Talk:Philosophy of physics

Add and delete references

1. The first reference can not be found and should be deleted. 2.Add a new reference after the second reference: Creating a Universe, a Conceptual Model, Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology, http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2016-17/PC_vol_17-86-105.pdf. ISSN 2518-1866 (Online), ISSN 2307-3705 (Print). The Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology 2016 (Vol. 17). This new reference specifically addresses space and time. Any concerns with proposal? Thanks Jim J Jim Johnson 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the first reference problem. I improved the citation and added a GBooks link. It exists. --Mark viking (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Three main areas? original research?

Looks like original research, see [1] and [2], Doug Weller talk 18:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug, I think you are viewing the existing version which has the reference I was referring to already deleted. I agree it is now correct. Jim Johnson 22:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

I'm a bit puzzled. The intro *could* be OR, but your links - e.g. [3] - actually support the article's text. So does Oxford's blurb: http://www.sites.hps.cam.ac.uk/research/pp.html says the three main areas of research in the foundations and philosophy of physics: quantum mechanics, space and time, and statistical mechanics William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: The article says quantum physics, space and time, and "Inter-theoretic relations". Sklar's third area is "probabilistic and statistical theories of the "classical" sort". The three you mention are similar. But that reading list link is dated 2007 and the Oxford Handbook that I linked to is 2013 and it doesn't seem to argue for three main areas. Sklar is even older, 1992. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science[4] is also from 2013 and I don't think you'll find it arguing for 3 main areas either. So I don't see sources for Inter-theoretic relations as the 3rd nor recent sources with this analysis. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. More seriously, although the article lists 3 in it's intro, it only deals with the other two. Our third that you label "Inter-theoretic relations", is Inter-theoretic relations: the relationship between various physical theories, such as thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. So it does at least include stat mech, that Oxford does (that Oxford list is current). TBH though I don't understand what philosophical problems stat mech presents (unless this is a disguised arrow-of-time type thing) and I guess neither does the article since, as noted, it isn't covered William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: Sorry, I meant Cambridge list, which has nothing more recent thatn 2007. I don't have the time or interest to work on this though, just came across it because I saw Jimjohnson adding an article he wrote. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have caused some confusion. The reference I deleted could not be found on the web, :

I was not saying the sentences should be deleted. As I said the reference was deleted. I agree with the three area comments. Jim Johnson 21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

References

Leibniz

Again, please state reasons as to how do you define an idea as "irrelevant", or "trashy". How strong is a relation to be considered relevant to physics as stated? Please give an objective criteria that in your opinion, was reached by previous sections that allowed these previous revisions to remain. See the previous sources mentioned on your talk page.

Please learn to sign your edits - not doing so is impolite; use ~~~~. Also, you're a bit confused: my "trashy" comment was for this edit [5] which is nothing to do with you. So, don't be so touchy.

Now, onto the "irrelevance" [6]: firstly, providing 10 references for an idea is generally a sign of weakness, not strength: one good reference will do, 10 bad ones won't. As to Leibniz was particularly interested on the Confucian texts and discussions on the I Ching and referenced such concepts on his calculus - this really isn't relevant to the philosophy of physics, unless something says it is, and I don't see anything saying it is. Nor are binary codes, which you're also tying to push, for unclear reasons.

Looking over at the L page, I notice drivel such as Regardless, Leibniz simplified the binary system which suggests there are problems over there William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Revamp

This article needs a complete revamp. Many sections are poorly written and sparsely sourced. When I gave it a quick skim I saw numerous errors and omissions. Over the next few weeks I'll try to revamp this article entirely - if anyone is interested in joining me, let me know. I think we can get this to GA status. Chase Kanipe (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)