Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Semantic content of statements in physics 2016-01-22 22:06:09 Post No. 7802738
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Semantic content of statements in physics 2016-01-22 22:06:09 Post No. 7802738
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: autism.jpg (86KB, 1024x542px) Image search:
[Google]
86KB, 1024x542px
What is the most basic vocabulary physics can be reduced to (e.g first-order logic, higher-order logic, it can't be reduced from natural language, etc.)? Whether or not this question has pragmatic significance, its hard to say that the question doesn't have meaning, and unlike the phil of science topics usually posted on this board (Are atoms really real or just useful theoretical models for explaining experiential regularities?, but like what if we live in the matrix bro? Physics can't prove we don't, etc), it tends to attract people who actually know some physics. If nothing else its an interesting mental exercise. I'll be replying to this with a few possible answers (not my own, i'll just give a rough description of the popular views in analytic phil), hopefully those won't be the only posts.
>pic kind of related
>>
>>7802738
>logical positivism
This is the scapegoat of modern analytic philosophy, and while I think its true that its an untenable position and the critiques are damning, the positions supports had some useful insights. The position is this: the entire meaning of a statement lies in logical relations. What those relations are between isn't essential to the view because the relata is *nothing but* its place in the schema of logical primitives (sense data is possibly an exception but that isn't very important).
If your interested in why no one takes positivism seriously read this paper, its pretty short http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>
>>7802790
*the positions supporters
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1