4 ms·
Is empirical science really so far removed from complex axiomatic systems? Isn't the point to learn how all of this universe works together? Suppose we solve gr
by politician 14y ago
Is empirical science really so far removed from complex axiomatic systems? Isn't the point to learn how all of this universe works together? Suppose we solve gravity, QM, and the rest, then we'll have a complex system of rules which nevertheless must be incomplete and therefore flawed. I think that's fascinating -- Sisyphus is Science (not that we don't discover useful and amazing results along the way!).
- lutusp 14y ago> Is empirical science really so far removed from complex axiomatic systems? Yes, absolutely. Empirical science is driven by observations of nature. Axiomatic systems are much more self-referential. It is the self-referential property of axiomatic systems that lie at the heart of the Incompleteness Theorems. > Isn't the point to learn how all of this universe works together? Which universe? That of nature, or that of intellectual representations? They differ in some very basic ways. > Suppose we solve gravity, QM, and the rest, then we'll have a complex system of rules which nevertheless must be incomplete and therefore flawed. Most people who understand Gödel's work will argue that the effect of the Theorems is overstated with respect to what we can reliably know about nature. If we find a TOE (Theory of Everything), it will probably remain incomplete, not because of Gödel, but because of irreducible observational imperfections.
- politician 14y agoOf nature. Although, now I'm questioning whether I've misunderstood the goal to be a TOE, when perhaps it's more incremental and unguided.