这里没有绳结的割伤，但仍然有很大的来回。

I especially enjoyed Ed Frenkel’s metaphor of Mathematics as an archipelago. Frenkel is an excellent argument for tolerance if ever there was one. If PT could get him on the show to talk about anything – we would all be the better for it.

Note we tried to change Mathematic education in the “New Math” movement. I would have liked to have heard Islami talk to that approach and maybe to the critiques of Morris Kline.

多在客人乔什和雷之间交流可能会有帮助。我感到被沙皇的职责所迫，这个或那个问题。更多的呼吁和回应会有所帮助。我认为伊斯兰有更多的东西可以给予，有几次说错了话，需要反击。

我订了雅克尔的书。如果你不能剪断绳结，那你还不如自己做。

es30,

Arezoo doesn’t specifically address Wigner’s “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” in this discussion but the ideas run throughout the show.

看看她对马丁·卡里尔(Martin Carrier)和约翰内斯·莱纳德(Johannes Lehnard)的研究《作为工具的数学:追踪数学在科学中的新角色》(Mathematics as a tool: tracing of Mathematics in science)的评论吧。她总结了我认为她对维格纳的看法。

在一篇经常被引用但没有仔细阅读的论文中，Wigner(1960)谈到了数学在自然科学中不可理喻的有效性。在他看来，数学和现代物理学是两个截然不同的知识分支，它们之间的密切关系似乎令人费解、神秘和不合理。

Missing from Wigner’s analysis is an account of the constitution of mathematics, on the one hand, and its changing relationship with sciences on the other. He adopts uncritically the definition of pure abstract mathematics of the twentieth century and projects it to the mathematics of all areas and all eras. Moreover, the paper is focused almost exclusively on modern theoretical physics (Islami 2016).

Thus, critics of Wigner have focused, and with good motivation, on ineffectiveness of mathematics in other sciences (see, for example, Longo and Monte ́vil 2013; Steiner 1998; Velupillai 2005, for responses).”

I wonder what you might think of that? Would the show have gone there, but it did not.

The recent clash between epidemiologists and virologists about the term “transmission” is an excellent example of where Wigner went wrong with that essay/talk. Arezoo gets into the weeds in her own work, saying Wigner is not to blame for the insult.

Regardless of who said what and when the idea that Math speaks to divinity was a mistake by Dr. Islami. I think she would regret using that phrase if your comment pressed her. Misinterpretation of Math as anything but a tool is a crucial talking point for Arezoo and a cluster for Wigner and most physical scientists today. The world will and has already started to pay the price for computational biologists philosophically getting this wrong.

I like this post.

为什么数学应该在时间之外被考虑，这是一个不需要回答的问题。在一起讨论无限和时间看似很直观。Arezoo Islami是时间哲学家，也是数学哲学家。如果能听到她与两个项目的对话，并将任何事情联系起来，那将会很有帮助。

然而，无限只是一种工具，而不是谜。它既实用又有局限性。极限是锁链，严格是锚，它改变了我们对无限天堂和无穷小的概念。数学在捕捉无限方面做得很好，在很大程度上，用极限的概念。希尔伯特的旅馆呈现了一个有许多无限的世界。大饭店是一个有用的世界。

Wild ass guesses (WAGs) should be disambiguated from iWAGs – informed WAGs. Some of the most meaningful and deep anchors and chains of my life and thought, of any one person's thoughts, are WAGs. Some can be dispensed with thought and experience, however, as well as lurking in the unquestioned and pervasive ether of culture.

Yet another vector for caution. We need to be careful to question our wild assery before dismissing someone else's iWAG. The "I" in iWAG can be the source of that dismissal. But to term epistemology, as a WAG doesn't pull power from explanations; it only focuses on their importance.

Zeno's paradoxes are a lark, were dismissed in his lifetime, and have persisted to modern times in those who failed to come to terms with them philosophically. Democritus and Leucippus answered the paradoxes in real-time (in the lifetime of Socrates) but were themselves dismissed by Platonic and later Aristotelian intransigence. Leucippus, a possible student of Zeno's, proposed the atomic theory of matter in Sherlockian fashion. Unfortunately, Josh points to Zeno instead of Democritus, but people still get confused. It is hard to overcome Ancient thought, the Roman and Medieval and predominantly modern, still accepted, Aristotelian world views. Reacting, adjusting, and refuting them is incumbent on philosophers today. Not only to read Plato and Aristotle but to refute and adapt them. Zeno can be dismissed entirely, however, as can much of Parmenides (all Monism aside.)

Democritus and Lucretius, on the other hand, need appreciation. Lucretius has had some rejuvenation, but Democritus wasn't rethought until Einstein considered Brownian motion. This show would have been a great time to refocus on the philosophy of thought experiments, their consequences, and how math can model thought and, thereby, reality.

Ancient Greek life had the conflict of Sophistry (Fake News) and Reason (Math – "Let none ignorant of geometry pass"), but that conflict comes to us by the filtered quill of others who didn't understand or appreciate the thoughts and conflicts. These quills had their own ideas and conflicts, which also WAG the dog.