What postulates (axioms) should be in the foundation of physics, as the science of all reality in general?
Analogy – axioms of geometry. When thinking about this topic, keep in mind that, for example, the well-known postulate about the constancy of the speed of light in the theory of relativity can (and even should) be a consequence of the natural limit of certain speeds in the structure of matter. We need a system of the most general, primordial postulates of physics, on which the entire universe is built (postulates of God, if you will). Are there any formulations of such a plan other than the biblical ones?
First, physics is obviously not “the science of all reality.” I've never heard of physics doing culture, and I doubt it will ever start. I doubt that the culture isn't real.
Secondly, if we are talking about axioms, that is, things accepted without proof, then such things include definitions and in general the ontology of the theory – that is, what components the theory assumes to divide the subject of its consideration. And since ontology in this case is an integral part of theory, and not physics as such, it would be a mistake to ask some axioms once and for all. Newton's space was absolute, Einstein's space was relative, perhaps in the future there will be a new theory that uses a new, unknown way of thinking about space, that is, a new axiomatics, and if it does its job better than the previous one, it will not be able to say “oh, sorry, we have already approved the axiomatics according to GOST”.
Third, what other biblical formulations are there? There is nothing there that is even remotely suitable for physical theory.
Unlike mathematics, which is based on an axiomatic principle, physics, which studies the real world, in general, has no axioms. All laws, hypotheses, and theories of physics must be proved experimentally. Some principles of knowledge could be considered axioms, but this is more likely to apply to philosophy. Therefore, physicists can adhere to various philosophical principles. In addition, strictly speaking, physics is not the science of all reality. Many sciences study the whole reality: for example, chemistry, biology, history, economics, etc. Each science focuses on individual objects and processes in the real world.
What you are asking about is called Hilbert's sixth problem. Now it seems that the construction of a single “theory of everything” is unlikely, and different branches of physics have their own axioms.
None at all. The foundation of physics is the facts that become known to us as a result of experiments and observations. It is ETM physics that is fundamentally different from mathematics.
There is. These Foundations are given in the works of H. P. Blavatsky, and their refined moral essence is given in Agni Yoga.
All the basics are already given inIn the prologue of The Secret Doctrine, volume 1, with the words “So, the Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental, basic propositions”, which can be expanded into seven or ten, depending on how to count and how to concretize, differentiate and deduce the particular, which, by the way, it does in its works.
I will give an interpretation of some detailed understanding of the “Secret Doctrine”:
You can add a few more, but they will be the essence of a combination of the main three, or their differentiation.
N. K. Roerich in his book “The Seven Great Mysteries of the Cosmos” summarized the Basics in relation to our planetary system (planetary chain). There are other attempts to consider the Basics, for example, “Fundamentals of the worldview of the new era” by A. I. Klizovsky. But for the synthesis of understanding Them, a new type of thinking is needed, which will also develop a new scientific terminology. Therefore, the “Secret Doctrine” has a kind of protoscientific meaning (as the basis of a new scientific thought), as a Teaching of truths that humanity is already able to perceive mentally and develop scientifically, taking into account the moral approach.
Good question. If I understand it correctly, then a person, as a representative of the material world, which has only as a special case its specific properties and conditions of life, cannot give an answer to this question of a comprehensive, general nature. To do this, you need to go beyond the totality of the diversity of physical and material worlds and consider them all as a single whole, identifying common properties and features. Until this is taken into account, physics will not be able to consider ALL the laws of the material world, including those areas where feelings are present – art, creativity, emotions and moral concepts. Everything that a person is able to express is recorded and stored on a material medium, which we do not always realize, recognize and take into account. But it's there! A person often expresses his thoughts and feelings in a solid medium of information – paper, stone, paint, electronic media, and finally. Any feelings and thoughts are recorded by our memory in the brain and can be reproduced later at any time. In addition, thoughts and feelings can be conveyed in words, intonation, music and heard, recorded and reproduced by other people precisely because of material media and, first of all, our brain and memory.
I am sure that physics does not consider (take into account)yet these areas of motion and influence of matter are only because there is no single generally accepted agreement on what exactly to measure, in what units, and with what instruments. And they are also such effects as a consequence (manifestation) of one or a whole complex of factors. This is the most difficult part, not because it is not there, but because it is not clear how to evaluate it in order to take into account all the influences and not miss the important and important thing.
When we drink heart medicine, it affects many other organs, and often negatively. But we drink it because we can't just affect the heart. Everyone has heard about the power of the Spirit and willpower. No one can deny that they don't exist. Do they affect anything? Absolutely! But how to measure this power???…
The most simple arguments will show the limitations and imperfection of the laws of physics, mathematics, and natural sciences, without talking about the humanities. Man has long felt that the physical properties of the Earth severely limit his knowledge of the world as a whole. It is impossible to imagine that the entire universe obeys Earth's physical laws and that there are no worlds with other properties and characteristics. And there is no such world that can be taken as a standard, as a reference point on which to equate all other laws. THIS POINT MUST BE SOUGHT OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL MATERIAL WORLD!
