Posted by
Owen Densmore on
Apr 26, 2009; 7:32pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/The-Unreasonable-Effectiveness-of-Mathematics-in-the-Natural-Sciences-tp2714601p2719005.html
On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:13 -0600, "Owen Densmore" <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm completely of Tegmark's ilk:
>
> I assume that means you would also adhere to the sentiment
> attributed to
> Einstein:
> "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of
> human
> thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably
> appropriate to the objects of reality?" Which contains the
> fallacy, "independent of experience."
Well, if Al agrees, I'm OK being in his camp! Phooey on your fallacy.
> Thought - and mathematics! - is but a refined metaphor of experience.
> (following Lakoff)
Fine. But none the less, why is it that the subject line is so
enigmatically true? .. why do we observe: The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences?
I presume you'd say that experience weld Science and Math together.
So? That does not negate the wonder of The Unreasonable Effectiveness.
My friend Nick to whom I addressed all this (we spar over the
importance of math) might claim that Math is not particularly
effective. Do you?
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org