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 t

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/