If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Alexey/Lev Burov**: *on* 4/22/15 at 1:02am UTC, wrote Dear Roberto, It is certainly true that, as you are saying,...

**vincent douzal**: *on* 4/21/15 at 23:13pm UTC, wrote 1. Dear Roberto, I read our essay with the ease that a clearly...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 4/2/15 at 14:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Unger, I thought that your engrossing essay was...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/21/15 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Ungar, I posted a comment at your site that was...

**Laurence Hitterdale**: *on* 3/11/15 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Unger, In your essay you state many important truths. ...

**Gary Hansen**: *on* 3/10/15 at 18:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Unger, Congratulations. Mathematics is indeed a...

**Sujatha Jagannathan**: *on* 2/16/15 at 6:34am UTC, wrote Lots of physical-mathematical activities and perceptions doing the rounds. ...

**basudeba mishra**: *on* 2/16/15 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Dear Madam, Reality is whatever exists (has a confined structure that...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Marcel-Marie LeBel**: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Stefan Weckbach**: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Mykel Waggoner**: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Robert McEachern**: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Max? Why?"
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Steve Agnew**: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..."
*in* Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM

September 21, 2021

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: A Mystery Demystified: The Connection between Mathematics and Physics by roberto mangabeira unger [refresh]

TOPIC: A Mystery Demystified: The Connection between Mathematics and Physics by roberto mangabeira unger [refresh]

The effectiveness of mathematics in physics is reasonable because it is relative. We should reject the view, predominant in the history of modern physics, that mathematics offers a shortcut to eternal truth, and serves as the oracle of nature and the prophet of science. We can better understand mathematics as an exploration of a simulacrum of the world from which time and particularity have been sucked out. The radical selectivity of mathematical reasoning helps explain its power, its limits, and its dangers in physics. Mathematics is good at some things, and bad at others, especially at those that are historical. That limitation matters if the most important fact about the universe is that it is what it is as a result of its history. Mathematics cannot replace physical intuition or empirical discovery. In return for the immense service that it renders, it offers science a poisoned chalice: the idea of immutable laws of nature.

Philosopher, social and legal theorist, and political activist. Author, most recently, of The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time, with Lee Smolin, in which each of us presents separately the entire argument of the work. Professor of Law, Harvard University. Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Minister of Strategic Affairs in the government of President Lula, Brazil.

Dear Mr. Mangabeira Unger,

Thank you for your enjoyable and well written essay.

You mentioned that "Mathematics gives us no royal road to truth about nature", myself share also this view. Math may intersect with physics and in some cases only in rough manner. The truth is that part of the math world can be unphysical similarly the physical world can sometimes be non-mathematical.

We have tangible circumstances in the physical world, i.e. where life is generated in particles and this phenomenon doesn't fit into math at all, I have touched many more examples of this sort in my article. One essential fact the bridges us to math and physics is "quantity" that can be measured, anything else in our world not obeying this rule is omitted as unphysical, this is one of the big dilemmas of contemporary physics.

Warm regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your enjoyable and well written essay.

You mentioned that "Mathematics gives us no royal road to truth about nature", myself share also this view. Math may intersect with physics and in some cases only in rough manner. The truth is that part of the math world can be unphysical similarly the physical world can sometimes be non-mathematical.

We have tangible circumstances in the physical world, i.e. where life is generated in particles and this phenomenon doesn't fit into math at all, I have touched many more examples of this sort in my article. One essential fact the bridges us to math and physics is "quantity" that can be measured, anything else in our world not obeying this rule is omitted as unphysical, this is one of the big dilemmas of contemporary physics.

Warm regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Mangabeira Unger,

It was a real pleasure to read your essay. It was interesting and accessible.

It opens up questions. For example: when you highlight whether any mathematical construction will have no assured application to the real world.

I have a different view on mathematics and time. I might be wrong but time exists in mathematics. Probabilities are inside time. Could probabilities exist without time?

In my view, the representation of time is different in mathematics. In probability, time is represented as a discontinuity. I find this property interesting.

Regards,

Christophe

report post as inappropriate

It was a real pleasure to read your essay. It was interesting and accessible.

It opens up questions. For example: when you highlight whether any mathematical construction will have no assured application to the real world.

I have a different view on mathematics and time. I might be wrong but time exists in mathematics. Probabilities are inside time. Could probabilities exist without time?

In my view, the representation of time is different in mathematics. In probability, time is represented as a discontinuity. I find this property interesting.

