3 ms·
Not exactly sure what you mean. The foundation of philosophy is logic. Also the idea that "math in which we trust" is kind of bizzare, as mathematics is an axio
by dvt 9y ago
Not exactly sure what you mean. The foundation of philosophy is logic. Also the idea that "math in which we trust" is kind of bizzare, as mathematics is an axiomatic system. So really, it's the axioms in which we trust. But that also opens a whole can of worms, because some axioms are kind of weird and controversial (like the Axioms of Choice, Replacement, Regularity).
Not to mention that any for any system (> Peano Arithmetic) you can't have your cake and eat it, too; sound, complete, consistent: pick two.
- hackinthebochs 9y agoI think the point was simply that there is no understanding of physics without the math, as the math is the only accurate description of the physics involved. Admittedly, "trusting math" was a poor phrasing.
- Koshkin 9y agoWe can trust math because it is trivially verifiable. Its relation to physics is somewhat complicated (e.g. verifying physics is not as trivial), and yes - you can understand a lot about physics without math - by combining direct observation with trusting the "philosopher".
- catnaroek 9y agoActually, it is “sound, complete, consistent, recursively axiomatizable: pick three”.