Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- From: "Shubee" <e.shubee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Apr 2007 12:16:39 -0700
On Apr 1, 8:24 am, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Our knowledge in the philosophy of science and philosophy of
mathematics has advanced considerably since Hilbert's 1915
paper. Science can be no more formalized a la Hilbert, than can
Hilbert's (and Russell's and Frege's) plan to formalize arithmetic.
See, e.g., Popper's 1934 Logik der Forschunng (published
in English in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery) and of
course, Godel's work of the same period. Hermann Weyl, as well,
was a major contributor to our understanding of the boundaries
between science and mathematics (Philosophy of Mathematics and
the Natural Sciences, 1949). You neglect also that relativity isn't the
only claimed "foundation of physics." Quantum Theory and String
Theory both qualify.
Tom
It sounds to me like you're an apologist for occult science and that
you are arguing against the possibility of clear thinking and the
mathematization of the laws of physics. What is wrong with Peano's
axioms for arithmetic?
Shubee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- References:
- Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Prev by Date: Re: Algebraic Number Theory
- Next by Date: asymptotic behaviour of matrix
- Previous by thread: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Next by thread: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
