On Physicists (2010-2019)

"Another feature of Bourbaki is that it rejects intuition of any kind. Bourbaki books tend not to contain explanations, examples, or heuristics. One of the main messages of the present book is that we record mathematics for posterity in a strictly rigorous, axiomatic fashion. This is the mathematician’s version of the reproducible experiment with control used by physicists and biologists and chemists. But we learn mathematics, we discover mathematics, we create mathematics using intuition and trial and error. We draw pictures. Certainly, we try things and twist things around and bend things to try to make them work. Unfortunately, Bourbaki does not teach any part of this latter process." (Steven G Krantz, "The Proof is in the Pudding: The Changing Nature of Mathematical Proof", 2010)

"The objectivist view is that probabilities are real aspects of the universe - propensities of objects to behave in certain ways - rather than being just descriptions of an observer’s degree of belief. For example, the fact that a fair coin comes up heads with probability 0.5 is a propensity of the coin itself. In this view, frequentist measurements are attempts to observe these propensities. Most physicists agree that quantum phenomena are objectively probabilistic, but uncertainty at the macroscopic scale - e.g., in coin tossing - usually arises from ignorance of initial conditions and does not seem consistent with the propensity view." (Stuart J Russell & Peter Norvig, "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach", 2010)

"There are actually two sides to the success of mathematics in explaining the world around us (a success that Wigner dubbed ‘the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’), one more astonishing than the other. First, there is an aspect one might call ‘active’. When physicists wander through nature’s labyrinth, they light their way by mathematics - the tools they use and develop, the models they construct, and the explanations they conjure are all mathematical in nature. This, on the face of it, is a miracle in itself. […] But there is also a ‘passive’ side to the mysterious effectiveness of mathematics, and it is so surprising that the 'active' aspect pales by comparison. Concepts and relations explored by mathematicians only for pure reasons - with absolutely no application in mind - turn out decades (or sometimes centuries) later to be the unexpected solutions to problems grounded in physical reality!" (Mario Livio, "Is God a Mathematician?", 2011)

"The standard view among most theoretical physicists, engineers and economists is that mathematical models are syntactic" (linguistic) items, identified with particular systems of equations or relational statements. From this perspective, the process of solving a designated system of" (algebraic, difference, differential, stochastic, etc.) equations of the target system, and interpreting the particular solutions directly in the context of predictions and explanations are primary, while the mathematical structures of associated state and orbit spaces, and quantity algebras – although conceptually important, are secondary." (Zoltan Domotor, "Mathematical Models in Philosophy of Science" [Mathematics of Complexity and Dynamical Systems, 2012])

"Order is not universal. In fact, many chaologists and physicists posit that universal laws are more flexible than first realized, and less rigid - operating in spurts, jumps, and leaps, instead of like clockwork. Chaos prevails over rules and systems because it has the freedom of infinite complexity over the known, unknown, and the unknowable." (Lawrence K Samuels, "Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action", 2013)

"One of the most crucial developments in theoretical physics was the move from theories dependent on fixed, non-dynamical background space-time structures to background-independent theories, in which the space-time structures themselves are dynamical entities. [...] Even today, many physicists and philosophers do not fully understand the significance of this development, let alone accept it in practice. One must assume that, in an empty region of space-time, the points have no inherent individuating properties - nor indeed are there any spatio-temporal relations between them - that do not depend on the presence of some metric tensor field. [...] Thus, general relativity became the first fully dynamical, background- independent space-time theory." (John Stachel, "The Hole Argument", 2014)

"Ironically, conventional quantum mechanics itself involves a vast expansion of physical reality, which may be enough to avoid Einstein Insanity. The equations of quantum dynamics allow physicists to predict the future values of the wave function, given its present value. According to the Schrödinger equation, the wave function evolves in a completely predictable way. But in practice we never have access to the full wave function, either at present or in the future, so this 'predictability' is unattainable. If the wave function provides the ultimate description of reality - a controversial issue!" (Frank Wilczek, "Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity", 2015)

"The goal of physics is to explain the workings of the nonliving world. At first, philosophers described the properties of real objects: the wandering of planets across the night sky, the formation of ice, or the sound of a lyre. When attention turned to things that couldn’t be seen or measured so easily, physicists invented mechanical models to take the place of real things." (Hans C von Baeyer, "QBism: The future of quantum physics", 2016)

"Today, Euler’s formula is a tool as basic to electrical engineers and physicists as the spatula is to short-order cooks. It’s arguable that the formula’s ability to simplify the design and analysis of circuits contributed to the accelerating pace of electrical innovation during the twentieth century." (David Stipp, "A Most Elegant Equation: Euler's Formula and the Beauty of Mathematics", 2017)