Regards,

Christophe

report post as inappropriate

Dear Roberto Unger,

In your essay you state that "causal explanations make no sense outside time; causal connections can exist only in time." This I agree with. But then you say "…*the moves in a mathematical or logical chain of argument do occur outside time*." I'm not so sure of that. A mathematical argument goes from step to step in sequential fashion which seems to...

view entire post

In your essay you state that "causal explanations make no sense outside time; causal connections can exist only in time." This I agree with. But then you say "…

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Roberto Unger,

To be sincere I am wondering what exactly is going on here? I look forward to the book you are co-authoring with Lee Smolin to know exactly how the course of scientific truth will be advanced. If you have time, you may take a look at my essay and comment.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

To be sincere I am wondering what exactly is going on here? I look forward to the book you are co-authoring with Lee Smolin to know exactly how the course of scientific truth will be advanced. If you have time, you may take a look at my essay and comment.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Mathematics is the quantitative description of Nature. It is linear (explication) or nonlinear (including recursive reasoning) accumulation and reduction in numbers. Number are concepts that differentiate between similars – if there are no similars, it is one; otherwise many; depending upon the sequence of perception of one’s. Being a concept, number has no physical existence...

view entire post

Mathematics is the quantitative description of Nature. It is linear (explication) or nonlinear (including recursive reasoning) accumulation and reduction in numbers. Number are concepts that differentiate between similars – if there are no similars, it is one; otherwise many; depending upon the sequence of perception of one’s. Being a concept, number has no physical existence...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof Unger:

You will not recall, but I once attended a seminar you gave. That person who kept asking what you mean with "real". I will not bother you with that again for I know it's an unfair question and in a way I was pleased you didn't pretend to have an answer. Let me thus get straight to the point of my essay and how it touches upon the topic of yours. You write:

"Mathematics deals with nature as well as with itself."

I've never seen "mathematics" dealing with anything. We deal. Note the difference. It doesn't matter whether you believe mathematics is invented or discovered. I find this a pointless discussion. The relevant point is that WE use mathematics FOR science. But what if we find out that mathematics has limits? Can we still do science? In my essay I argue that yes, we can, and that we already do.

-- Sophia

report post as inappropriate

You will not recall, but I once attended a seminar you gave. That person who kept asking what you mean with "real". I will not bother you with that again for I know it's an unfair question and in a way I was pleased you didn't pretend to have an answer. Let me thus get straight to the point of my essay and how it touches upon the topic of yours. You write:

"Mathematics deals with nature as well as with itself."

I've never seen "mathematics" dealing with anything. We deal. Note the difference. It doesn't matter whether you believe mathematics is invented or discovered. I find this a pointless discussion. The relevant point is that WE use mathematics FOR science. But what if we find out that mathematics has limits? Can we still do science? In my essay I argue that yes, we can, and that we already do.

-- Sophia

report post as inappropriate

Dear Madam,

Reality is whatever exists (has a confined structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (perceptible/knowable) and communicable (describable using a language as defined in our essay). Number is a perceivable property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,..n depending upon the sequence of perception of one’s. Mathematics is the quantitative description of Nature. Thus, it explains only one part. Another part is described by physics, which has meaning only when observed (perceived).

Thus, mathematics can be figuratively said to deal with quantitative aspect of Nature and because of logical consistency, deal with itself. However, since it is we, who perceive the numbers - hence mathematics, we agree with you that we deal with it.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Reality is whatever exists (has a confined structure that evolves in time and is perceptible), is intelligible (perceptible/knowable) and communicable (describable using a language as defined in our essay). Number is a perceivable property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,..n depending upon the sequence of perception of one’s. Mathematics is the quantitative description of Nature. Thus, it explains only one part. Another part is described by physics, which has meaning only when observed (perceived).

Thus, mathematics can be figuratively said to deal with quantitative aspect of Nature and because of logical consistency, deal with itself. However, since it is we, who perceive the numbers - hence mathematics, we agree with you that we deal with it.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Lots of physical-mathematical activities and perceptions doing the rounds.

Great, way to go!

Respectfully,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Great, way to go!

Respectfully,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Unger,

Congratulations. Mathematics is indeed a misrepresentation of the real world if it claims to describe the whole as the sum of its parts. There is no evidence (upon which mathematics relies) that nature shares in the timelessness of mathematical propositions. Change is the only constant in nature - a provocative idea when applied to the pursuit of mathematical truths.

In question is whether or not there is discontinuity between natural fact and mathematical truth. We represent the former with words and the latter with numbers. In the world of nature truth is transient while in mathematics facts are represented as being true and constant. Numbers don’t lie unless they are improperly related, as is the case when they are intended to "trick" others.

I identify with your "most decisive and astonishing feature of mathematics, and the one by virtue of which it can be neither invention nor discovery, as they are conventionally understood. This trait -- the fourth attribute of mathematics -- is the study of a counterfeit version of the world, of the only world that there is". Mathematics is a distorted representation of the world because it only addresses those aspects of nature that can be enumerated. "Deception" is a heavy word but, used intentionally or otherwise, mathematics is correctly identified as such.

Mathematical reasoning is a self-chosen format for inquiring into the world whereby we brush away any unmanageable considerations, e.g. time and phenomenal variation in nature, in the interest of gaining certainty. However the only certainty that is so-gained is that mathematics does not represent nature the way it actually is.

