Freedom of Science

In computer science the code is evaluated by the computer.¹ Therefore, professionals have zero authority over the interpretation of the code. The computer does not care who wrote the code and there is no interpretation based on the rank or authority of the author of the code.

In mathematics code is evaluated by mathematicians themselves² and the evaluation is called proof. Some interpretation enters but remains minimum because there are traditional rules that are strictly enforced to keep mathematics rigorous.

In physics code is evaluated by physicists and interpretation is the rule. In other words, physicists have total authority over the interpretation of the code.

Carl Brannen notes that in physics

the equations, or laws, themselves are very clear; their support by experiment is undeniable; it is in the interpretation of the equations that one finds difficulty.

The code is plastic and physicists can shape it into any interpretation to support any doctrine. There is a name for such a field where practitioners have absolute authority over mathematics. It’s not called physics. It’s called scholasticism.

• There is no error in physics because physics is legal.
• Physicists design languages, not merely apply the code.
• Designing languages have always been the business of the scholastic doctors. It still is.
• Science is the removal of the Doctoral authority from interpretation.

1. The computer itself is made of code plus hardware. [↩]
2. Stephen Wolfram in Mathematics, Mathematica and Certainty: Because in reality a mathematical proof of the kind people publish in papers is something much more social. It’s a vehicle for convincing other humans—one’s fellow mathematicians—that something is true. [↩]

ShareThis