4 ms·

None of the people you mention are philosophers, and their influence on philosophy is indirect at best.

jimbokun 6y ago
What's your criteria for designating someone a "philosopher"? Godel and Turing, at least would count in my mind.
leephillips 6y ago
They are not commonly classified as philosophers. However: Logic is often classed as a branch of philosophy, and that covers the Gödel work, and more, mentioned. There is plenty of writing, much of it by real philosophers, about how foundational work in QM, for example, did have profound philosophical implications and did influence the development of philosophy. The physicists who invented QM had many discussions about its philosophical implications, and these discussions have been studied by philosophers and influence philosophy. The division separating “philosophy” from mathematics, physics, and even logic is recent and arbitrary. And finally, if an academic philosopher finds math too hard, that is not a good reason to disqualify it from being considered “philosophy”.
Kednicma 6y ago
I am not a professional philosopher, so I will rely on the collected knowledge of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [0]. Of the logicians/computational theorists I mentioned, three have their own entries [1][2][3] and are each associated with their own philosophical bodies of work. Von Neumann lacks his own page, but makes up for it by being a recurring secondary character in stories of Russell and Gödel. The QM physicists fare similarly, but are not credited as Great Men. I am okay with this. Bohr is discussed alongside his Copenhagen school [4], Heisenberg alongside his Uncertainty Principle [5]; but Pauli does not get a full page, being split between [4] and [6], a second Bohr page. While I haven't shown that these folks are central to philosophy, I think that I've shown that some philosophers definitely consider them to be directly influential upon some part of the practice. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/ [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/ [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/ [4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ [5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ [6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/

What's your criteria for designating someone a "philosopher"? Godel and Turing, at least would count in my mind.

They are not commonly classified as philosophers. However: Logic is often classed as a branch of philosophy, and that covers the Gödel work, and more, mentioned. There is plenty of writing, much of it by real philosophers, about how foundational work in QM, for example, did have profound philosophical implications and did influence the development of philosophy. The physicists who invented QM had many discussions about its philosophical implications, and these discussions have been studied by philosophers and influence philosophy. The division separating “philosophy” from mathematics, physics, and even logic is recent and arbitrary. And finally, if an academic philosopher finds math too hard, that is not a good reason to disqualify it from being considered “philosophy”.

Kednicma 6y ago

I am not a professional philosopher, so I will rely on the collected knowledge of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [0]. Of the logicians/computational theorists I mentioned, three have their own entries [1][2][3] and are each associated with their own philosophical bodies of work. Von Neumann lacks his own page, but makes up for it by being a recurring secondary character in stories of Russell and Gödel. The QM physicists fare similarly, but are not credited as Great Men. I am okay with this. Bohr is discussed alongside his Copenhagen school [4], Heisenberg alongside his Uncertainty Principle [5]; but Pauli does not get a full page, being split between [4] and [6], a second Bohr page. While I haven't shown that these folks are central to philosophy, I think that I've shown that some philosophers definitely consider them to be directly influential upon some part of the practice. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/ [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/ [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/ [4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ [5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ [6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/