On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM <agrays...@gmail.com> 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. > > > That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic. > > > *Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general > principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining > these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory > on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG* > > > I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that > most logicians use that term. > > > *An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG* > > > That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just > a formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori. >
*IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf evolves. Give me a break. AG * > I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) > logician sense for physics. > > > > *Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure > "for physics". AG * > > They failed, > > > > *It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a > general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG * > > > Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not > abstracted from some metaphysical commitment. > By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with > metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this. > *Most physicists are not confused as you allege. IMO, this line of discussion is just an effort to create strawmen. AG * > Before we get serious on this, axiomatic cannot be used in physics, and > even in physicalist metaphysics. > > Bruno > > > > > but I think this should be pursued, as it will help for the type of > consideration we have here, but that is a difficult task. Einstein was > using the spirit of axiomatic thinking in SR, OK. > > > *Not merely "spirit", but concrete results. Einstein was able to derive > the Lorentz transformation from his two postulates or axioms; namely, the > Principle of Relativity and the invariance of the SoL for inertial frames, > and in the process rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG* > > But like Euclid, he remains “intuitive” for the math part. > > > *Not merely intuitive, but concrete math results! See above. AG * > > *Same situation prevails for QM as far as axioms are concerned, but here > there's nothing intuitive! For wave mechanics, there are about 4 or 5 > postulates or axioms pulled out of a hat, from which the consequences > follow. For Feynman's Path Integral model, there are 3 postulates, which > have already been posted. AG* > > Minkowski axiomatic is more like the use in logic, but then it is no more > physics. The difficulty to axiomatic physics is … the nature of what we man > by “universe”, or by a physical reality, or even a physical experimental > device. We work with our intuitive model of this, for good practical > reasons. > > > *Nothing intuitive about one of our best physics theory, QM, AG * > > > Bruno > > > > > > > ... -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
