Talk:Philosophy of physics

Again, please state reasons as to how do you define an idea as "irrelevant", or "trashy". How strong is a relation to be considered relevant to physics as stated? Please give an objective criteria that in your opinion, was reached by previous sections that allowed these previous revisions to remain. See the previous sources mentioned on your talk page.

Please learn to sign your edits - not doing so is impolite; use ~~~~. Also, you're a bit confused: my "trashy" comment was for this edit which is nothing to do with you. So, don't be so touchy.

Now, onto the "irrelevance" : firstly, providing 10 references for an idea is generally a sign of weakness, not strength: one good reference will do, 10 bad ones won't. As to Leibniz was particularly interested on the Confucian texts and discussions on the I Ching and referenced such concepts on his calculus - this really isn't relevant to the philosophy of physics, unless something says it is, and I don't see anything saying it is. Nor are binary codes, which you're also tying to push, for unclear reasons.

Looking over at the L page, I notice drivel such as Regardless, Leibniz simplified the binary system which suggests there are problems over there William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Reply

This article needs a complete revamp. Many sections are poorly written and sparsely sourced. When I gave it a quick skim I saw numerous errors and omissions. Over the next few weeks I'll try to revamp this article entirely - if anyone is interested in joining me, let me know. I think we can get this to GA status. Chase Kanipe (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Reply

I removed the following nonsense:

• the property that particles seem to not just be in one determinate position at one time, but are somewhere 'here', and also 'there' at the same time.

which was sourced to this unreliable source:

• Chidester, Ashlan. The Brash and Plum:Dupliter. doi:10.5281/zenodo.15215248. ISBN 9798218692766. LCCN 2025912442.

Quantum superposition says nothing about particle positions because QM is about experimental results, not about particles or their positions. The source is unreviewed nonsense about a duplicate Jupiter. My edit was inappropriately reverted by @Cloud899. I ask that editor to undo their revert. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

Why do we have sources here with authors missing replaced by "------"? ReyHahn (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Added in 2008 by IP editor. I'll delete the Further reading entries. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Reply