On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 6:57:55 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. >>> We know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there >>> will be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation >>> of theorems. >>> >> >> *Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic >> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG* >> > > Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you > referred to are broad principles, not axioms. >
*The genius of Einstein in 1905 was to use an axiomatic approach in SR to make Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. Not to quibble, but one person's axiom is another person's broad principle. AG * > > Bruce > -- 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.
