On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:45:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Dec 2018, at 18:59, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com 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 * > > > The whole point of doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific > attitude would consist in understanding that this kind of nuance and > definition are not obfuscating anything. On the contrary, they help to be > more clear, and to prevent the use of metaphysical biases. > > When doing physics, we can assume informally that the SWE is correct, but > when doing Mechanist metaphysics, we can’t, >
*Why not? It's a good hypothesis or axiom that correctly predicts the behavior of the wf (for non relativistic QM). What would you replace it with? AG* and this is just an example, so it helps to use the terms with they > standard meaning in science, and not with imprecise meanings which usually > only hides the (open) problems. > > > > 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. * > > > I agree. That is why I insist that there is no problem with physics or > with physicists. I make clear that the problem is with metaphysics. The > Aristotelian metaphysics is wrong. Now, some people are good in physics, > but are not even aware that the confusion between physics and metaphysics > ïs* the main axiom of the Aristotelian theology (with or without an > important or trivial notion of first god, matter being the second god, but > still the main one for the aristotelians (believer in primary matter, or > physicalists). > > The problem is not physics, but physicalism; when we assume the Mechanist > hypothesis. > > > > > > *IMO, this line of discussion is just an effort to create strawmen. AG * > > > > No. It is fact that the God/Non-God debate hides the original question of > scientific theology: is there a universe existing fundamentally, in need to > be assumed or in need of faith (like the Aristotelian think), or is the > physical universe a symptom of a deeper non physical reality (like > Pythagorus, Plato, …). > > Physics is neutral on this; but physicalism is the Aristotelian > theological axiom. No problem, unless it used as a dogma for not testing > simpler theories. > > Mechanism works. Physicalism do not, at least with Mechanism. > > Mechanism explains why there is an apparent universe, but also why its > mathematics split into a sharable theory of sharable quanta, and a > partially sharable theory o > ... -- 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.
