Mathematical structures as metaphors

People understand aspects of life that they don’t have good words for. Math could supply them with some names for these concepts. Just as music theory explains how Mozart’s music, blues, and klezmer music are different from each other (part of the explanation is: different scales).

It would be convenient if everyone understood comments such as “Race and ethnicity are not Boolean concepts”. Well, they don’t. In the case of race, I think many people over 70 years old or so are hung up on the idea that a person is either black or white. They ask questions about a mixed race person like “What is he?” Younger people seem to know better, but they don’t have a way of expressing the idea that the concepts of Boolean and fuzzy set would give them. In a similar way, ethnicity is a function of (at least) two independent variables: ancestry and culture. Many people understand this without having a decent way to say it. But who outside of mathematicians knows from independent variables?

The Theory of Everything is a sheaf of theories

Reading The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, led me to the idea that knowledge, at least scientific knowledge, is like a sheaf. Astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics are different systems of knowledge. In some sense Newton discovered a map that interpreted astronomy in physics, Linus Pauling did something like that with chemistry and physics (calculating chemical reactions using quantum mechanics), and Crick and Watson got hold of a basic fact that interprets biology in chemistry.

Now physicists are worried because (in terms of the metaphors of sheaves) physics seems to consist of two theories, quantum mechanics and large-scale physics, that may be different open sets in a sheaf that doesn’t have a global element, and possibly even worse, the restriction maps to their intersection may not be compatible. In other words, it not only doesn’t have a global element but it may be only a presheaf!

Now that will not sit well with scientists. Ordinary people go through life having different theories about love, religion, politics, when you kick a table it hurts your foot, and so on, and don’t seem to worry a bit about whether the restriction maps are compatible. Many scientists seem to me to believe that all the restriction maps are compatible, but we don’t know the details yet. And many of them want to throw out whole theories (astrology, ESP, and lately religion) because they can’t think how the restriction maps could be compatible.

There is evidence that the scientists are right: more and more overlaps between different theories have been shown compatible over the years. All different experiences can be connected by one sheaf of theories. That feeling is base on historical experience, but also it is intrinsic to the scientific method to assume that you can reconcile different aspects of whatever you are studying. It isn’t a matter solely of faith that there is one Theory (sheaf) of Everything; it is a matter of methodology. That knowledge forms a sheaf, not just a presheaf is the claim that all knowledge is compatible. That there may not be a global element, one Theory of Everything, is a separate idea and one that Hawking & Mlodinow seem to hint at. It is certainly worth considering the possibility that there is no global element in the Universal Sheaf of Theories.

Send to Kindle