Dear Michel,
I was not aware of Frege's quote. I liked it. I am not sure if I agree with Popper. Isn't the correct prediction of say the electromagnetic fine structure constant a sign of falsifiability. Or am I missing something?
Also I think it is a great philosophical exercise to think about QM and the context needed to make it a physical science.
I will read your 'moonshine' and comment when I finished it.
Kind Regards,
Yafet
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your comment. Yes, Wittgenstein rocks.:) I like you enjoy my essay and even more if copying Wittgenstein: 'I was able to not spare you the trouble of thinking, but instead encourage you to have independent thoughts.'
I will read your essay and comment later.
Thank you for your support.
Yafet
You are doing very well in this contest, but, you need 3 more ratings at the least. Hopefully, after receiving them, you will remain in the top 30. If not then you will need to work to get more ratings. I think that your essay can continue to rate high enough to enter into the finals.
James Putnam
Dear Yafet,
Yours is a very subtle essay that gets to one of my favorite philosophical themes: Meaning.
I have noticed that many times discussions fail to get to satisfactory conclusions because the participants do not seem to recognize that while they are using the same words, they attach different meanings to them, and a particular example comes up right in this contest: Your discussion of the meaning of the proposition 1+1=2 is exactly apropos to Edwin Klingman's (and his proponents) claim that he "debunked" Bell's theorem, which is at best (i.e. if correct) a more complicated version of your example of the two drops merging into one not being an applicable real-world example of the mathematics.
I am surprised by the low response rate to your essay. If I may speculate, perhaps the title of your essay turned off some people because to most people the answer to the question it poses seemed so obvious that they didn't bother to see your argument that it really isn't if one is completely divested from the world we live in (again your merging-drops world is a great example). The subtlety of your argument may have escaped some, or perhaps your subtle criticism of ordinal arithmetic and string theory at the end might have antagonized others.
Be that as it may, I found your essay a very thoughtful exploration of meaning in relation to mathematics and physics.
Best wishes,
Armin
Yafet,
Really nice essay. I think it is important and most difficult to understand the relation of physics and mathematics by simple examples. I basically agree with all your are saying in your excellent essay.
One thing you left out in your analysis is the Kantian question: "What did we already accept in order to think that mathematics or physics is possible?"
You say that: "The truth of a mathematical propositions is independent of any physical phenomena." I would say, that in order to be able to do mathematics some physical conditions have to be met: constancy of certain phenomena. Maybe also the structure of time.
In physics the situation similar, when we say, that physics is an empirical science. The structure of time seems to be a precondition of experience.
Maybe also the conservation of energy (Time translation invariance): Once Heisenberg heard about an experiment that showed, that the energy was not conserved. He reacted instantaneously: "Impossible!" How could he know that? How comes that some physical (empirical) statements although empirical seem always to hold true in our experience? The Kantian response to that is: because they are preconditions of objective experience to be possible.
Again I think you wrote a great essay and I would love you could read mine and comment on it.
Best regards,
Luca
Dear Akinbo,
Thank you for your post. I like your example of the magician. But I think we should be careful between mathematical statements and empirical statements. Let´s say I answer two and the magician show me there are none. I will not be tempted to say mathematics are wrong, but rather that I am applying the wrong rule.
If think behave in the strange way you propose certainly our arithmetic would be very different. I will coment on your essay. It looks very interesting.
Kind Regards,
Yafet
Dear Armin,
I appreciate your interest in my essay. There might be many reason why I have such a low response. Anyhow, I enjoyed thinking about this topics while doing the essay and I certainly will continue.
Kind Regards,
Yafet
Dear Luca,
Thanks for your comment. Kant is one of my favorites. I agree with you that to do mathematics we need a background or context and that is provided by the regularity of nature and our psychology. Although the true of such statements is not. But notice, that without the background, the true become irrelevant or nonsensical.
I think Heisenberg, didn´t know. He believed so. But remember, how many things we consider impossible until they actually happened. Nevertheless, I believe you are asking the deeper question, how can we actually come to realise such regularities. I am afraid I don´t have an answer for that.
I will read your essay and comment on it. Meanwhile enjoy this video from the birthday boy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpL_5CI0WQ
Kind Regards,
Yafet
Dear James,
Your essay certainly is a wild ride. I think the effort you put to understand mathematics and nature from another point of view is remarkable.
If I understood correctly you want to make physics concepts as empirical as possible and you claim that:" The general theory of relativity presents space-time to us as a real property.
There is no empirical evidence to substantiate this claim."
If the detection of gravitational waves becomes a fact how would that change anything of your discussion?
Kind Regards,
Yafet
Dear Yafet,
It appears that my comment and your response disappeared before I had a chance to see what your response was (except for the beginning, which can be seen in the side bar). I wonder whether the moderator can reinstate them?
Armin
Hi Yafet,
your reply on my comment also got lost before I had the chance to watch the video you posted. Maybe you could repost it.
You are right, Heisenberg believed only that energy conservation holds. But it is as right as we cannot have absolute certainity of anything. But also we cannot doubt everything. So if we believe physics is possible, we might believe that the laws of physics are time translation invariant and from that energy will be conserved.
However you might like the film "The Oxford Murders". A film about a serial killing involving a Wittgenstein expert. Where the induction problem plays an eminent role.
Best
Luca