
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences (1960) - whack
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
======
dang
A thread from 2019:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19588971](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19588971)

2017:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954804](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954804)

2014:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8520610](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8520610)

A bit from 2011:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2421855](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2421855)

------
mola
Could we "just" be carving the aspects of reality that math can model? I mean
perhaps math is very effective in explaining what it can explain and we
developed a blind spot for what it can't explain?

~~~
llamaz
That's true, but I suspect the aspects that math can't model are either known
to be intractable problems (e.g. modelling turbulence, Navier-Stokes), or
otherwise have been delegated to other fields like philosophy or the
humanities.

So I don't think there are physical aspects of reality that we are missing out
on because they cannot be modeled using math.

However, the social and historical aspect of science is undoubtedly incredibly
important, as well as the selection of the scope of science. These aspects of
reality might be underrepresented.

To be more concrete, perhaps in 50 years we'll have doctors who specialize in
"suburban salaryman kidneys," because the scope of study will expand from just
the internal organs, to the internal organs, together with the external
environment and social conditions.

We're already sorta there. A physiologist would conduct research on specific
organs and systems, while a general practitioner/family medicine doctor takes
your history (i.e. considers the social and historical conditions that lead to
illness)

------
inetsee
Note that this article dates from February 1960.

