41–50 of 52 posts
I have a feeling they really mean Spinoza's God (like Einstein), but this use of 'God' causes confusion for a lot of readers. Some readers might think they are referring to the God of the Bible or Koran.
Spinoza's God couldn't have a book of anything. Then again, the Abrahamic God (being omniscient) wouldn't need a book either, but would simply know the perfect proof (and every imperfect proof) for every theorem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of gaps do you mean? As someone who studies mathematics, I feel like this is a vague criticism I've seen some make without any concrete justification.
Not the OP, and he/she mentioned "physical observations" so maybe he/she was only referencing hard sciences like Chemistry or, indeed, Physics, but I am of the same opinion to him/her when it comes to the gap between mathematics and social (for a lack of better word) sciences, which social sciences (and the underlying social component behind them, i.e., us, humans) play a very important role in, well, how the Univers…
The physical observations, though, I'm still waiting on an answer from OP about that. It's fairly weasely to say something like that with no example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the OP, and he/she mentioned "physical observations" so maybe he/she was only referencing hard sciences like Chemistry or, indeed, Physics, but I am of the same opinion to him/her when it comes to the gap between mathematics and social (for a lack of better word) sciences, which social sciences (and the underlying social component behind them, i.e., us, humans) play a very important role in, well, how the Univers…
In my opinion this is less of a gap and more of a misapplication of what mathematics is. Mathematics isn't a tool for describing human behavior, though social sciences may use results of mathematics (and I would argue to much greater accuracy than they'd otherwise have) and the fact that mathematics can't describe human behavior is not due to gaps (results of mathematics are consistent with reality, as far as I'm con…
And then one can ask “what is the domain of mathematics?” or even “does mathematics have a domain?”, questions which lead us into a “philosophy of science” discussion with no end in sight.
I’ve felt for quite some time that the fact that mathematics can model/answer some aspects related to physical reality is just a happy coincidence at best, which we shouldn’t insist too much upon, for fear of then risking to miss the forest because of some trees that absorb our view, like “isn’t this mathematical equation perfectly describing how galaxies interact billions of light-years away?” might obstruct from us the very dire truth that there is no math to describe what will be my cat’s movings around the room in the next 5 minutes (and it’s not for lack of trying, just look at the billions of dollars invested by hedge-funds into mathematics so that they could “model”/predict the future; I don’t think they’re scientifically anywhere close to that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion this is less of a gap and more of a misapplication of what mathematics is. Mathematics isn't a tool for describing human behavior, though social sciences may use results of mathematics (and I would argue to much greater accuracy than they'd otherwise have) and the fact that mathematics can't describe human behavior is not due to gaps (results of mathematics are consistent with reality, as far as I'm con…
> but because we aren't answering questions in the domain of mathematics. And then one can ask “what is the domain of mathematics?” or even “does mathematics have a domain?”, questions which lead us into a “philosophy of science” discussion with no end in sight. I’ve felt for quite some time that the fact that mathematics can model/answer some aspects related to physical reality is just a happy coincidence at best, w…
I think these are useful conversations even if we can't foresee them ending. It's what's helped us move physics beyond stuff like Newtonian mechanics where we expect things to line up with these nice equations, and apply math in a more appropriate fashion to our observations. i.e. We treat math as something we apply to our observations, and reconsider models as we run into problems, as opposed to demanding our observations line up with our initial model.
As a mathematician and a believer in God, I get uncomfortable when people start attributing math to God. I see math as being very much a construct of the human psyche and as astounding as it is, there are enormous gaps between mathematical models and physical observations. So in my mind math is to reality as human is to Divine.
What kind of gaps do you mean? As someone who studies mathematics, I feel like this is a vague criticism I've seen some make without any concrete justification.
As a mathematician and a believer in God, I get uncomfortable when people start attributing math to God. I see math as being very much a construct of the human psyche and as astounding as it is, there are enormous gaps between mathematical models and physical observations. So in my mind math is to reality as human is to Divine.
It logically follows that any faith that believes God to be a unitary creator is going to attribute math to Him. Your absolutely correct observation about gaps notwithstanding, the driving question for me here is this: why does math work so well? I personally exclude any explanation that doesn't involve the Logos in some form as incoherent, but I don't have a specific answer and probably never will.
Why does math work so well? Well math is pretty great but I don't think it is magical. There have been thousands of years of slow mathematical advances to get us to where we are now.
As a mathematician and a believer in God, I get uncomfortable when people start attributing math to God. I see math as being very much a construct of the human psyche and as astounding as it is, there are enormous gaps between mathematical models and physical observations. So in my mind math is to reality as human is to Divine.
I don't think Erdős seriously, let alone literally, attributed the proofs in question to god in the sense you seem to be interpreting it in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of gaps do you mean? As someone who studies mathematics, I feel like this is a vague criticism I've seen some make without any concrete justification.
I work in applied mathematics and specifically in CFD. This may make me not a "true mathematician" to some of the mathematical community. In fluid dynamics nearly everything is an approximate solution to an imperfect model. In fact, there are whole branches of mathematics dealing with trying to figure out exactly how imperfect models are. "Perfect math" has limited applicability, and only perfectly reflects reality i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in applied mathematics and specifically in CFD. This may make me not a "true mathematician" to some of the mathematical community. In fluid dynamics nearly everything is an approximate solution to an imperfect model. In fact, there are whole branches of mathematics dealing with trying to figure out exactly how imperfect models are. "Perfect math" has limited applicability, and only perfectly reflects reality i…
That's a problem with the model, though, not math itself. People who attribute divinity to mathematics aren't considering these types of things as its the application of math into another field, not an intrinsic truth within the field of mathematics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a problem with the model, though, not math itself. People who attribute divinity to mathematics aren't considering these types of things as its the application of math into another field, not an intrinsic truth within the field of mathematics.
I'm not convinced that such an intrinsic truth exists apart from application.