Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

ken kpaulc at [remove]
Mon Apr 12 01:14:49 EST 2004

"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn at> wrote in message
news:c5bo41$rf1$1 at
> Hash: SHA1
> "John H." <johnh at faraway.> writes:
> >That weird and wonderful mathematical
> >physicist Paul Dirac wrote a paper in
> >the 60's that addressed this issue, the title
> >went something like, "On the unreasonable
> >effectiveness of mathematics in the scientific
> >field." Anyone here read it??? Sorry, can't
> >remember the exact title, not in my archives
> >and from a decade old memory.

Hi John, Sorry I missed replying to your original
post [Thanks, Neil].

It always cracks-me-up when I read of Maths'
'extraordinary effectivness' with respect to phys-
ical reality.

It's always be-cause the folks who say this sort
of thing know Maths only incompletely.

"Number" is as a 3-D solid, and all one has to
do is direct one's path through that 3-D solid,
and one can 'mathematically' describe =anything=.

But there's no 'amazement' in-there.

"Number" is just a 3-D, infinitely-divisible, solid.

Folks do Maths, incompletely, and 'think' that
the Maths they do is 'extraordinary' stuff, simply
because they don't see the rest of Maths :-])

[I guess I shouldn't 'smile'. The result of such
incomplete-Maths-itus has been a =lot= of
Truely-Sorrowful stagnation.

"The Maths =says= it, so I don't care what
=you= say."

"But look at =this= Maths."

"That's not Maths, you ignorant fool."

But it is.

the "maths' extraordinariness" folks just can't
see it.

"Stagnation." :-|

Cheers, John [Neil], ken [k. p. collins]

> You are possibly thinking of a famous paper written by Wigner (not
> Dirac).  Its title "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in
> the Physical Sciences" (Communications in Pure and Applied
> Mathematics 13, 1960).  You can probably find it on the web.
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (SunOS)
> iD8DBQFAeWO+vmGe70vHPUMRAv+BAJ9+qRQLfbTWleFk1QeP4Mj0KfgmzgCfcta1
> 9p5XvcvFIAdKpL/zFZ+TDg8=
> =oqUD

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list