Apologies for the lack of updates; I’ve been attempting to apply to graduate school. In the meantime, I want to link to a fantastic paper I just heard about by Eugenia Cheng on moral truth in mathematics. In private (or for me, on MathOverflow), mathematicians often say things like “well, morally, this should be true because…” and Cheng extensively discusses what this could mean and why it’s important.
I’m glad I finally have a word for this. I’ve cared about moral truth more than proof for awhile now, and that’s a major reason I’ve been trying to teach myself physics: even if it isn’t a good source of proofs, it seems like a great source of moral truths.
Annoying Precision 
Oh I should read this article…. I am also interested in learning physics. At the end, numbers are based on our observation and geometry is from what we see… Math started there, and I doubt that math can ever be free from this fact.
A very enjoyable essay. Do you know anywhere else on the internet it was discussed? I’d like to read what others think. (BTW, it turns out I’m a moralist-theorybuilder).
I think John Baez may have talked about it briefly, but I’m not sure.
This is a very nice blog, and my first visit…
I am a physicist, not a mathematician and have a question:
Is the word “morality” here being used in a way similar to “heuristic” ?
It depends on what you mean by “similar.” I think the essay itself explains pretty clearly what is meant.
I liked the first half of the essay. But then she started confusing morality (explanatory power) with religion (categorism) and turned me off from the rest.
Moral is not necessarily as moral does.
I would say that we call something moral when we feel it right to simplify, often just barely, or with variations of that feeling -like to avoid apologizing.
There is also an artistic/fun/meta aspect to it, introducing a concept from law/philosophy in a technical discussion.