categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Robert J. MacG. Dawson" <rdawson@cs.stmarys.ca>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: cracks and pots
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:08:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4416F8A2.9080300@cs.stmarys.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BAY114-F26C035E683A780D5555217DFE10@phx.gbl>

Marta Bunge wrote;


	This [inviting researchers in fashionable applied areas to speak at
	category theory meetings] may lead to narrow
> developments of any subject that they approach with this objective in
> mind, and that is dangerous for the future of category theory (of
> mathematics, in general). That is my main concern. My posting tried to
> call attention to what I think is a sad state of affairs in category
> theory, when it need not be.

	It is not clear to me that the majority of theoretical physicists agree
with the negative view of categorical string theory held by the cited
blog writers; and in the absence of a consensus among the physicists, I
for one (with an undergradate degree and some graduate courses in
physics) do not feel qualified to take sides; if anything, errors should
be on the side of trying out too many ideas, not too few.

	I have this image of differential geometers saying to each other, a
century ago, "Don't you think somebody ought to tell that Einstein to
stop trying to use differential geometry to explain gravity, before our
whole field gets a bad name?"

	Of course, the pioneering knot theorists probably thought that Lord
Kelvin ought to stop trying to explain atomic nuclei as knotted loops of
ether, too.  But I think Einstein did differential geometry more good
than Kelvin did harm to knot theory.  A mathematical technique  powerful
enough to show that a physical theory does *not* work has shown its own
value.

	What has sometimes gone on, at least for a while, is that very abstract
physical theories have continued to be studied after it had become
obvious that their predictions were wildly at variance with observation,
or that they would never make any predictions. Even then I don't think
the reputation of the mathematical theory being abused suffers, though
that of the neighboring theoretical physicists may. I don't think this
is the case with string theory yet, though I could be wrong.

	Cheers,
	      Robert Dawson






       reply	other threads:[~2006-03-14 17:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <BAY114-F26C035E683A780D5555217DFE10@phx.gbl>
2006-03-14 17:08 ` Robert J. MacG. Dawson [this message]
2006-03-14 17:48   ` Marta Bunge
2006-03-27 14:28     ` Peter Selinger
2006-03-29 19:23 dusko
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-03-29 14:02 David Yetter
2006-03-28  8:01 dusko
2006-03-29 12:57 ` Alex Simpson
2006-03-26 13:37 V. Schmitt
2006-03-25  3:22 David Yetter
2006-03-24 16:24 Marta Bunge
2006-03-23 19:45 Peter Arndt
2006-03-23 16:50 Eduardo Dubuc
2006-03-26 13:25 ` Urs Schreiber
2006-03-19 18:25 Steve Vickers
2006-03-18 15:19 James Stasheff
2006-03-17 18:29 Robert J. MacG. Dawson
2006-03-17 17:26 Eduardo Dubuc
2006-03-17 16:24 Krzysztof Worytkiewicz
2006-03-17 14:25 jim stasheff
2006-03-17  9:36 George Janelidze
2006-03-17  8:49 Marta Bunge
2006-03-17  8:06 Marta Bunge
2006-03-17  1:52 Vaughan Pratt
2006-03-18 15:21 ` James Stasheff
2006-03-18 20:22 ` Mamuka Jibladze
2006-03-16 20:47 John Baez
2006-03-16 18:41 Robert J. MacG. Dawson
2006-03-16 17:29 Eduardo Dubuc
2006-03-16 14:54 Robert J. MacG. Dawson
2006-03-16 12:05 dusko
2006-03-16  9:51 V. Schmitt
2006-03-15 21:00 Eduardo Dubuc
2006-03-15 13:35 RFC Walters
2006-03-14 19:56 John Baez
2006-03-15 12:23 ` Marta Bunge
2006-03-15 17:26 ` Krzysztof Worytkiewicz
2006-03-12 22:29 Marta Bunge
2006-03-14  6:08 ` David Yetter
2006-03-14 23:18   ` Robert Seely
2006-03-14 14:55 ` Eduardo Dubuc
2006-03-14 16:05 ` Robert J. MacG. Dawson
2006-03-14 16:30   ` Marta Bunge
2006-03-14 23:26     ` Dominic Hughes

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4416F8A2.9080300@cs.stmarys.ca \
    --to=rdawson@cs.stmarys.ca \
    --cc=categories@mta.ca \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).