3 ms·
I’m not so sure. The same argument would apply to theoretical physics in 1960. Circa 2023, there are remarkably few shallow parts of physics. Math as a whole m
by sillysaurusx 4y ago
I’m not so sure. The same argument would apply to theoretical physics in 1960. Circa 2023, there are remarkably few shallow parts of physics.
Math as a whole may last longer, but this list reminds us how far we’ve come in a mere few millennia: https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/SaI50Q1d/1667865208.JPG https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/SaI50Q1d/166786520...
On the timescale of civilization, it seems less and less likely that lone mathematicians can revolutionize the field.
We’re fortunate to have been born so early, relatively speaking.
- mlyle 4y agoPhysics is limited by having to represent phenomena in our physical world simply. Mathematics is not just a small integer multiple larger than this.
- joe_the_user 4y agoThis is almost correct. It's not that math is vastly larger (or more sophisticated) as a field. Both fields are infinitely large in many senses. Rather, the number of respectable starting points where you can do interesting things is much larger, orders larger in math.
- romwell 4y agoThere are plenty of unexplored things in physics too; the key word is "respectable". Looking from the outside, physics suffers a lot from fashion/hot trend tendencies, where you need to be doing the "hot" thing to make the jumps necessary to the coveted Tenure Track — and otherwise, you get kicked out.
- nyokodo 4y ago> it seems less and less likely that lone mathematicians can revolutionize the field. Which inspires the question: how much can cutting edge math be parallelized?
- squokko 4y agoBut you can manufacture new areas of mathematics. For example, Conway's Game of Life, and then prove theorems on it.