On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:18:52 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:01:18 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 3:28 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> But a system that is consistent can also prove a statement that is >>>> false: >>>> >>>> axiom 1: Trump is a genius. >>>> axiom 2: Trump is stable. >>>> >>>> theorem: Trump is a stable genius. >>>> >>> >>> So how is this different from flawed physical theories? >>> >> >> Physical theories do not claim to prove theorems - they are not systems >> of axioms and theorems. Attempts to recast physics in this form have always >> failed. >> >> Bruce >> > > QM can be interpreted as a system of axioms or postulates, and the HUP can > be interpreted as a theorem, or consequence of those axioms or postulates. > AG >
*My counter-example to your claim are the several postulates or axioms of Wave Mechanics. Another example are the three postulates or axioms of Feynman's Sums over Histories as stated here: http://muchomas.lassp.cornell.edu/8.04/Lecs/lec_FeynmanDiagrams/node3.html . The general of these systems can be considered as theorems. I am sure other examples exist. AG* > >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
