- #1

- 13,352

- 3,157

- TL;DR Summary
- The axioms of a physical theory are the set of irreducible assumptions from which every result/statement of that theory follows as a theorem applying separately formulated definitions and rules of mathematical logic.

An axiomatization of classical mechanics such as the one by McKinsey et al. (1) does not contain any reference to humans or experiments, and does not contain the magic (irony!) words of quantum mechanics, i.e. observables and measurements.

(1) McKINSEY, J. C. C., et al. “Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Particle Mechanics.”

If this article is out of your reach, then let's go back to standard college education and Newton's laws. Any reference to human-made actions (laboratory, experiments, measurements,

If Classical Mechanics can be postulated in the absence of humans, and Quantum Mechanics can't (see the standard axioms of QM here), why do we then perceive QM as being the necessary completion of CM (in the microscopic regime, I may add), when it can't even be formulated in the absence of human intervention?

This is not an argument against "QM interpretations", just a question: any QM interpretation involves human actions. Can we void the axioms of QM of any human actions (results of actions) and formulate them in full, perhaps abstract, generality?

Even the postulation of Schrödinger's equation contains humans, if you think about it (you have to link it to the von Neumann-Lüders collapse axiom): "In the absence of

I didn't mean this to sound philosophic, I apologize in advance.

N.B. Sure, in classical mechanics, the definitions which accompany Newton's three laws can be made "operational", i.e. from the perspective of human tools (such as clocks and rulers) and actions ("measurements"). But the axioms are still void of any explicit human action.

(1) McKINSEY, J. C. C., et al. “Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Particle Mechanics.”

*Journal of Rational Mechanics and Analysis*, vol. 2, Indiana University Mathematics Department, 1953, pp. 253–72, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24900331.If this article is out of your reach, then let's go back to standard college education and Newton's laws. Any reference to human-made actions (laboratory, experiments, measurements,

*observables*) is missing from the 3 laws.If Classical Mechanics can be postulated in the absence of humans, and Quantum Mechanics can't (see the standard axioms of QM here), why do we then perceive QM as being the necessary completion of CM (in the microscopic regime, I may add), when it can't even be formulated in the absence of human intervention?

This is not an argument against "QM interpretations", just a question: any QM interpretation involves human actions. Can we void the axioms of QM of any human actions (results of actions) and formulate them in full, perhaps abstract, generality?

Even the postulation of Schrödinger's equation contains humans, if you think about it (you have to link it to the von Neumann-Lüders collapse axiom): "In the absence of

*measurements*(subsequently understood as being performed by humans in a desirably controlled environment) the abstract state vector evolves in time according to this equation (...)*until there is a new measurement*(again understood to be performed by humans) which discontinuously changes the state vector to a fixed one".I didn't mean this to sound philosophic, I apologize in advance.

N.B. Sure, in classical mechanics, the definitions which accompany Newton's three laws can be made "operational", i.e. from the perspective of human tools (such as clocks and rulers) and actions ("measurements"). But the axioms are still void of any explicit human action.

Last edited: