Abstract
Structuralists typically appeal to some variant of the widely popular ‘mapping’ account of mathematical representation to suggest that mathematics is applied in modern science to represent the world’s physical structure. However, in this paper, I argue that this realist interpretation of the ‘mapping’ account presupposes that physical systems possess an ‘assumed structure’ that is at odds with modern physical theory. Through two detailed case studies concerning the use of the differential and variational calculus in modern dynamics, I show that the formal structure that we need to assume in order to apply the mapping account is inconsistent with the way in which mathematics is applied in modern physics. The problem is that a realist interpretation of the ‘mapping’ account imposes too severe of a constraint on the conformity that must exist between mathematics and nature in order for mathematics to represent the structure of a physical system.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 84-92 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A |
| Volume | 86 |
| Early online date | 2 Mar 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2021 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Structuralism and the conformity of mathematics and nature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver