A complexity-taming thing

I've just read one of the best pieces of writing about the why of applied category theory I ever had the pleasure to read. I resonate so much with it that I want to copy it verbatim here: How can we gain the benefits of standardization, compositionality and generality? There is no one answer, ex[c]ept … Continue reading A complexity-taming thing

The unreasonable effectiveness of social structures

Here's my take: social structures are the most impactful technology humans ever developed. Some might be already frowning. 'Social structures' does not even fall into what most people would probably call technology. After all, it has to be something concrete that, ideally, I can throw out of a window, no? According to the dictionary, technology … Continue reading The unreasonable effectiveness of social structures

Mathematicians don’t care about foundations

Many people seem to believe mathematicians work in non-constructive, non-structural, battered foundations because they love their Platonic realm and have a kink for AC and LEM. The reality is most mathematicians don't have a clue about foundations, they don't care, and happily work informally for all their lives. Case in point, mathematical foundations are a … Continue reading Mathematicians don’t care about foundations

On humanities papers and mathematical naivety.

I just finished reading What does a mathematical proof prove?, a (supposedly) classic in philosophy of math by Imre Lakatos and it confirmed what I feared was happening: I can no longer bear any humanities paper. Everything[0] you read typically has a 10x multiplier on words, and usually boils down to one/two interesting perspectives on … Continue reading On humanities papers and mathematical naivety.