A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics · HackerPapers discussions

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by discreteevent

Mon, 02 Sep 2024 18:39:22 GMT

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics. - Lee Smolin (he's a physicist) https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by discreteevent

Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:53:40 GMT

Your points reminded me of this: A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics Lee Smolin https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.03733 Also the book on which the article is based "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" is a physics book but I thought it has huge relevance to programming live systems (as opposed to e.g. compilers). The big difference between what we have to do when programming rather than when we are doing mathematics is dealing with time. (But that's what makes it so interesting - and frustrating)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by discreteevent

Sat, 06 Apr 2019 07:45:16 GMT

The limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by discreteevent

Sat, 25 Mar 2017 23:12:18 GMT

Also: A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics - Lee Smolin https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by eli_gottlieb

Sun, 10 Jul 2016 03:37:03 GMT

Smolin wrote a paper on the "reasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in science. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.03733v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by xlm1717

Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:12:02 GMT

To add to this, I thoroughly recommend reading Smolin's paper on the "limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics." He expands on one of those mis-steps (quoting from the paper): >This is in contradiction with the Platonic view of mathematics held by many physicists and mathematicians according to which, mathematical truths are facts about mathematical objects which exist in a separate, timeless realm of reality, which exists apart from and in addition to physical reality http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by xlm1717

Thu, 03 Sep 2015 21:27:22 GMT

My mistake, I was remembering it incorrectly. Edited my previous reply to include a link to this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733 Lee Smolin discusses a class of facts that are evoked: "I would like to propose that there is a class of facts about the world, which concerns structures and objects which come to exist at specific moments, which, nevertheless, have rigid properties once they exist. Let us call this possibility evoked." ==== He provides a table of how a fact and it's existence can be described: Has rigid properties and existed prior? The fact was discovered Has rigid properties and…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — mentioned by xlm1717

Thu, 03 Sep 2015 20:49:39 GMT

With regards to 1), I remember reading a paper I found on HN not too long ago trying to argue that no, it does not exist. To generalize, any piece of knowledge only exists after it is discovered. Can't remember what it is at the moment, maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about. With regards to 3), I would assume Tegmark means laws of physics which we have not yet discovered, but nevertheless govern what occurs inside a black hole or at the beginning of the big bang. It is commonly believe that with a complete theory of quantum gravity, we will find that the singularities in these…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — HN submission

Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:58:22 GMT

The limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics

46 points; 42 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics — HN submission

Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:00:14 GMT

A naturalist account of the reasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics [pdf]

21 points; 11 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.