Plenty of the mathematics in science is ugly. But the mathematics in fundamental physics tends to be beautiful. It could be that in the correct fundamental physics it won't be beautiful. I wonder if we have reason to think it will be. The fact that in our current fundamental physics theories there is mathematical beauty doesn't seem to say much, because our current fundamental physics is probably false.
Still, I hope that the book of the world is written by God in such a way that the mathematical elegance of approximately true theories points to the mathematical elegance of the true theory in physics. I wonder, though, if an atheist could have any reason to have such a hope.
2 comments:
Neil Turok holds hopes like that, despite being an atheist. However, his only justification seems to be that simple, elegant solutions have always panned out before and so we have good inductive reason to think that nature is simple and elegant down to the core.
The 'reason' an atheist could have would be something like, I hope that the book of the world is such that the mathematical elegance of approximately true theories points to the mathematical elegance of the true theory in physics. In other words, simply hope that nature is at its core simple enough to be (mathematically) elegant.
I actually think on atheism this hope is more justified than on theism, because if the book of the world were written by an omnipotent personal agent, this agent could have written it in virtually every way, some of which would be 'elegant' (to us) and others would be 'ugly' (to us.
On atheism we have, as Michael points out, at least good inductive reasons to hope nature is simple and elegant down to the core, but apart from those inductive reasons there are also philosophical arguments that point to the ultimate simplicity of existence. One reason I personally reject theism is because I believe there is good reason to think that existence at its core is indeed simple.
Post a Comment