Gary Hansen

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations. Mathematics is indeed a misrepresentation of the real world if it claims to describe the whole as the sum of its parts. There is no evidence (upon which mathematics relies) that nature shares in the timelessness of mathematical propositions. Change is the only constant in nature - a provocative idea when applied to the pursuit of mathematical truths.

In question is whether or not there is discontinuity between natural fact and mathematical truth. We represent the former with words and the latter with numbers. In the world of nature truth is transient while in mathematics facts are represented as being true and constant. Numbers don’t lie unless they are improperly related, as is the case when they are intended to "trick" others.

I identify with your "most decisive and astonishing feature of mathematics, and the one by virtue of which it can be neither invention nor discovery, as they are conventionally understood. This trait -- the fourth attribute of mathematics -- is the study of a counterfeit version of the world, of the only world that there is". Mathematics is a distorted representation of the world because it only addresses those aspects of nature that can be enumerated. "Deception" is a heavy word but, used intentionally or otherwise, mathematics is correctly identified as such.

Mathematical reasoning is a self-chosen format for inquiring into the world whereby we brush away any unmanageable considerations, e.g. time and phenomenal variation in nature, in the interest of gaining certainty. However the only certainty that is so-gained is that mathematics does not represent nature the way it actually is.

Gary Hansen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Unger,

In your essay you state many important truths. Things in nature are thoroughly time-bound. We ourselves and our thinking processes are not exceptions. Mathematics cannot describe or represent all aspects of time, and therefore it is a serious error to suppose that the world is fully mathematical. With all this I agree.

My concern, however, is with denying...

view entire post

In your essay you state many important truths. Things in nature are thoroughly time-bound. We ourselves and our thinking processes are not exceptions. Mathematics cannot describe or represent all aspects of time, and therefore it is a serious error to suppose that the world is fully mathematical. With all this I agree.

My concern, however, is with denying...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Ungar,

I posted a comment at your site that was unnecessarily contemptuous and devoid of the civility all contributors are entitled to. I deeply regret having done so, and I do hope that you can forgive my slurring of your fully deserved reputation.

I suspect that I may be suffering a relapse of Asperger’s Disorder. While this might explain my distasteful action, it cannot in any way justify it.

Respectfully,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I posted a comment at your site that was unnecessarily contemptuous and devoid of the civility all contributors are entitled to. I deeply regret having done so, and I do hope that you can forgive my slurring of your fully deserved reputation.

I suspect that I may be suffering a relapse of Asperger’s Disorder. While this might explain my distasteful action, it cannot in any way justify it.

Respectfully,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Unger,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

1. Dear Roberto,

I read our essay with the ease that a clearly flowing exposition adds to finding ideas congruent with my own.

The aim of my essay was to outline a formal system that is consistent with much of what you argue for, but looking back at it, I see it is probably very hard to follow the thread of too many ideas packed into a few pages.

Here...

view entire post

I read our essay with the ease that a clearly flowing exposition adds to finding ideas congruent with my own.

The aim of my essay was to outline a formal system that is consistent with much of what you argue for, but looking back at it, I see it is probably very hard to follow the thread of too many ideas packed into a few pages.

Here...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Roberto,

It is certainly true that, as you are saying, “mathematics … addresses a nature from which time and, together with time, all phenomenal distinction have been sucked out.” However, your conclusion that “mathematics gives us no royal road to truth about nature” contradicts to the tremendous success of fundamental physics. Your essay misses the questions about the fine-tuned universe, why there are life and thought in the world and why the world is so impressively theoretizable. Simplicity and “naturalness” of the laws of nature cannot explain why they are so simple as to be cosmically discoverable and at the same time why they are open to a possibility for living and conscious beings to emerge. On the other hand, I cannot but agree with you in what I would call an abuse of mathematics, or, wider, an abuse of reason, to use Hayek’s term. Physics is mathematical, and there is nothing but nectar in that (rather than poison). What is not nectar, is absolutization of that approach to all of reality, which already lead and continues to lead humanity not only to epistemological mistakes, but to massive tragedies.

Best Regards,

Alexey and Lev Burov.

report post as inappropriate

It is certainly true that, as you are saying, “mathematics … addresses a nature from which time and, together with time, all phenomenal distinction have been sucked out.” However, your conclusion that “mathematics gives us no royal road to truth about nature” contradicts to the tremendous success of fundamental physics. Your essay misses the questions about the fine-tuned universe, why there are life and thought in the world and why the world is so impressively theoretizable. Simplicity and “naturalness” of the laws of nature cannot explain why they are so simple as to be cosmically discoverable and at the same time why they are open to a possibility for living and conscious beings to emerge. On the other hand, I cannot but agree with you in what I would call an abuse of mathematics, or, wider, an abuse of reason, to use Hayek’s term. Physics is mathematical, and there is nothing but nectar in that (rather than poison). What is not nectar, is absolutization of that approach to all of reality, which already lead and continues to lead humanity not only to epistemological mistakes, but to massive tragedies.

Best Regards,

Alexey and Lev Burov.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.