And just about any Go player, yesHelel wrote:Doesn't this describe just about any mathematician?palapiku wrote:What they do might be entertaining to themselves but it's not important or insightful to anyone else.
Logic and empiricism
- 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
-
Mike Novack
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:36 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 182 times
Re: Logic and empiricism
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.Helel wrote:Doesn't this describe just about any mathematician?palapiku wrote:What they do might be entertaining to themselves but it's not important or insightful to anyone else.
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
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.
- 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
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
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...
- 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
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).shapenaji wrote:And Bell's Inequality would out-and-out refute it.