Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- From: "T.H. Ray" <thray123@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:45:22 EDT
On Apr 1, 8:24 am, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Our knowledge in the philosophy of science andphilosophy of
mathematics has advanced considerably sinceHilbert's 1915
paper. Science can be no more formalized a laHilbert, than can
Hilbert's (and Russell's and Frege's) plan toformalize arithmetic.
(published
See, e.g., Popper's 1934 Logik der Forschunng
in English in 1959 as The Logic of ScientificDiscovery) and of
course, Godel's work of the same period. HermannWeyl, as well,
was a major contributor to our understanding of theboundaries
between science and mathematics (Philosophy ofMathematics and
the Natural Sciences, 1949). You neglect also thatrelativity isn't the
only claimed "foundation of physics." QuantumTheory 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.<<
Patently absurd. Do you know the difference between
a mathematics axiom and a physical principle?
What is wrong
with Peano's
axioms for arithmetic?
Shubee
Nothing. Do you have a point?
Tom
.
- References:
- Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- From: Shubee
- Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Next by thread: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|