(no subject)
Aug. 24th, 2004 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslThis course is titled Philosophy of Science, but it's very technical about physics. This is how I wish I had learned my physics. My physics profs never seemed very interested in philosophy, which I find a great shame.
This sounds slightly shaky, but very interesting:
Science as a Language, the Non-Probativity Theorem and the Complementarity of Complexity and Predictability, by Robert K. Logan
From the author of Computational Philosophy of Science, a book enhanced with Lisp code: Coherence in Thought and Action
It turns out that Doug Lenat implemented this idea of mine, a long time ago:
"Shallow" pattern recognition applied to answer the question "which mathematical theorems are "interesting" "?
from http://www.cs.unm.edu/~luger/Chap1final.htm :
This sounds slightly shaky, but very interesting:
Science as a Language, the Non-Probativity Theorem and the Complementarity of Complexity and Predictability, by Robert K. Logan
From the author of Computational Philosophy of Science, a book enhanced with Lisp code: Coherence in Thought and Action
It turns out that Doug Lenat implemented this idea of mine, a long time ago:
"Shallow" pattern recognition applied to answer the question "which mathematical theorems are "interesting" "?
from http://www.cs.unm.edu/~luger/Chap1final.htm :
"One striking program is AM, the Automated Mathematician, designed to discover mathematical laws (Lenat 1977, 1982). Initially given the concepts and axioms of set theory, AM was able to induce such important mathematical concepts as cardinality, integer arithmetic, and many of the results of number theory. AM conjectured new theorems by modifying its current knowledge base and used heuristics to pursue the most "interesting" of a number of possible alternative theorems. [emphasis mine -GL] "
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-24 02:08 pm (UTC)This course is titled Philosophy of Science, but it's very technical about physics. This is how I wish I had learned my physics. My physics profs never seemed very interested in philosophy, which I find a great shame.
I agree, everyone should have a course like that before they start learning any equations. At UCSC, where I'm in grad school now, we have a physics course for undergrads called "Conceptual Physics" which is somewhat similar. Although it probably goes less into the philosophy than it should. It's mainly for non-physics majors but I think it would work well for physics majors too who want a conceptual understanding to supplement the more dry technical coverage.
We didn't have anything like this at my undergrad institution (Georgia Tech) which is one of the many reasons I like it better here.