the only problem is that modern physics (as a field of knowledge and research) has little relation to reality (the existence of the surrounding being) ..
for many thousands of years, people have assumed that any thing in the world around them appears, exists and disappears at someone's whim (will, plan, etc.) .. most of the search for the basics was reduced to the search for the will-giver, most of the will-givers were seen as deities.
the method of expression of will was defined differently, such as doing, creativity, fantasy, desire, sacrifice, etc.
modern sciences try to find some other way to justify being, without involving the divine whim .. so far, it's not working out very well … but on the other hand, modern science is far advanced in the field of knowledge of the tools and methods by which matter takes on various bizarre forms.
nevertheless, humanity is still held within the definition of the reason for being as a whim, and the axioms you ask for culturally look like – “if the stars light up in the sky, then someone needs it” or ” look for someone who benefits ..”, etc.
it remains only to find some self-sufficient reason for the development of being , and manage not to call it god … because people will not be able to discover or find anything else due to the fact that they are people .. well, or rely on some kind of artificial intelligence that will indicate the basics beyond the usual circle.
…
as for the reality, everything is quite simple here .. observing a person, we come to the conclusion that reality and physics do not really fit together …
if I meet a mentally ill person on the street .who will think that I am a reptilian, he will take out a knife and stab me, then this will be the reality, the reality that is significant at the moment for the development of events … and the fact that I'm not a reptilian won't matter.
this example should ideally lead to doubts about any perceived reality, including mass hallucinations, etc … but if we still prove the reality of the hallucination, through repeated experience and questioning of many people, then it becomes what we call a physical law, a fact, a phenomenon, and what we begin to study and prove as a theory.
…
I can only state the final version of the “truth” and the “theory of everything” —
the reality that surrounds us is what it can not paradoxically become after the restoration of the opinions of all observers existing within the limits of being.
if there are people who think the world works this way and that, then it matters .. if there are animals who believe that the world is organized in a certain way, then it matters … if there are real structures (crystal lattices, etc.) that tend to support their self (like elastic deformation, for example), then it matters … etc., given any “observer” or any “interest” (like open valence, etc.).
such a” whim ” taken away from God and spread throughout existence can give science a new chance .. but did she need him?
….
Buddhism argues that reality is illusory, and consists of many drachmas, which, like film frames, replace each other according to the law of causality …
our entire world is being instantly rewritten, destroyed, and restored in its parts in accordance with the opinion of everyone living in it … if tomorrow someone comes up with that the age of our universe is a hundred times greater than it is considered today, then its age will automatically increase, if someone comes up with that the universe is 300 years old, then it will be right there.
the only problem is that the inventor is not alone, and he will have to overcome several million people's opinions with his idea (the rest of us don't care about the age of the universe) .. just like all other animals … and even more don't care about stones.
but if people agreed to set up an experiment, and at the same time believe in some unreal game, then by the results of changes in the surrounding world, it would be possible to determine at least whether we are the only sufficiently intelligent beings in the universe .. otherwise, you'd have to butt heads with aliens, too.
in general, the change of the modern paradigm, the transition from passive observation of the surrounding reality to the formation of the surrounding reality, opens up many opportunities .. even if it's dangerous .. it is precisely to change the existing paradigm that “your axioms” should be directed – to allow the possibility of going beyond the “laws of physics”, and not to stagnate in your own mass hallucination.
Physics based on postulates is an artificial system of knowledge, the correspondence of which to reality is not proven. Modern postulate-based physics is in a severe crisis and increasingly resembles a religious sect of believers in the boson and graviton.
The correct answer is that physics, unlike mathematics, does not need postulates, and already introduced ones harm the development of science.
Physics has its own content, which is the physicality of processes. Processes that cannot be explained should be classified as having no physical explanation. Inventing a singularity or twisting fields for them is quackery, regardless of the coolness of the accompanying mathematics.
Axioms are determinants of speculative formal schemes, theories, and branches of mathematics, first of all. The postulates of classical physics, in fact, are the ultimate generalizations of ideas about the world. That is, they go beyond physics and express a philosophical worldview.
Modern awareness of the world is much broader. If metaphysics corresponded to Newton's time, then later it gave way to dialectics, dialectical materialism, which gave way to the pressure of “special relativity” on the one hand and” quantum physics ” on the other. Both of the latter are based on axioms and therefore are not physical theories.
The natural development of awareness of the world would have to cover not just the interaction, the correlation of two neighboring concepts, the correlation of concepts of neighboring levels (generality), but an extremely general system of concepts, extremely detailed concepts (similar to what is called differential-integral calculus in mathematics). As the limit of modern world awareness – awareness of the world as a system of material systems, each of which consists of material systems and is immersed in the environment of material systems.
Materiality distinguishes ideal objects that express the relationships and properties of objects from objects capable of influencing or changing other material objects.
In this case, physics returns to the original understanding of science and combines with other scientific fields, including philosophy, and becomes systemic materialism.
The main axiom is the reality of the existing world. That is, the reality of the world that is described by modern physics as a science. And reality, to use the syntactic term, is not “subordinate”, but “composed”, which determines itself.
Everything else is only applied to this basic axiom.