This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.
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)
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)
@
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 Wellertalk09:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I have caused some confusion. The reference I deleted could not be found on the web, :[1]
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)
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.
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)reply