> it's not more likely, it just does. my point was that to the human mind (we all learn to count as toddlers), 2 emerges from 1+1 more than 1+1 emerges from 2.

> it's not more likely, it just does. my point was that to the human mind (we all learn to count as toddlers), 2 emerges from 1+1 more than 1+1 emerges from 2. I feel like I'm reading the paper that says the latter. >or any scientific concept that generalised existing theories to a far deeper and more unifying result (e.g classical -> quantum mechanics, newtonian mechanics -> general relativity). You are required to somehow develop a theory that not only extends beyond horizons currently seen, but also one that correctly replicates the theory it seeks to supercede. Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness... >Its like a literary character trying to write the story it is embedded in. sure, that's what it feels like, but we know that the characters are not writing themselves. So what's going on? It's not magic, it just seems magical, but humans psychologically are equipped to have a "theory of mind", were we are adapted to imagine/calculate what other people are thinking and feeling, probably because our game theory works better that way, both for cooperation and competition. Out interal sense of the beauty and majesty of nature and math and science is just more of that, a reflection of our innate sense of these things because it was adaptive. It's more boring than it seems: it's fun to catch and throw balls or stop and smell flowers, but duh. When it comes to balloons, I have no desire to spoil your enjoyment of inflating them; but don't spoil my enjoyment of letting the air out.