Philosopher A.J. Meyer reminisces about his dinners with Dirac, and math and beauty and ...

Hi Denyse ...,

This article [See “Math: What if beauty and truth conflict,” below] brings back several memories. Because of my close friendship with Behram Kursunoglu, who was a close friend of Paul Dirac and was also a former student of his at Cambridge, I became one of the few fortunate souls with whom Dirac would engage in conversation. One night after dinner, as Dirac and I were discussing some problems in physics, he told me to always believe the mathematics. He told me that he almost failed to get the Nobel, because he doubted the truth of the beautiful mathematics that predicted the existence of a particle that had the same mass but opposite charge as an electron [later known as the positron]. Nevertheless, he decided to risk possible ridicule and simply trust the mathematics and publish his findings. His publication was just in the knick of time, since the positron was discovered shortly thereafter.

At one of Dirac's last talks at a Coral Gables Conference, while he was admonishing the younger physicists about their incorrect and cavalier use of mathematics, Dirac stated that if the mathematics was ugly, the physics was probably wrong. One guy got up and asked Dirac: "What do you mean by ugly mathematics?" Dirac replied: "If you have to ask that, you are in the wrong business."

In summary, I don't think it is necessarily Beauty versus Truth. However, I do believe that Dirac was right when he said that "God used beautiful mathematics when He created the world." which echoes the author of Hebrews 11,1-3: "Now faith is the assurance of the things we hope for, the proof of the reality of the things we cannot see. For by it the men of old won God's approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were created, beautifully co-coordinated in symmetry, and now exist, at God's command; so the things we see did not develop out of mere matter."

Shalom,
A.J.

Shalom to you too, A.J., and thanks for an illuminating contribution. - cheers, Denyse
To find out more about my book, go to By Design or by Chance?

Math: What if beauty and truth conflict?

Math prof Marcus du Sautoy emphasizes the importance of beautify in math concepts, and it is fair to say that it is also important in sciencec oncempts. He writes,

But in Einstein's view, the ultimate test for an equation was an aesthetic one. The highest praise for a good theory was not that it was correct or that it was exact, simply that it should be beautiful. Dirac concurred with Einstein's view. When asked in a seminar in Moscow to summarise his philosophy of physics, he wrote on the blackboard in capital letters: "Physical laws should have mathematical beauty."

This raises an interesting question: Lots of people love the idea that natural selection produces mind from mud precisely because it is so elegant and simple. They are, therefore, desperately unwilling to learn that it might not be true. Question: Is this somewhat like a guy who doesn't want to hear that the beautiful girl he's in love with from a distance is actually mentally retarded and couldn't possibly see him without her guardian's approval, and anyway, she will sound like his kid sister (8 yrs old)? And always will. Like, we all know that you can't TALK to the guy about it (he would smack you a good one); you can only wait for him to find these facts out for himself. I sometimes think that the current science establishment is like that hwere Darwinism is concerned.)

Incidentally, du Sautoy goes on to note,

The power of prediction is also a key part of the best scientific equations. Those scientists who first understood the equations for the motions of the heavenly bodies wielded great power. The Spanish invaders in South America were able to use their prediction of a solar eclipse to defeat the indigenous armies who were terrified by the power of their formulas.

The famous British physicist Paul Dirac came up with an equation to predict the behaviour of electrons. His equation, now inscribed on his memorial in Westminster Abbey, won him a Nobel prize. But as well as describing the behaviour of an electron, it also seemed to predict the existence of a new sort of particle called anti-matter. This strange substance would annihilate the matter that surrounds us to produce pure energy. Sounds like science fiction - indeed, the starship Enterprise is fuelled on the stuff. Yet despite early scepticism by scientists, anti-matter was in fact identified as a reality in 1932.

I wonder if anyone can come up with an equation for either Darwinism or intelligent design that actually makes predicts. Find out more about my book, go to By Design or by Chance?