5 ms·
We'll only get new answers to old questions if we're incorporating new inputs or new capabilities. So I would only expect a breakthrough from philosophy if phi
by ef4 12y ago
We'll only get new answers to old questions if we're incorporating new inputs or new capabilities.
So I would only expect a breakthrough from philosophy if philosophy is integrating new results from computer science (or neuroscience, etc).
- theoh 12y agoIf General Relativity could benefit from the application of pre-existing pure mathematics (Riemannian geometry), why shouldn't it be conceivable that computer science could benefit from (possibly ancient) philosophical ideas?
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoBecause General Relativity primarily benefited from evidence that a new model was necessary. A-priori thinking can help to expand the space of possible answers, but it's terrible at locating uniquely correct answers within any given space.
- theoh 12y agoI don't accept that premise. It took a while to verify the predictions of General Relativity. It certainly wasn't driven by experimental evidence. Einstein started work on GR with a thought experiment (according to Wikipedia) and of course there's Minkowski's famous observation that SR could have been inferred before Einstein from Galilean Relativity, spatial isotropy and the probable existence of a geometric invariant. In other words, pure math didn't get there, but once they all arrived it could really give insight. Check out Minkowski's famous "staircase wit" comment. Another example from physics is the extent to which Schrodinger was influenced by Eastern philosophy in his formulation of quantum mechanics.