Magic and the rise of science

Re:Magic and the rise of science by bachback on Saturday February 13, 2016 @05:30AM (#11093459)

absolutely right. how do you translate from the strings "excitations of quantum fields" to "math with a lot of greek symbols"? Very illuminating is the attempt to convert higher math into computer programs (Bertrand Russell tried this 100 years ago). What is mathematics not reducable to programs, and why isn't physics written in a logic language? It would look like this: http://us.metamath.org/nfegif/mmnf.html

Ultimately you end with set theoretic axioms. But what about functions over time? Category theory is more philosophic than one would think. The true mystery to me is why unconventional thought is so rare. I guess it doesn't pay well to think about things from scratch, certainly in business and also not in science driven by peer-review.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Magic and the rise of science by sieveoferos on Saturday February 13, 2016 @06:20AM (#11093549)

I'm still hoping for something like the "calculus of statement" described in Heinlein's "Blowups Happen." I think that a plurality of axiomatic approaches and formalisms is always better - consider the dialogue between those advocating a change to category-theoretic axioms for modern math and those that want to retain the set-theoretic ones. The debate is very productive.

So I think the world needs more thinkers-from-scratch. Shinichi Mochizuki is one such, regarding his work on the "abc conjecture." But his case makes obvious one other reason there's not more from-scratch unconventional thought: it often requires Von Neumann-level intellect to pull off.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Magic and the rise of science by danharaj on Saturday February 13, 2016 @10:27PM (#11097010)

actually, it definitely looks like category theory!

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/rosetta.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]