In addition to Comte, Randall's tweaking P.W. Anderson's 1972 article "More Is Different." Anderson gives a similar list and then says "But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y*" 184.108.40.206 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- What can we learn from this? - Actually as an Engineer I have a different view point to 220.127.116.11. We are implementers of original ideas and a few of us are lucky to be original idea generators. As a successful full time Engineer I still find time to be a philosopher and aspiring teacher (who simply didn't want to be poor, which is hard to do when specializing in the other two professions). How ever I do keep asking myself often who wrote the laws that mathematicians and theoretical scientists keep re-discovering for us... - E-inspired (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
"More is Different", written by Nobel laureate P.W. Anderson, is an insightful critique of constructivism. Quote:
But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y." At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one.
This one resonated around the Internet quite a bit more than average, and deservedly so. I'd think it'd be almost as far-reaching as the grownups one. I did wonder, after I saw this, how one would take into account things like linguistics, logic, and philosophy. Then I read Gödel, Escher, Bach and returned to normal. --Quicksilver (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Physics and mathematics
Physics, chemistry, biology, earth science,... are science on how things work. Mathematics and philosophy are science on how things can be predicted to work. 18.104.22.168 10:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A friend of mine compared the math-physics relationship to linguist-regular person. A linguist researches all the little details in a language that a normal person merely uses in his everyday life without giving the language itself much thought.22.214.171.124 08:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Before we get into an edit war here, I'd just like to say that "physics is the real joy in the world" would make absolutely no sense to me if I was not a native English speaker or I simply wasn't getting the comic's point in the first place. Not only does it have shades of grammatical incorrectness, it does absolutely nothing to actually explain how mathematics and physics can be compared to sex and masturbation. Thus I've changed the title text around to a compromise between my edit and what it was before. I hope this is more acceptable. Jetman123 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not happy with the title text explain:
- The explain implies that masturbation "is all just in your head" and not "involves interactions with real objects". Isn't a vagina/penis also a real object?
- My last edit on this wasn't perfect as well, so it still needs an enhancement. The joke is more like this: Math/maturbation gives only satisfaction to the subject acting on this — Physics/sex are related to the real world (applied science/babies). And this is surely exaggerated by Randall because physics couldn't exist without mathematics — those faculties just joking about each other. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Some experts say the universe is a computer. Some other experts say all computers can be hacked. If both groups are right, then it follows that physics is one stack-overflow exploit away from being reduced to applied computer science. Promethean (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- "On the other hand, physicists like to say physics is to math as sex is to masturbation."
- Are physicists born with particles- or are they implanted because they are born without balls?
- Would a mathematician have much better analogies than orgasms?
I wouldn't know.
- Math is to physics as,
- drugs are to prostitutes,
- green eggs are to ham,
- quod erat demonstrandum is to cogito ergo sum,
- masterbating is to shakespearing,
- coffee is to sugar,
- Spock is to House,
- category theory is to Kama Sutra,
- Cicero is to Caesar.
Sorry physics, but it seems to me that your particle accelerators are gluttonously huge scientifically unnecessary and totally useless particle-crunchers, functionally comparable to fastest-known super-computer designs for discovering new large prime numbers. I wonder if physicists are actually the heaviest consumers of funding that would otherwise be available to support mathematicians, who are obviously the lightest consumers of research funding and also the most productive of new discoveries. Mathematicians can actually tell the difference between an arbitrary mathematical information computational process, and an orgy of man-boy physicists playing with their tiny balls in a spaceship-submarine with a warp-core that could give anyone an involuntary geek-gasm easily shrinking physics to the size of sex. QED.
Thanks for the joke, any offense taken it was not my intention to return. I just felt the need to point out that, although I agree that physics is a respectable second-best, sexy is a long way from first.
Nafindix 126.96.36.199 06:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Random side note: One could argue that mathematics is applied philosophy (if we take philosophy as a way to create an understanding of the world), and that philosophy (as a product of human societies) is applied sociology. It's a weak argument, but the circular-ness is appealing. 188.8.131.52 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Last night, I passed around my phone in a discussion group, and it showed the philosopher both on the left, and again WAY OVER on the right, with a "Whoa!" This morning, it is back to how it is presented above. Randall, are you messing with me? Knechod (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
First, the terminology: cold science is an observation described with math, that can give stable objective (meaning they could be potentially disproved by an experiment) predictions in a certain range of conditions. Philosophy is an interpretation of science. Math is purely artificial and doesn't require translation, it is pretty much the only abstract symbol system we have now that follows the principle of objectivity, and any solid generalization model requires abstraction by definition. A natural language can't do that because it's subjective, and it's philosophy that is about subjective terms, what do they mean and how do they relate to objectivity and perceived reality. Gather 5 quantum physicists and show them an equation - they will nod agreeably, but ask them to explain it - and they will fight eventually. Despite that, mobile phones work the same way in hands of any person, because that's an applied science, which is roughly equivalent to engineering + inventing. So in that terms the relationship between sciences can be seen as an example of what's called emergence , and this concept quite well exists inside any particular science, i.e. in physics thermodynamics is just a generalization of Newtonian mechanics for certain kind of systems (a temperature is a mean kinetic energy of comprising particles, and so on), and mechanics itself is one of generalizations of electrodynamics (things like friction and collision are electromagnetic by nature). The same applies to all other sciences - they just describe different systems of different scales, and most borders become very smeared nowadays, with things like molecular biology, quantum electrodynamics (which is essentially a whole new branch of math), chemical kinetics, ethology and many other continuously evolving cross-disciplinary branches of science. So there's no contradiction here, sciences are different in many aspects but yet they all are reflections of a global pattern, and thus should operate on the same conceptual field. And in this case the contextual field is maths itself. In the end even our subjective descriptions of reality could (and probably would) be represented as a set of math equations, because our brains are nothing more than big calculators, and our language is nothing more than a system of symbols, represented with geometrical shapes and sound waves, and the same mathematical patterns are repeated all over the different aspects of those. All is one, just like our universe itself. octaharon @ 184.108.40.206 09:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)