20世纪的科学自相矛盾

V. Kondratenko
{"title":"20世纪的科学自相矛盾","authors":"V. Kondratenko","doi":"10.32347/tit2021.42.0303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The isolation of hypothetical theories from the realities of living matter has caused mysticism to penetrate scientific theories. With mystical thinking, the idea of using an analytical method to solve cognitive problems does not occur. Dialectical logic, in contrast to mysticism, states the opposite: any problematic tasks of cognizing the vital processes and phenomena of the universe are solvable exclusively in an analytic way, with the only method. The author created a universal and formal theory of solving intellectual (i.e., having no previously known algorithms for solving) problems associated with the knowledge of the vital functions of natural and man-made processes in any phenomena of the universe - the Kondratenko method of axiomatic modeling, the effectiveness of which is achieved by correctly setting the problem and solving it purely formal method. The correctness of the statement of the problem means, first of all, the recognition of the failure of all hypothetical (not confirmed by the results of full-scale experimentation with the subject of knowledge) theories. This requirement, in particular, to the mathematical tools used to solve problems of cognition, it revealed paradoxes in the foundations of mathematics, which are discussed in the article. \nAt present, in the natural and applied sciences in most publications, i.e. more than 90% associated with the construction of formal theories in these sciences, the proof of theorems is carried out: \nfirstly, in a meaningful way, which contradicts the urgent requirement of philosophers of science to use exclusively formal evidence, which is a criterion for assessing the correctness and reliability of evidence; \nsecondly, in substantive evidence in 95% of cases, an exclusively standard list of tautologies is used, which by definition is incorrect for the purpose of proving theorems on phenomena and processes of the universe based on exclusively true axioms obtained as a result of full-scale experimentation with these phenomena and processes. The article deals with the paradox in the classical approach to proving theorems, which consists in the inappropriateness of generally accepted stereotypical tautologies of classical mathematics for proving theorems.","PeriodicalId":434555,"journal":{"name":"Transfer of innovative technologies","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The twentieth century science paradoxes\",\"authors\":\"V. Kondratenko\",\"doi\":\"10.32347/tit2021.42.0303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The isolation of hypothetical theories from the realities of living matter has caused mysticism to penetrate scientific theories. With mystical thinking, the idea of using an analytical method to solve cognitive problems does not occur. Dialectical logic, in contrast to mysticism, states the opposite: any problematic tasks of cognizing the vital processes and phenomena of the universe are solvable exclusively in an analytic way, with the only method. The author created a universal and formal theory of solving intellectual (i.e., having no previously known algorithms for solving) problems associated with the knowledge of the vital functions of natural and man-made processes in any phenomena of the universe - the Kondratenko method of axiomatic modeling, the effectiveness of which is achieved by correctly setting the problem and solving it purely formal method. The correctness of the statement of the problem means, first of all, the recognition of the failure of all hypothetical (not confirmed by the results of full-scale experimentation with the subject of knowledge) theories. This requirement, in particular, to the mathematical tools used to solve problems of cognition, it revealed paradoxes in the foundations of mathematics, which are discussed in the article. \\nAt present, in the natural and applied sciences in most publications, i.e. more than 90% associated with the construction of formal theories in these sciences, the proof of theorems is carried out: \\nfirstly, in a meaningful way, which contradicts the urgent requirement of philosophers of science to use exclusively formal evidence, which is a criterion for assessing the correctness and reliability of evidence; \\nsecondly, in substantive evidence in 95% of cases, an exclusively standard list of tautologies is used, which by definition is incorrect for the purpose of proving theorems on phenomena and processes of the universe based on exclusively true axioms obtained as a result of full-scale experimentation with these phenomena and processes. The article deals with the paradox in the classical approach to proving theorems, which consists in the inappropriateness of generally accepted stereotypical tautologies of classical mathematics for proving theorems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":434555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfer of innovative technologies\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfer of innovative technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32347/tit2021.42.0303\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfer of innovative technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32347/tit2021.42.0303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

假设理论与生命物质的现实相隔绝,导致神秘主义渗透到科学理论中。有了神秘主义思维,就不会出现用分析方法来解决认知问题的想法。辩证逻辑,与神秘主义相反,陈述了相反的观点:认识宇宙的重要过程和现象的任何有问题的任务,都只能用分析的方式,用唯一的方法来解决。作者创造了一种解决与宇宙中任何现象中自然和人为过程的重要功能的知识相关的智力问题(即没有先前已知的解决算法)的普遍和形式化理论-公义建模的Kondratenko方法,其有效性是通过正确设置问题并通过纯形式化方法解决它来实现的。对问题陈述的正确性,首先意味着承认所有假设性理论(未被对知识主体进行全面实验的结果所证实)的失败。这一要求,特别是对用于解决认知问题的数学工具的要求,揭示了数学基础中的悖论,本文将对此进行讨论。目前,在自然科学和应用科学的大多数出版物中,即90%以上与这些科学中形式理论的构建有关的出版物中,定理的证明是:首先,以有意义的方式进行的,这与科学哲学家迫切要求只使用形式证据(这是评估证据正确性和可靠性的标准)相矛盾;其次,在95%的实质性证据中,使用了一个完全标准的重言式列表,根据定义,这对于基于对这些现象和过程进行全面实验而获得的完全正确的公理来证明关于宇宙现象和过程的定理是不正确的。本文讨论了经典证明定理方法中的悖论,即普遍接受的经典数学的刻板重言式证明定理的不适当性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The twentieth century science paradoxes
The isolation of hypothetical theories from the realities of living matter has caused mysticism to penetrate scientific theories. With mystical thinking, the idea of using an analytical method to solve cognitive problems does not occur. Dialectical logic, in contrast to mysticism, states the opposite: any problematic tasks of cognizing the vital processes and phenomena of the universe are solvable exclusively in an analytic way, with the only method. The author created a universal and formal theory of solving intellectual (i.e., having no previously known algorithms for solving) problems associated with the knowledge of the vital functions of natural and man-made processes in any phenomena of the universe - the Kondratenko method of axiomatic modeling, the effectiveness of which is achieved by correctly setting the problem and solving it purely formal method. The correctness of the statement of the problem means, first of all, the recognition of the failure of all hypothetical (not confirmed by the results of full-scale experimentation with the subject of knowledge) theories. This requirement, in particular, to the mathematical tools used to solve problems of cognition, it revealed paradoxes in the foundations of mathematics, which are discussed in the article. At present, in the natural and applied sciences in most publications, i.e. more than 90% associated with the construction of formal theories in these sciences, the proof of theorems is carried out: firstly, in a meaningful way, which contradicts the urgent requirement of philosophers of science to use exclusively formal evidence, which is a criterion for assessing the correctness and reliability of evidence; secondly, in substantive evidence in 95% of cases, an exclusively standard list of tautologies is used, which by definition is incorrect for the purpose of proving theorems on phenomena and processes of the universe based on exclusively true axioms obtained as a result of full-scale experimentation with these phenomena and processes. The article deals with the paradox in the classical approach to proving theorems, which consists in the inappropriateness of generally accepted stereotypical tautologies of classical mathematics for proving theorems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信