-08T21:50:41.271-06:002015-12-08T21:50:41.271-06:00Certainly some mathematics is derived from our exp...Certainly some mathematics is derived from our experience of the real world, e.g., using numbers to count. But much of mathematics, at least what mathematicians would label "pure" math (as opposed to "applied" math) is completely abstract. It's an interesting topic, and one that I haven't really done full justice to here.Robert Scherrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17341214577362261827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627288822362203855.post-74647972455153805332015-12-08T19:45:01.032-06:002015-12-08T19:45:01.032-06:00Does math describe, and therefore discover, abstra...Does math describe, and therefore discover, abstract relationships between concrete objects?Kathynoreply@blogger.com