The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics : just a byproduct of our brain? by Stephane Durand

Stephen,

Your abstract extends the statement by Sir Arthur Eddington, which I include in my essay, "The Geometric Core of Spacetime." (Essay 2452)

"My conclusion is that not only the laws but the constants of nature can be deduced from epistemological considerations, so that we can have a priori knowledge of them." Eddington

The examples you cite in your essay are very appropriate. There is no mystery between mathematics and physics.

Frank

Dear Stéphane,

Your essay is brief, well argued and to the point. You give good arguments for the idea that we discover mathematics. I like the way you put it:

"Mathematicians would then be a bit like explorers trying to reach the top of a pristine mountain. Each uses a different way, meets different obstacles, develops different tools; but all arrive at the same summit and discover the same view."

Your essay focuses on the relationship between known (or potentially known) mathematics and the observable (or potentially observable) physical universe, and it is no surprise that there is no real mystery to the fact that they are quite compatible. You may be interested in reading the comment Julian Barbour left on the page of Derek K. Wise's essay: he essentially presents the same argument that our brains evolved within our universe, which explains why the mathematics naturally developed by our brains matches the physics of our universe.

Strangely, your fine essay has been nearly forgotten so far in the competition, and I hope bumping it higher in the community ratings will make it more noticeable. Good luck!

Marc

P.S. In my essay, I tackle a different and more ambitious issue, the question of the relationship between "All of Mathematics" and "All of Physics", which necessarily takes me on a more philosophical path.

Dear Stephane,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Math is not only about numbers, it is about methodologies too. For instance, the reason why induction works is an interesting mental construct. It is hard to prove or disprove why induction works. It is based on faith, I'd say.

In some weird world, number 7 can be divided into equal parts (Think about high dimension world). In quantum mechanical world, we had seen conventional math struggling to cope with.

Stephane,

Good stuff, Stephane. Brains, indeed, are part of the universe. What stars, planets, and living organisms are composed of comes from stars organized into galaxies, super galaxies and so on. Our brains have over a 100 billion neurons and trillions of interconnections. It's like a microcosm of the universe. It's almost like supernovas making up our brains which in turn create abstractions of the universe, using math.

My "Connection" essay, when I put it in your context, sounds better: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim