by gill1109 » Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:28 pm
minkwe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:26 pm
The differences between ontology and epistemology are crucial to the way we interpret mathematics and logic. Very often statements are made which suggest that these concepts have not been properly understood by even sometimes the most "educated" people discussing the foundations of physics.
I believe it will be found that a lack of proper grounding in philosophy would be one of the main reasons why 20th-century physics failed. "Bell's theorem" would be another one (not entirely unrelated to the former). The 21st century is still young but at the current pace, it may have a similar fate of stagnation and regression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
Nice talk by Feynman! It was about the difference between mathematics and physics. We need both. We need epistemology and we need ontology.
Feynman agreed with Bell. He heard about Bell’s theorem and came up immediately with his own alternative proof. He preferred to figure things out for himself.
Bell had an excellent grounding both in philosophy and in physics and in mathematics. His work is all about the differences between epistemology and ontology. His work on the foundations of quantum mechanics is high level philosophy. His work at CERN was high level particle physics.
There is a hard mathematical core to Bell’s work. You can express it as a formal sequence of axioms, proposition, lemma, theorem. The application to physics is still a matter of debate. Debate about ontology. It is metaphysics. Philosophy of physics.
You can also apply that mathematical core to certain problems in distributed computing (computer science, classical, not quantum). I think that that application is not controversial at all.
[quote=minkwe post_id=202 time=1637184389 user_id=61]
The differences between ontology and epistemology are crucial to the way we interpret mathematics and logic. Very often statements are made which suggest that these concepts have not been properly understood by even sometimes the most "educated" people discussing the foundations of physics.
I believe it will be found that a lack of proper grounding in philosophy would be one of the main reasons why 20th-century physics failed. "Bell's theorem" would be another one (not entirely unrelated to the former). The 21st century is still young but at the current pace, it may have a similar fate of stagnation and regression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
[/quote]
Nice talk by Feynman! It was about the difference between mathematics and physics. We need both. We need epistemology and we need ontology.
Feynman agreed with Bell. He heard about Bell’s theorem and came up immediately with his own alternative proof. He preferred to figure things out for himself.
Bell had an excellent grounding both in philosophy and in physics and in mathematics. His work is all about the differences between epistemology and ontology. His work on the foundations of quantum mechanics is high level philosophy. His work at CERN was high level particle physics.
There is a hard mathematical core to Bell’s work. You can express it as a formal sequence of axioms, proposition, lemma, theorem. The application to physics is still a matter of debate. Debate about ontology. It is metaphysics. Philosophy of physics.
You can also apply that mathematical core to certain problems in distributed computing (computer science, classical, not quantum). I think that that application is not controversial at all.
