Newton was a smart guy and he devoted a lot of time to his occult research. I bet that a lot of that occult research inspired the physics. The fact that his occult research remains, occult from the public, well that is natural aint it?
You can be inspired by anything, that's fine. Gell-mann was amusing himself and getting inspiration from Buddhism for quantum physics. It's the process of the inquiry that generates the knowledge as a discipline, rather than the personal spark for discovery.
> It is true that working for free is bonkers. Priority number 1 is always rent, at minimum cover that so that business is priority 1.
You can work "for free" if investments cover all your basics ... so only bonkers under the assumption that you haven't taken care of your basics already.
> Eugene Wigner once wrote an article titled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” I don’t know what he wrote in the article, but it is certainly a fact that, up to now, especially in the domain of fundamental physics, we have had striking success with our use of mathematics
It is odd that he mentions it only to say that he doesn’t know it.
I didn’t find the article main point particularly strong, but all the references and overall mentions were interesting.
The post is from 1992. Articles were much harder to get hold of back then, even if you were at academia. Your library would have had to have a subscription to the journal, and maintain an archive of it.
(The Unreasonable Effectiveness was published in a pure mathematics journal in 1960. The author of the post was a particle physicist, and seems to have read a fair share of literature in his time.)
On the surface: The world would be premises and stories would be proofs.
Linear Logic for Non-Linear Storytelling by Anne-Gwenn Bosser and Marc Cavazza and Ronan Champagnat has an example.
Then generating proofs means generating valid stories. Linear logic is tough though, it is a logic that admits contradiction so straightaway most logicians are clueless in how to handle it.
I do not think the last sentence is an adequate description of what linear logic is, or how it's used and understood.
It is interesting in itself, I admit that. But I don't see how it would admit contradiction, or how logicians are clueless how to handle it. It is in fact well understood, and used in many places, e.g. computer science [1,2]
I appreciate measuring productive when profit is the objective. Still, there exists code that does resonate and evoke emotional response. Quines, code golf, adding a paradigms to a lisp in a few lines of code, categorical haskell or the Doom wtf algorithm.
Beauty is something to strive for, it is just not the purpose of business programming. Unless you are Dijkstra.
