Serb. Astron. J. } 200 (2020), 43 - 49 UDC 510.2 : 524.

8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/SAJ2000043C Preliminary report

COSMOLOGY AND HILBERT’S SIXTH PROBLEM

Milan M. Ćirković1,2
1
Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade 38, Serbia
2
Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford,
Suite 8, Littlegate House, 16/17 St Ebbe’s Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK
E–mail: mcirkovic@aob.rs

(Received: October 10, 2019; Accepted: December 18, 2019)

SUMMARY: There have been tantalizing indications from many quarters of physical cosmology that
we are living in the multiverse – a huge set of cosmological domains (“universes”). What is the structure
of this larger whole is an entirely open problem on the interface between physics and metaphysics. A
goal of the present paper is to draw attention to the connection between this problem and an old
and celebrated puzzle in mathematical physics. Among the unresolved problems David Hilbert posed
in 1900 as a challenge for the dawning century, none is more philosophically controversial than the
Sixth Problem, requiring the axiomatization of physical theories. In the new century and the new
millennium, this problem has remained a challenge, usually swept under the rug as “not belonging
to mathematics” (as if that impacts its epistemical status) or simply “unresolved”. Recent radical
ontological/cosmological hypothesis of Max Tegmark, identifying mathematical and physical structures,
might shed some new light onto this allegedly antiquated subject: it might be the case that the problem
has already been solved, insofar we have formalized mathematical structures! While this can be seen as
“cutting the Gordian knot” rather than patiently resolving the issue, we suggest that there are several
advantages to taking Tegmark’s solution seriously, notably in the domain of (future) physics of the
observer.

Key words. History and philosophy of astronomy – Cosmology: theory – Astrobiology

...a librarian of genius to discover the fundamental law of lacy of those catalogues, the demonstration of the fallacy
the Library. This thinker observed that all the books, no of the true catalogue, the Gnostic gospel of Basilides, the
matter how diverse they might be, are made up of the same commentary on that gospel, the commentary on the com-
elements: the space, the period, the comma, the twenty- mentary on that gospel, the true story of your death, the
two letters of the alphabet. He also alleged a fact which translation of every book in all languages, the interpola-
travelers have confirmed: In the vast Library there are tions of every book in all books.
no two identical books. From these two incontrovertible Jorge Luis Borges (1999)
premises he deduced that the Library is total and that its
shelves register all the possible combinations of the twenty-
odd orthographical symbols (a number which, though ex-
tremely vast, is not infinite). Everything: the minutely 1. INTRODUCTION: THE SIXTH
detailed history of the future, the archangels’ autobiogra- PROBLEM
phies, the faithful catalogues of the Library, thousands and
thousands of false catalogues, the demonstration of the fal-
The celebrated problems of David Hilbert, posed
in the original form in 1900-1902 as the major prob-
© beyond the history of
th
2020 The Author(s). Published by Astronomical Ob- lems for the incoming 20 century, have ramifications
far mathematics and philosophy
servatory of Belgrade and Faculty of Mathematics, University
of Belgrade. This open access article is distributed under CC of science (for an accessible review, see Gray 2000).
BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. While some of the total of 24 problems have been re-

