Trick or Truth? pp 5-20 | Cite as

# Children of the Cosmos

## 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.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.J. Spence,
*Anecdotes, Observations, and Characters of Books and Men*(1820).Google Scholar - 3.A.A. Martinez,
*Science Secrets*, University of Pittsburgh Press (2011) 274–275.Google Scholar - 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.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.I. Stewart, J. Cohen, and T. Pratchett,
*The Science of Discworld II: The Globe*, Ebury Press (2002).Google Scholar - 7.
- 8.S. Dehaene,
*The Number Sense; How the Mind Creates Mathematics*, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar - 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.
- 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.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.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.G. Berkeley,
*The Analyst; or a Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician*, printed for J. Tonson in the Strand, London (1734).Google Scholar - 15.A. Robinson,
*Non-Standard Analysis*, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1966).Google Scholar - 16.S. Sanders, “More infinity for a better finitism”,
*Annals of Pure and Applied Logic***161**(2010) 1525–1540.Google Scholar - 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.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.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.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.C.E. Francis, “Application of nonstandard analysis to relativistic quantum mechanics”, Journal of Physics A 14 (1981) 2539–2251.Google Scholar
- 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.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.B.C. van Fraassen,
*The Scientific Image*, Oxford University Press (1980).Google Scholar - 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.I. Douven,
*In defence of scientific realism*, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leuven (1996).Google Scholar - 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.K. Hrbacek, O. Lessman, and R. O’Donovan, “Analysis with ultrasmall numbers”,
*The American Mathematical Monthly***117**(2010) 801–816.Google Scholar - 29.S. Wenmackers, “Ultralarge lotteries: analyzing the Lottery Paradox using non-standard analysis”,
*Journal of Applied Logic***11**(2013) 452–467.Google Scholar - 30.S. Wenmackers and L. Horsten, “Fair infinite lotteries”, Synthese 190 (2013) 37–61.Google Scholar
- 31.
- 32.M. Séguin, “My God, It’s Full of Clones: Living in a Mathematical Universe”, Chapter 4 in current book.Google Scholar
- 33.R. W. Hamming, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics”,
*The American Mathematical Monthly***87**(1980) 81–90.Google Scholar - 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.D. Abbott, “The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics”,
*Proceedings of the IEEE***101**(2013) 2147–2153.Google Scholar - 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.G. Pólya,
*Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning*, Princeton University Press (1954; 2\(^{nd}\) edition 1968).Google Scholar - 38.
- 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.A. Einstein, “Physics and reality”, translated by J. Piccard, The Journal of the Franklin Institute 221 (1936) 3349–382.Google Scholar
- 41.J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds),
*J. L. Austin; Philosophical Papers*, Oxford University Press (1979) p. 252.Google Scholar - 42.FXQi discussion forum for the current essay, URL: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2492 (retrieved Sept. 2015).