> One of the "crises of mathematics" is that computerized proofs by exhaustion, by applying brute force to find all possibilities, make the field more empirical

> One of the "crises of mathematics" is that computerized proofs by exhaustion, by applying brute force to find all possibilities, make the field more empirical in nature and hence subject to experimental error. I would not describe using computer aided proofs as "more empirical in nature". Generally such proofs are held to the same standard as human proofs; there is not any "experimental error" that is not present in normal proof review. > When pragmatic arguments are used to create a premise like "this design will work best for the software", the question that needs asking is whether all stakeholders can buy into the most core assumptions, and whether all assumptions retain conceptual coherence when taken together. If the UX designer, the developer, the product manager, and the end user agree on a pragmatic theory, and all theories in play align without issue, there isn't an problem as to whether it's "really" true If your definition of "best" is something measurable in the real world, it doesn't matter what pragmatic theory is agreed upon. Only the systems that "really" achieve the best state are the best. Systems that rely on agreed upon assumptions, but fail to achieve their promises are not relevant. In simple terms, philosophy and mathematics doesn't matter if it fails to match reality.