43
 M. M. ĆIRKOVIĆ

solved in the course of the major steps forward, even abstract and mathematical in the first place could be
revolutions in mathematics (e.g., #10 on the solv- put on completely formal, axiomatic basis, although
ability of polynomial Diophantine equations, or #19 clear are still very remote (e.g., Dawid 2013); and
on the analytic nature of solutions of regular prob- there are many opponents of the entire project (e.g.,
lems in the calculus of variations, both with enor- Smolin 2006, Ellis and Silk 2014).
mous practical applications in many fields), many Even a cursory analysis of these historical results
are still unresolved, almost 120 years after Hilbert’s indicates that these fail far short of the clear solu-
challenge. Perhaps none is more confusing than the tion to the Sixth Problem. Fields such as probability
#6, in Hilbert’s German original, Mathematische Be- theory or the calculus of variations are nowadays, in
handlung der Axiome der Physik, and usually known contrast to Hilbert’s time, firmly regarded as parts
in compact form as “axiomatization of physics” or of mathematics, so their axiomatization is neither
“axiomatization of the physical theories”. The origi- surprising nor could be regarded as the answer to
nal elaboration reads (Hilbert 1902): Hilbert’s query. Even if formalization of contempo-
rary theories such as M-theory proceeds successfully
To treat in the same manner, by means of axioms, those
physical sciences in which already today mathematics (prospects for which are unclear at present), and pro-
plays an important part; in the first rank are the theory of vided that it really describes the deepest and the
probabilities and mechanics. . . As to the axioms of the the- most general level of physical reality, this still does
ory of probabilities, it seems to me desirable that their log- not preclude the search for other possible solutions.
ical investigation should be accompanied by a rigorous and After all, solutions to many other problems, includ-
satisfactory development of the method of mean values in ing some of Hilbert’s, proceed in two possible direc-
mathematical physics, and in particular in the kinetic the- tions: either proving a general conjecture, or find-
ory of gases. . . Boltzmann’s work on the principles of me-
chanics suggests the problem of developing mathematically ing a counterexample (Matiyasevich proved a general
the limiting processes, there merely indicated, which lead conjecture resolving the 10th Problem; Nagata con-
from the atomistic view to the laws of motion of continua. structed a counterexample to resolve the 14th Prob-
As with other Problems, this setup tells much lem). The formulation of the Sixth implies that such
about Hilbert’s time, dominant worldview, and axiomatization is possible, which is a point of con-
Hilbert’s philosophical views (Sauer 1999, Renn and tention itself for many physicists.
Stachel 2007, Slemrod 2013). The most comprehen- For instance, Richard P. Feynman would be one
sive review of the Sixth Problem has so far been pro- of the skeptics on this issue. His well-known quote
vided by the distinguished historian of science Leo about the “next great era of awakening of human
Corry (1997, 2004). One point is important for our intellect” (emphasis M. M. Ć.) in physics as un-
discussion here, namely that, as Corry notes: “[t]his derstanding the qualitative content of the equations
problem differs in an essential way from most oth- (Feynman et al. 1964, vol. II, p. 41-12) is reason-
ers in the list. . . it is more of a general task, than a ably interpreted as implying that we do not have in-
specific mathematical problem.” (Corry 1997, p. 84) sight into such content as of now and with the current
Therefore, we are somewhat entitled to expect a dif- methods and approaches. See also his skeptical re-
ferent kind of solution as well. We should not allow marks about the contemporary mathematical physics
our historical knowledge, especially that of Hilbert’s in Feynman (1965), esp. Chapter 2. Not much has
commitment to formalism and finitism, to confuse us happened in the last 50+ years which would likely
regarding legitimacy and nature of possible solutions sway his opinion.
to the Sixth. In Table 1, we see the existing views on In the rest of this note, I shall try to defend a
the status of the Sixth Problem as options (i), (ii), radical view that aviable solution to the Sixth Prob-
(iii), and we tentatively add the option (iv) of the lem is provided by a recent controversial hypothesis
of the Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark.
special solution discussed in the rest of this paper. This solution need not be regarded as unique, has
There is a bunch of historical results usually cited not been anticipated, arguably is not in accordance
in connection with the Sixth Problem. In particu- with either Hilbert’s or any other historical view on
lar, the work of Hilbert himself, as well as his best the problem, and might look as a cop-out to some –
assistant in Göttingen, Emmy Noether, on differen- but there are many inherent benefits in opening the
tial geometry and fundamental symmetries, has been discussion about it, starting with showing how philo-
repeatedly advertised as setting the groundwork for sophically important questions persist in contempo-
modern mathematical physics. Cartan’s formaliza- rary theoretical physics and cosmology.
tion of Newtonian theory of gravity in 1924, attempt-
ing to formalize general relativity in terms of the
most general covariance principles, as well as Kol-
mogorov’s axiomatization of the probability theory 2. MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE
in 1933 are also examples of advances, conventionally HYPOTHESIS
understood, in the general direction indicated by the
Sixth Problem (for example, see Norton 1993). Even In several papers and a book in the period 1998-
more this pertains to the project of Wightman and today, Tegmark advances a radical idea that there is
Haag, inspired by John A. Wheeler, of axiomatization no ontological difference between physical and math-
of the quantum field theory, undertaken in 1960s and ematical structures.1 Scientists have for quite a long
1970s (Wightman 1976). Some researchers maintain time struggled with Wigner’s “unreasonable effective-
that the modern pretenders to the “Theory of Every-
thing” such as the string/M-theory which are highly 1 Tegmark (1998, 2008, 2014).

44
 COSMOLOGY AND HILBERT’S SIXTH PROBLEM

Table 1: Possibilities for the status of the Sixth Problem.

# Status? Analogous problems? What is to be done?

th th
(i) Unsolved 8 (Riemann hypothesis), 12 (extension Work on solution!
of the Kronecker–Weber theorem)
(ii) Too ambiguous 4th (metrics where all lines are geodesics) Specify further
constrains!
(iii) Does not belong to – Resolve within
mathematics another field!
(iv) Solved (special) 18th (sphere-packing problem, resolved with Interpret the solution
computer-assisted proof)? + seek other solutions!

ness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (Wigner worlds interpretations/theories of quantum mechan-
1960), as well as the related issue why are some math- ics – most notably, Everett’s “no collapse” theory –
ematical structures seemingly privileged to explain are valid, the totality of all branches of the wave-
physical structures (e.g., Hilbert’s space of quantum function of the universe would constitute the Level
states), while others have no such “real world” ap- III multiverse. Finally, any structure larger than that
plications (e.g., Banach spaces). Tegmark simply would belong on the Level IV – and in particular this
applies to Tegmark’s own “ultimate ensemble” im-
cuts the Gordian knot by asserting that all math- plied by MUH. (Note that each level contains lower
ematical structures are realized somewhere, so there
is no distinction between physical and mathemati- levels as special cases in which at least one global
cal reality. Of course, the fact that we perceive only symmetry is broken.) This hierarchical scheme helps
some physically realized mathematical structures tes- to explain why MUH is met with agnosticism, or even
tifies upon the strength of observation-selection ef- incredulity, by many proponents of other multiverse
fects: as “self-aware substructures”, we observe only schemes – but it has undoubtedly “stirred the pot”
those structures supporting sufficient complexity, sta- and brought further exposure and visibility to cosmo-
bility, and other physical pre-requisites for observer- logical and metaphysical issues.3
ship. In other parts of this radical Platonist mul- From the point of view of this paper, MUH offers
tiverse, other mathematical structures are realized a simple, obvious, and yet far-reaching answer to the
without observers around to notice that. In a sense, Sixth problem:
Tegmark’s hypothesis – often going under the title There is no independent formalization of physics
of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) – – and it cannot exist. The reason is that there is
offers the ultimate logical conclusion to the Galilean no independent physical world. Axioms of mathe-
project of reading nature as the book written in the matics are the true “laws of physics” as well; con-
language of mathematics. sequently, the axiomatization of physics has already
It is an understatement that Tegmark’s hypoth- been achieved insofar and in the same manner as the
mathematical realm is axiomatized.
esis has been and remains controversial. