Scott Aaronson over at Shtetl-Optimized asks whether mathematics or theory of computer science are actually “science.” My gut reaction to a question like this is just to avoid it: who cares whether math and TCS is science, what is important is that (some) math and (some) computer science are either (1) important to the progress of science and (2) important for practical reasons which we don’t classify as science (for example, as relating to technology.) But I guess this just explains why I’m not a pure mathematician (beside the fact that I don’t have the brains!): a connection to experiment or a connection to technology are important prerequisites for what I find important (note that this is different from what I find interesting.) Of course, I put mathematicians who do their work solely for the beauty of the work into the same category I put other, more traditional, artists, so what do I know?
O brave new quantum world!
I think that on this whole issue of math and science, I agree with Peter Woit that there probably is some deep connection between math and physics so the issue is probably moot.
You probably know this, Dave, but for the benefit of those who don’t.
Feynman used to say:
“Mathematics is to physics what masturbation is to sex”
Hi Dave,
Yes, sometimes it seems that why science is important. But I think we need to keep on asking and reminding ourselves during our research efforts to see the goal of what we want to achieve in our life with it. Yes, for the sake of joy most of us do science or technology, but I feel ultimately the goal of science or knowledge is to achieve some good human goal rather to do for the heck of it.