So what are your thoughts here when one direction looks to track the "deep maths" of Nature and the other choice may be just unphysical pattern spinning? What do we learn if this is the case? — apokrisis
Motivations vary in the mathematical community. What is common, however, is the drive to explore, sometimes with regard to the mysteries of nature, sometimes within the discipline itself. I'm a spinner.
But am I right that you argue the complex plane has lessons in terms of the physics of chaos - patterns of convergence~divergence? — apokrisis
I don't know about the physics of chaos (other than my experiences as a meteorologist ages ago), but the patterns that appear as examples of weak emergence are fascinating.
what would happen if physics were re-written in the language of intuitionistic mathematics? Would time become “real” again?
Since computations are done on computers with computable numbers and functions, isn't that already the case? The notion that a non-intuitionistic approach damages the idea of time seems ridiculous. A purely philosophical tragedy.
But Gisin points out that intuitionistic mathematics could offer a natural way out of the deterministic lockup.
I've never known a fellow mathematician who claimed to be an intuitionist. The fact that all functions from [0,1] to R are continuous from that perspective is quite unappealing to someone who came up in classical analysis. (Yes, it depends on the definition of "function"). Equating the flow of time with adding more digits to a number seems a bit absurd, at least for me.
Zoom in on your complex plane with its pattern of curl, and do you start to lose any sense of whether some infinitesimal part is diverging or converging? — apokrisis
The complex plane itself doesn't have a pattern of curl. It's a vector field based on a complex function that does the job. I have zoomed in up to 10,000X to display fascinating objects purely from curiosity. In the vicinity of an attracting fixed point, no matter the magnification, one sees convergence. It's just a matter of how one writes the computer program.
One can ask again whether maths made the right pragmatic choice even if Peirce is the metaphysically correct choice? — apokrisis
I admire Peirce for his thoughts on nonstandard analysis. I once toyed with the idea of teaching a real analysis course from that perspective, but gave it up when a friend at a larger university did just that, with poor results. I find it a bit amusing that when one looks at the standard graphical depiction of a mathematical Category, one sees Peirce's Triangle.