3 ms·
Maybe I am speaking outside my comfort zone a little, but isn't this the same as trying to find physical axioms that build up a whole and it has been disproven
by dstola 6y ago
Maybe I am speaking outside my comfort zone a little, but isn't this the same as trying to find physical axioms that build up a whole and it has been disproven by Godel with respect to Whiteheads and Russels Principia Mathematica and completely blows reductionists out of the water if we go as far as equating math == physics in all but name
- raincom 6y ago"math = physics" is true on paper, because most, if not all, physical laws are equations. The issue lies elsewhere: ontology. One can subscribe to realist ontology in physics, yet become a Platonist wrt math. One can say that "particles exist and play the role of causal antecedents" and that "sets don't exist in this world and don't play the role of causal antecedents"; that's why many mathematicians subscribe to Platonism (sets, numbers, etc don't exist in this world, but exist in the Platonic world). Same goes for the so-called 'Platonic' love that many seek in the modern world!!
- karmakaze 6y ago> "math = physics" is true on paper, because most, if not all, physical laws are equations If we only understand the the physical laws which can be represented as equations that only equates the known ones, so physics >= math. We can also create math that has no known relation to physical laws, so math > physics.