Prev: Faust in Copenhagen " A struggle for the soul of physics", by Gino Segre
Next: Relativity Example
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 13 Jul 2010 00:27
On Jul 12, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>         A theory is timeless, once discovered. That is, the set of theorems
>         and the meanings of the symbols in them have no historical limitations.
----------------------------------------

Your version of science is very Platonic, as expected.

Are you going to claim that General Relativity has not evolved since
1915! Ridiculous! That Quantum Mechanics has not changed since 1926!
Give us a break!

No theory is "timeless" because (1) they all evolve with time, and (2)
all theories have their heyday and then are eventually superseded by
more sophisticated and more encompassing theories.

I think you came up a little short on this issue Tom.

You may be well-versed in conventional mathematical physics, but when
it comes to the philosophy of science, you are a simple Platonist.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 13 Jul 2010 01:57
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jul 12, 8:45 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> A theory is timeless, once discovered. That is, the set of theorems
>> and the meanings of the symbols in them have no historical limitations.
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Your version of science is very Platonic, as expected.
>
> Are you going to claim that General Relativity has not evolved since
> 1915! Ridiculous!

The field equations of general relativity have not changed since they were
published in 1916.

> That Quantum Mechanics has not changed since 1926!
> Give us a break!

Schroedinger's equation hasn't changed since it was first published. Dirac's
equation hasn't changed since it was first published.

The understanding of them has significantly improved but the equations are
the same as the day they were written down.

>
> No theory is "timeless" because (1) they all evolve with time, and (2)
> all theories have their heyday and then are eventually superseded by
> more sophisticated and more encompassing theories.
>
> I think you came up a little short on this issue Tom.
>
> You may be well-versed in conventional mathematical physics, but when
> it comes to the philosophy of science, you are a simple Platonist.

Let us compare methods. Can you predict the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom?

>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Faust in Copenhagen " A struggle for the soul of physics", by Gino Segre
Next: Relativity Example