Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A thoughtful counterpoint to Wigner's enthusiasm for Platonistic math is Derek Abbott's "The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics" from IEEE Proceedings vol. 101, no. 10, 2013 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6...

The crux of Abbott's argument is based on Richard Hamming's 1980 critique of Wigner. It is centered on four propositions, quoting Abbott:

"1) we see what we look for; 2) we select the kind of mathematics we look for; 3) science in fact answers comparatively few problems; and 4) the evolution of man provided the model."

The first three are fairly straightforward and largely indisputable. The fourth point is kinda iffy and inexact.

Abbott adds fifth and sixth:

"5) Physical Models as a Compression of Nature (as opposed to exact representations) 6) Darwinian Struggle for the Survival of Ideas"

(parenthesis mine)

The sixth sounds mystical, but Abbott is really talking about how the 'fittest ideas survive' and rise to the top, eventually leading to a world where the mass of mathematical ideas is comprised largely of those that were accurate in describing natural phenomena, as opposed to those that failed at this. This reminds me of Brian Greene's tweet today: "How often have you noticed a coincidence that didn't happen?"



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: