Children of the Cosmos

Presenting a Toy Model of Science with a Supporting Cast of Infinitesimals
Chapter
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)

Abstract

Mathematics may seem unreasonably effective in the natural sciences, in particular in physics. In this essay, I argue that this judgment can be attributed, at least in part, to selection effects. In support of this central claim, I offer four elements. The first element is that we are creatures that evolved within this Universe, and that our pattern finding abilities are selected by this very environment. The second element is that our mathematics—although not fully constrained by the natural world—is strongly inspired by our perception of it. Related to this, the third element finds fault with the usual assessment of the efficiency of mathematics: our focus on the rare successes leaves us blind to the ubiquitous failures (selection bias). The fourth element is that the act of applying mathematics provides many more degrees of freedom than those internal to mathematics. This final element will be illustrated by the usage of ‘infinitesimals’ in the context of mathematics and that of physics. In 1960, Wigner wrote an article on this topic [4] and many (but not all) later authors have echoed his assessment that the success of mathematics in physics is a mystery. At the end of this essay, I will revisit Wigner and three earlier replies that harmonize with my own view. I will also explore some of Einstein’s ideas that are connected to this. But first, I briefly expose my views of science and mathematics, since these form the canvass of my central claim.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Einstein, letter to Hans Muesham, July 9, 1951; Einstein archives 38–408; cited. In: Alice Calaprice (ed.) The Ultimate Quotable Einstein, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press (2011).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Spence, Anecdotes, Observations, and Characters of Books and Men (1820).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.A. Martinez, Science Secrets, University of Pittsburgh Press (2011) 274–275.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.P. Wigner “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences”, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13 (1960) 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Wenmackers and D.E.P. Vanpoucke, “Models and simulations in material science: two cases without error bars”, Statistica Neerlandica 66 (2012) 339–355.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Stewart, J. Cohen, and T. Pratchett, The Science of Discworld II: The Globe, Ebury Press (2002).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Neurath, “Protokollsätze”, Erkenntnis 3 (1933) 204–214.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Dehaene, The Number Sense; How the Mind Creates Mathematics, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Rugani, G. Vallortigara, K. Priftis, and L. Regolin, “Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line”, Science 347 (2015) 534–536.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Shermer, “Patternicity”, Scientific American 299 (2008) 48.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Einstein, “Geometry and experience”, translated by G. B. Jeffery and W. Perrett, in: Sidelights on Relativity, London, Methuen (1922) pp. 27–56.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.W. Leibniz, “Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis, Itemque Tangentibus, qua nec Fractas nec Irrationalales Quantitates Moratur, et Singular pro illi Calculi Genus”, Acta Eruditorum (1684).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Newton, “Introductio ad Quadraturum Curvarum”, chapter. In: Opticks or, a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. Also Two Treatises of the Species and Magnitude of Curvilinear Figures, London (1704).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Berkeley, The Analyst; or a Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician, printed for J. Tonson in the Strand, London (1734).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Robinson, Non-Standard Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1966).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Sanders, “More infinity for a better finitism”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161 (2010) 1525–1540.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Albeverio, J.E. Fenstad, R. Høegh-Krohn, and T. Lindstrøm (eds), Nonstandard Methods in Stochastic Analysis and Mathematical Physics, Academic Press, Orlando (1986).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Bagarello and S. Valenti, “Nonstandard analysis in classical physics and quantum formal scattering”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 27 (1988) 557–566.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P.J. Kelemen, “Quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and hyper-quantum mechanics”, chapter. In: Victoria Symposium on Non-Standard Analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 369, Springer, Berlin (1974).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L.L. Helms and P.A. Loeb, “Application of nonstandard analysis to spin models”, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 69 (1969) 341–352.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.E. Francis, “Application of nonstandard analysis to relativistic quantum mechanics”, Journal of Physics A 14 (1981) 2539–2251.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.F. Werner and P.H. Wolff, “Classical mechanics as quantum mechanics with infinitesimal \(\hbar \)”, Physics Letters A 202 (1995) 155–159.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Kukla, “Observation”, chapter. In: S. Psillos and M. Curd (eds), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, Routledge, London (2010) 396–404.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    B.C. van Fraassen, The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press (1980).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Maxwell, “The ontological status of theoretical entities”, chapter. In: H. Freigl and G. Maxwell (eds), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, University of Minnesota Press, Mineapolis (1962) 3–15.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. Douven, In defence of scientific realism, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leuven (1996).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T.A.F. Kuipers, From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism, Synthese Library: Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 287, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Hrbacek, O. Lessman, and R. O’Donovan, “Analysis with ultrasmall numbers”, The American Mathematical Monthly 117 (2010) 801–816.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Wenmackers, “Ultralarge lotteries: analyzing the Lottery Paradox using non-standard analysis”, Journal of Applied Logic 11 (2013) 452–467.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Wenmackers and L. Horsten, “Fair infinite lotteries”, Synthese 190 (2013) 37–61.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Tegmark, “The Mathematical Universe”, Foundations of Physics 38 (2008) 101–150.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Séguin, “My God, It’s Full of Clones: Living in a Mathematical Universe”, Chapter 4 in current book.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. W. Hamming, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics”, The American Mathematical Monthly 87 (1980) 81–90.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    I. Grattan-Guinness, “Solving Wigner’s mystery: The reasonable (though perhaps limited) effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”, The Mathematical Intelligencer (2008) 7–17.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    D. Abbott, “The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics”, Proceedings of the IEEE 101 (2013) 2147–2153.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Hand, The Improbability Principle; Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day, Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2014).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Pólya, Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Princeton University Press (1954; 2\(^{nd}\) edition 1968).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    H. Putnam, “What is mathematical truth?”, Historia Mathematica 2 (1975) 529–533.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    D. Howard, “Einstein and the Development of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science”, Chapter 11 in: M. Janssen and C. Lehner (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, Cambridge University Press (2014) pp. 354–376.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Einstein, “Physics and reality”, translated by J. Piccard, The Journal of the Franklin Institute 221 (1936) 3349–382.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds), J. L. Austin; Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press (1979) p. 252.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    FXQi discussion forum for the current essay, URL: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2492 (retrieved Sept. 2015).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KU Leuven, Centre for Logic and Analytic PhilosophyInstitute of PhilosophyLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.University of GroningenFaculty of PhilosophyGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations