Fairly long review of "Lost in Math" by a philosopher of science, Jeremy Butterfield. It's an interesting read & will give you a good impression what my book is about. Pls be warned that in some places he misrepresents my argument. More on my blog later. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15724/1/HossenfReview2feb19.pdf …
Professor Gowers, I regret not responding earlier to this question, because it's absolutely crucial. No experiment probing the microworld has ever revealed a defect in GR. But the logic of propositions referring to denizens of the microworld is inconsistent with GR.
-
-
This, I would argue, is the key point: I want particularly to stress that this logic is mandated not by QM, but by observation. Its validity in its domain of application is unambiguously affirmed not indirectly, via the successes of QM, but directly, by the phenomena themselves.
-
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: we observe directly phenomena in the microworld that are irreconcilable with the most primitive assumptions of GR. It's not the overwhelming empirical success of QM that obliges us to accept a non-classical logic. It's direct observation.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.