Re: cracks and pots

[Eduardo Dubuc <edubuc@dm.uba.ar>]

Well Robert,

1)

> Well, Einstein was not "trying to"; he was using it, and presented this
> use as an accomplished fact.

I just wanted to put in evidence the following fallacy that you are
pushing forward:

To attack the use of category theory (by some people) in string theory is
at the same level that it would have been to attack the use (by Einstein)
of differential geometry in general relativity.

General relativity was born with differential geometry; it has no meaning
without differential geometry. String theory was already there when a
category theory approach began.

It is not the same thing.

Putting everything in the same bag is a well-known strategy to confuse an
issue.

Also, to have a poor opinion of many papers on applications of category
theory to physics is one thing, to say that category theory has no future
in physics is a completely different one. Nobody (including Motl's writing
I am discussing (*)) has said the latter!!

Quoting now from David Yetter:

** If (I suspect when) the string theory emperor turns out to have no
clothes, Category theory will suddenly become de rigeur in physics". **

I start to believe that independently from what it finally happens with
string theory; it is possible, even with the emperor well dressed, that
category theory will with time become the rigeur in physics.

2)

> Also, you forgot to mention that he flunk a high-school exam or
> something of the sort proving by this very fact that a lot of people
> were stupid, just as they are those which have doubts about the real
> value of some applications of category theory to physics !

I can only say that I am sorry about your reaction to this. It was just an
irony, and I thought this was evident.

e.d.

(*) Motl said (if I remember correctly) something of the sort that he
thinks that to reach some goals of string theory certain category theory
approach will not be helpful.