On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
p. 210 "We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable
o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is
o that scientific representation is not at bottom
mathematical representation alone, or
o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know
it to be incomplete, or
o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across
isomorphism, are illusory.
In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to
opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on
the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological
question: Is there something that I could know to be the case,
and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part
of some scientific theory?"
It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science
is incomplete in a way we know.
Could you please express this knowledge explicitly?
String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as
for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified
Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even
experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory
would change engineering practice?
p. 278 "... the regularities must derive from not just natural but
logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so
much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so
logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that
would be grasped as true when understood at all."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at