Logic and empiricism

All non-Go discussions should go here.
User avatar
palapiku
Lives in sente
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:25 pm
Rank: the k-word
GD Posts: 0
Has thanked: 152 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Logic and empiricism

Post by palapiku »

Helel wrote:
palapiku wrote:What they do might be entertaining to themselves but it's not important or insightful to anyone else.


Doesn't this describe just about any mathematician? :twisted:

And just about any Go player, yes :)
Mike Novack
Lives in sente
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:36 am
GD Posts: 0
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Logic and empiricism

Post by Mike Novack »

Helel wrote:
palapiku wrote:What they do might be entertaining to themselves but it's not important or insightful to anyone else.


Doesn't this describe just about any mathematician? :twisted:


Oddly enough, although at the time they did it the mathematicians were just "entertaining themsleves" turns out fairly common that about 100 years later some area of math that appeared to be abstract turns out very useful for something of other.

To find cases where areas of math were developed in order to be useful (because needed) perhaps have to go back to the time of Newton.
hyperpape
Tengen
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Has thanked: 499 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Logic and empiricism

Post by hyperpape »

Mike, my understanding (and I'm venturing a bit beyond areas where I'm that knowledgable) is that you can't just say "well, choose whatever axioms you like and study the consequences" because the notion of consequence is explained in terms of models of the axioms, and models just end up being sets (in most cases), so you need to have an intended model of set theory, but there's more than one hanging around.
User avatar
shapenaji
Lives in sente
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:58 pm
Rank: EGF 4d
GD Posts: 952
Location: Netherlands
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Logic and empiricism

Post by shapenaji »

Monodology: In response to your comment about the "fuzziness" being due to the measurement inaccuracy rather than a probabilistic nature of the underlying particles.

The Copenhagen Interpretation would strongly dispute this,

And Bell's Inequality would out-and-out refute it.

Not saying that it doesn't feel right (After all, you're in good company, Einstein felt the same way), But this is at odds with what we know about quantum.

EDIT: Woops, meant Monod, not Liisa
Tactics yes, Tact no...
User avatar
Monadology
Lives in gote
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:26 pm
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
Location: Riverside CA
Has thanked: 246 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Logic and empiricism

Post by Monadology »

shapenaji wrote:And Bell's Inequality would out-and-out refute it.


As I understood it, the experiments confirming Bell's theorem have not yet entirely ruled out hidden variables on a non-local scale. I was also under the impression that hidden variables were not the only potential problem (something to do with a deterministic model of the universe, but it's been a while).
User avatar
shapenaji
Lives in sente
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:58 pm
Rank: EGF 4d
GD Posts: 952
Location: Netherlands
Has thanked: 407 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Logic and empiricism

Post by shapenaji »

EDIT: Scratch this post, need to go back and read.. be back in a few :P
Tactics yes, Tact no...
Post Reply