Abstract
In this paper I try to evaluate what I regard as the main attempts at explaining the effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, namely (1) Antinaturalism, (2) Kantism, (3) Semanticism, (4) Algorithmic Complexity Theory. The first position has been defended by Mark Steiner, who claims that the “user friendliness” of nature for the applied mathematician is the best argument against a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. The second is naturalistic and mixes the Kantian tradition with evolutionary studies about our innate mathematical abilities. The third turns to the Fregean tradition and considers mathematics a particular kind of language, thus treating the effectiveness of mathematics as a particular instance of the effectiveness of natural languages. The fourth hypothesis, building on formal results by Kolmogorov, Solomonov and Chaitin, claims that mathematics is so useful in describing the natural world because it is the science of the abbreviation of sequences, and mathematically formulated laws of nature enable us to compress the information contained in the sequence of numbers in which we code our observations. In this tradition, laws are equivalent to the shortest algorithms capable of generating the lists of zeros and ones representing the empirical data. Along the way, I present and reject the “deflationary explanation”, which claims that in wondering about the applicability of so many mathematical structures to nature, we tend to forget the many cases in which no application is possible.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barrow, J., 1992, Perché il mondo é matematico, Laterza, Roma-Bari.
Devlin, K., 1999, The Math Gene. How Mathematical Thinking Evolved & Why Numbers Are Like Gossip, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
Einstein, A., 1933/1995, On the method of theoretical physics, in Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers Press, New York, pp. 273–274.
Feynman, R., 1967, The Character of Physical Law, The Mit Press, Cambridge Mass.
Fodor, J., 1975, The Language of Thought, Crowell, New York.
Longo, G., 2000a, The constructed objectivity of mathematics and the cognitive subject; http://www.dmi.ens.fr/users/longo.
Longo, G., 2000b, The reasonable effectiveness of mathematics and its cognitive roots; http://www.dmi.ens.fr/users/longo.
Mach, E., 1896/1986, Popular Scientific Lectures, Publisher Group West, Berkeley.
McAllister, J. W., 2003, Effective Complexity as a Measure of Information Content, Philosophy of Science 70(2): pp. 302–307.
Musil, R., 1906/2001, The Confusion of Young Törless, transl. by S. Whiteside, Penguin Book, New York.
Steiner, M., 1998, The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Question, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.
Weinberg, S., 1986, Lectures on the applicability of mathematics, Notices of the American Mathematical Society 33(5): 716–733.
Wigner, E., 1967, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, in Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press, Indiana, pp. 222–237.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dorato, M. (2005). The Laws of Nature and the Effectiveness of Mathematics. In: Boniolo, G., Budinich, P., Trobok, M. (eds) The Role of Mathematics in Physical Sciences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3107-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3107-6_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3106-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3107-6
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)