Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 188
Replies: 2   Last Post: Jan 14, 2013 1:57 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 13,460
Registered: 1/29/05
Matheology § 188
Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:16 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Matheology § 188

In 1960 the physicist Eugene Wigner published an influential article
on "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural
sciences". [E. P. Wigner: "The unreasonable effectiveness of
mathematics in the natural sciences", Communications on pure and
applied mathematics, 13 (1960)] I counter the claim stated in its
title with an interpretation of science in which many of the uses of
mathematics are shown to be quite reasonable, even rational, although
maybe somewhat limited in content and indeed not free from
ineffectiveness. The alternative view emphasizes two factors that
Wigner largely ignores: the effectiveness of the natural sciences in
mathematics, in that much mathematics has been motivated by
interpretations in the sciences, and still is; and the central place
of theories in both mathematics and the sciences, especially theory-
building, in which analogies drawn from other theories play an
important role.
[Ivor Grattan-Guinness: "Solving Wigner's Mystery: The Reasonable
(Though Perhaps Limited) Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural
Sciences" Springer Science+Business Media, Inc., Volume 30, Number 3
All correct mathematics has to orient itself by means of reality,
hence natural sciences. Mathematics is applied physics. Cantor
intended to follow that scheme with his transfinite set theory, which
he, by his own protestation, had devised in order to apply it in
natural sciences. Alas his idea of reality was so bad (in contrast to
most of his contemporaries he rejected atomism and Darwinism), that it
could yield only wrong mathematics.

Regards, WM

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.