Re: Physics axiomatic? I humbly beg to differ!

"Tom Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David wrote:
> > "uncle al" said in another post:
> >>Physics is a self-consistent axiomatic construct.
> >
> > How do you figure?
> > It's certainly consistent, but it hardly seems to be axiomatic.
>
> A physical theory is a set of mathematical theorems, and a set of rules
> telling how to relate the symbols in the theorems to quantities in the
> real world. Any consistent set of mathematical theorems can be reduced
> to a smallest set from which the whole can be derived, to which one can
> apply the word "axioms". In general this set of axioms is not unique.
>
>
> > But
> > physics starts with empirical observations and infers inductive
> > generalizations
>
> This is not true in modern physics.

This is apparently why modern physics has failed so abysmally.

>A comic-book view of physics could
> be described that way,

A wonderful comic-book, true at its very core. To bad you
do not understand it.

>but it is not really valid. "inductive
> generalizations" is a wishy-washy phrase with no real meaning.

It is perfectly understandable, with a very precise meaning,
at least to those have not been brain washed by various
mystical philosophies.

> A better description of the actual process is that the axioms of the
> theory are simply guessed (based upon the theorist's experience and
> knowledge and sense of beauty -- concepts impossible to quantify).

LOL...if you want beauty, take up art. Science requires actual work,
not whimsical fantasizing.

[....]

H.Ellis Ensle