Biology <-> Physics <-> Maths
Jul. 12th, 2012 12:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThere's an old joke, biology is really physics, and physics is really maths. It's easy to extend this to a much longer totem pole, something like Politics->Sociology->Economics->Psychology->Physiology->Biology->Physics->Maths->Philosophy... etc. (It wraps round).
However, it occurs to me an equally valid way of phrasing it, but one which allows the smugness to gravitate to the other end of the spectrum, would be "Biology is physics which is too hard for physicists to solve. Physics is maths which is too hard for mathematicians to solve".
And there's a lot of truth in that. Mathematicians are disdainful that physicists use approximations (especially if they use them when they don't need to). But mostly, physicsts use approximations for things that can't be solved mathematically (eg. stuff with more than one hydrogen atom in). Both are completely necessary :)
However, it occurs to me an equally valid way of phrasing it, but one which allows the smugness to gravitate to the other end of the spectrum, would be "Biology is physics which is too hard for physicists to solve. Physics is maths which is too hard for mathematicians to solve".
And there's a lot of truth in that. Mathematicians are disdainful that physicists use approximations (especially if they use them when they don't need to). But mostly, physicsts use approximations for things that can't be solved mathematically (eg. stuff with more than one hydrogen atom in). Both are completely necessary :)