History and Philosophy of Physics

1407 Submissions

[5] viXra:1407.0221 [pdf] submitted on 2014-07-30 22:02:52

Is it Possible to Apply Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Scientific Theories?

Authors: Victor Christianto
Comments: 4 Pages. This article has not been submitted to any journal. Your comments are welcome.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is normally applied to mathematics. But i just found an article by Michael Goodband who argues that GIT can also be applied to scientific theories, see http://www.mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/Godel-science-theory.pdf. My own idea can be expressed generally as follows: any theory boils down to an exposition of a statement/proposition. According to GIT, in any theory there is at least one statement which is unprovable, and therefore any theory can be considered as incomplete or has indeterminacy. One implication of this deduction is that any theory should be made falsifiable (Popper), and also perhaps we can use conditional Bayesian probability to describe acceptance of a theory.
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics

[4] viXra:1407.0179 [pdf] submitted on 2014-07-23 19:48:25

Is Bayesian Epistemology a Better Alternative to Popperian Falsifiability?

Authors: Victor Christianto
Comments: 10 Pages. This article has not been published in any journal.

According to a site (see http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/falsifiability), there are many people who reject Popperian falsifiability, such as Paul Feyerabend and Alan Sokal. There is another two-fold critique on falsificationism by Shockley, see http://pk.b5z.net/i/u/2167316/i/A_Critique_of_Falsificationism_by_Karl_Popper.pdf
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics

[3] viXra:1407.0178 [pdf] submitted on 2014-07-23 19:49:45

Who Can Explain the Process of Scientific Change Better: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, or Feyerabend?

Authors: Victor Christianto
Comments: 2 Pages. This article has not been published in any journal.

As we know, for Popper scientific change can be explained rationally. For Kuhn, scientific change is caused by psychology of discovery which sometimes it cannot be explained rationally. For Lakatos, most scientific endeavors nowadays are governed by research programs, which cannot be falsified. See for example: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Lakatos-Falsification.pdf And for Feyerabend, there is no specific method which can be used to explain scientific change. Anything is possible. They are four leading philosophers who seem to me represent major ideas on modern scientific change. So, who can explain the process of scientific change better among them?
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics

[2] viXra:1407.0064 [pdf] submitted on 2014-07-09 11:24:32

Is Time Travel Really Possible?

Authors: Rahul Garg
Comments: 4 Pages. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Time travel is just a hyped fiction which everyone believes is possible. In this paper, I show how time travel is very different from time dilation and we should not get confused between them. Although time dilation is possible, time travel is an entirely different thing and we misinterpret it.
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics

[1] viXra:1407.0062 [pdf] submitted on 2014-07-09 00:02:23

Why Base 60

Authors: John Frederic Sweeney
Comments: 24 Pages.

Base 60 mathematics offers convenience for life on a spherical globe, yet why has humanity continued to use a time system based on the sexagesmial system? In our combinatorial universe, Time is controlled by the number 60, which is the reason why the ancients based time – keeping systems on this number. Goodbye, Minkowski Time!
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics