ftr
- 624
- 47
Suppose we guess from present evidence that reality is made of math so to speak and suppose a correct theory based on that was developed. Would you say any philosophy was involed or not?martinbn said:I must say that I don't understand the examples for the positive role of philosophy, given in this thread or in the paper. For instance general relativity. In my opinion what was important was a clear physics problem, find a relativistic theory of gravity with Newton's gravity as a limit, and a clear physical principle (the equivalence principle). What played a positive role was the work of Minkowski, the geometers from Riemann to Levi-Civita and Ricci, the collaboration with Grossman, and the competition/discussions with Hilbert. None of this is philosophy. The philosophical parts like the Mach principle or the hole argument seem to me that held Einstein back. In many texts they are not even mentioned. The same is true for the development of the theory. Problem solving was what made progress possible. The philosophical musings were never productive.
In fact general relativity is a good example where philosophy is not needed and was an obstacle. This is also true when it comes to learning the theory.
