Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-athena!martillo
From: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Proof of Outlandish Propositions
Message-ID: <293@mit-athena.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Jul-85 22:39:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.293
Posted: Sun Jul 28 22:39:38 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jul-85 06:13:22 EDT
Reply-To: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Yakim Martillo)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 15


I would  like to see  Rosen prove that  the universe can  be described
mathematically.   This assumption is fundamental   in  all science and
works well.   But this is  merely phenomenology and  not proof.   Also
the assumption seems to  break down in  certain domains of physics and
many mathematicians cringe  at what the  field theorists call   proof.
You  may   consult Shlomo Sternberg and  Arthur   Jaffe about this  at
Harvard.    Further, the  Hilbert,   Bernays,  Goedel   formulation of
mathematics  fails in   some  sense  because  any mathematical  system
interesting  enough to describe the universe   is incomplete which  is
distressing if you believe math can provide a  complete description of
the universe  (although Weinberg has a  slightly   different opinion -
see Gravitation and cosmology).  I have  heard both Andrew Gleason and
David Kazhdan at Harvard make this point.