# Balancing the universe’s books by dumping math

June 28, 2014 | Posted by News under Cosmology, News |

From Peter Woit at *Not Even Wrong*

I think what Moore has to say is quite fascinating, he’s giving a wonderful survey of where this intellectual subject is, how it has gotten there, and where it might be going. I’m very much in sympathy with his historical discussion of how math and physics have evolved, at times closely linked, at others finding themselves far apart. He’s concerned about an issue that I’ve commented on elsewhere, the fact that physics and math seem to be growing apart again, with no mathematicians speaking at the conference, instead attending their own conference (“Strings-Math 2014?). Physics departments increasingly want nothing to do with mathematics, which is a shame.

Dumping math may be highly convenient if they are fronting ideas that don’t make sense.

*See also:* The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

### 5 Responses to *Balancing the universe’s books by dumping math*

### Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Now I wouldn’t know my way around higher mathematics if my life depended on it, but I’ve heard said that mathematicians depend on a ‘sense of beauty’ so as to intuitively know whether an equation may be truthful or not.

In fact, Paul Dirac, using such a ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics, made a successful mathematical prediction for the existence of the ‘anti-election’.

It seems readily apparent that Peter Higgs must have used the same method (i.e. sense of beauty) for his mathematical prediction of the Higgs Boson, decades before it was discovered,

Of related note: Dr. Craig uses the prediction of the Higg’s boson as a philosophical proof for Theism.

Of related interest to this ‘sense of mathematical beauty’ guiding mathematical discovery, is the discovery of the Amplituhedron was guided by such a ‘sense of beauty':

But where this ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics seems to break down is with string theory (and m-theory):

Of course since the ‘sense of beauty’ is ultimately a subjective judgment for each person, (i.e. in the eye of the beholder), then this ‘sense of beauty’ is far from being a rigid guide as to making successful mathematical predictions which will lead to new discoveries. None-the-less, it is very interesting to learn that the ‘sense of beauty’ would be so successful in helping make accurate mathematical predictions for what will be discovered.

Of related interest:

Though the preceding article was/is somewhat technical, it was almost comical to read how every approach, in which the materialists tried to reduce the subjective sense of beauty to a mere material mechanism, was thwarted.

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010

Excerpt: This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,

Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,

Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

I believe it would be difficult to impossible, to exaggerate the egregious place of beauty in relation to heaven and its salient qualities. Almost indistinguishable from love, despite having less proximate, practical applications.

Atheism/nihilism, on the other hand….

I don’t get where “news” gets that physicists are “dumping” math. Could be because news is perhaps untrained in either area. Its more like physicists are unknowingly dumping science – in their frenzied quest to uncover a natural source for nature. They are making huge philosophical blunders by trying to take science where it can’t go – in my view.

Physicists have always had little cutesy things to say about mathematicians and vice versa and so there has been a sort of professional rivalry over this. If you have read multiple biographies of physicists you would maybe have sensed it. Even Einstein had his satirical fun over Minkowsy and mathematicians when genius #2 extended general relativity. But Einstein was also indebted to them for tools like tensor calculus and non-Euclidean geometries. The idea of “dumping math” could be an intended metaphor I guess but it it doesn’t seem a good one at all.