XPost: sci.math, sci.physics.relativity   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Mild Shock  wrote:   
      
   > This is almost like Peter Aczels lost Notes,   
   > where he describes cyclic formulas. Works astonishing   
   > well for cyclic Prolog terms and arrow functions,   
   >   
   > see the odd/even example. But jokes aside, check this out:   
   >   
   > Q: WHAT IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS?   
   > A: HIRE THE RIGHT EMPLOYEES!   
   >   
   > Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HIRED THE RIGHT ONES?   
   > A: YOU KNOW BECAUSE THE BUSINESS IS SUCCESSFUL.   
   >   
   > Q: SO THE KEY TO SUCCESS IS CIRCULAR REASONING?   
   > A: YES, BECAUSE CIRCULAR REASON-ING IS THE KEY.   
   > DilbertCartoonist@gmail.com   
   >   
   > Non-Well-Founded Proofs and Non-Well-Founded Research   
   > https://logic-mentoring-workshop.github.io/lics25/slides/lmw_Liron.pdf   
      
   Correct. There can be no logic to postulates.   
   (as long as they are self consistent)   
   They are what they are.   
      
   This is the key difference between physics and mathematics.   
   In math you can take any postulates you want,   
   and work out the consequences, and that's it.   
      
   In physics you have the additional condition of 'succes'.   
   The consequences, suitably interpreted, must match observations.   
   And of course succes is the practical criterion   
   to judge postulates (and observations!) by.   
      
   Or if you want it more philosophically dignified:   
   The postulates must serve as the basis   
   for a progressive research program.   
   (by Imre Lakatos)   
   And there is nothing circular   
   about being 'a progressive research program'.   
   If it goes round in circles it isn't progressive.   
      
   And yes,   
   the postulates of special and general relativity pass the test.   
   (so far)   
   Euclidean geometry does not,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)