Timeline for How do mathematical realists explain the applicability and effectiveness of mathematics in physics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 mins ago | answer | added | J Kusin | timeline score: 0 | |
| 4 hours ago | answer | added | qa test | timeline score: 0 | |
| 4 hours ago | answer | added | g s | timeline score: 0 | |
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | user80226 | @Syed Evidence never uniquely identifies a single hypothesis, unless you make very strong auxiliary assumptions, but that would be question-begging. | |
| 9 hours ago | answer | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | timeline score: 1 | |
| 10 hours ago | comment | added | Syed | @user80226 something being consistent with a hypothesis isn’t evidence for a hypothesis. Every observation is consistent with an infinite number of hypotheses | |
| 10 hours ago | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 0 | |
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | user80226 | @Syed All the evidence is consistent with it. | |
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | Syed | @user80226 that’s not a relevant analogy since there’s no evidence for your thesis | |
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | user80226 | @Syed The universe was created 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age, and that's a brute fact. What evidence do you have that anything further needs to be explained? | |
| 17 hours ago | comment | added | Syed | Why does there need to be an explanation in the first place? Physical systems decide to follow laws that can be represented in mathematical terms. What evidence do you have that anything further needs to be explained? | |
| 19 hours ago | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 2 | |
| 21 hours ago | answer | added | Graylocke | timeline score: 4 | |
| 22 hours ago | comment | added | Double Knot | Indeed for non-Platonists like Wigner it's hard to explain such applicability effectiveness in terms of reasoning alone, not unlike the famous "hard problem of consciousness" in philosophy of mind, you intuitively feel there's an explanatory gap which is stable and persistent though may not be physically real... | |
| 23 hours ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| yesterday | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Maybe the issue is: The applicability of OUR mathematics to OUR description of nature. Compare with @Polimath answer. | |
| yesterday | answer | added | Philomath | timeline score: 14 | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | For a fresh perspective, see Johannes Lenhard, The applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem (Found.Science, 2018) as well as Lenhard's Introduction: Mathematics as a Tool to Johannes Lenhard & Martin Carrier (editors), Mathematics as a Tool: Tracing New Roles of Mathematics in the Sciences (Springer, 2017) | |
| yesterday | answer | added | Lowri | timeline score: 12 | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Scott Rowe | "Nothing is real" solves it neatly. | |
| yesterday | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 2 | |
| yesterday | history | edited | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| yesterday | history | asked | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |