The boundary between mathematics and physics has often been a source of tension. This tension frequently revolves around a central notion: mathematical rigour. Although the concept has been discussed in history\, philosophy\, and mathematics itself\, there has been relatively little discussion of its relationship to physics. Physics is often considered unrigorous\; however\, given that there is no single agreed-upon notion of rigour even within mathematics\, it becomes unclear exactly why physics is regarded as unrigorous\, and whether it should be.
\n\; This interdisciplinary workshop will bring together researchers from various fields to discuss both descriptive and normative notions of rigour in physics\, as well as the influence of this topic on the concept of rigour in mathematics. The central\, but non-exhaustive questions of the workshop will include the following:
\nKeynote Speakers: \;
\nIn addition to our invited speakers\, there will be a number of contributed talks. Please send anonymised abstracts (max 500 words) for a 1 hour (45 min + 15 Q&\;A) presentation by email attachment to rami.jreige@bristol.ac.uk with subject line "Mathematical Rigour and Physics Workshop Submission" by March 15th\, 2026. All details can be found on our website.
ORGANIZER;CN=Rami Jreige;CN=Karim Thebault;CN=Richard Pettigrew: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260608T225051Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260702T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260703T170000 SUMMARY:Randomization in Science\, Society and Nature UID:20260609T104305Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Bristol\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Randomization\, characterized abstractly\, involves an agent deliberately &ldquo\;flipping a coin&rdquo\;\, or using a randomizing device\, in order to choose between alternatives. The agent could be a person\, a non-human organism\, or &ldquo\;nature&rdquo\; (i.e. evolution). A simple Bayesian argument suggests that randomizing\, rather than choosing a certain alternative\, can never be strictly advantageous\, and is only permissible when the options are of equal value. Yet randomization is widely used in a range of contexts\, for various purposes. The aim of this workshop is to reflect on the use of randomization in five such contexts:
\n1. decision and game theory (why do agents sometimes prefer to randomize?)
\n2. clinical trials / experiments (is randomization necessary for causal inference? what is its justification?)
\n3. politics and society (when is allocation by lottery/sortition a good idea and why?)
\n4. evolutionary biology (when are bet-hedging strategies advantageous?)
\n5. genetics (why did sex and recombination\, i.e. random shuffling of genes\, evolve? why did meiosis evolve to be fair?) \;
\nThe unifying thread is the question of when randomization (by agents or by nature) is "valuable"\, where this can mean rational\, scientifically useful\, socially useful\, fair\, or evolutionarily advantageous\, depending on the context.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR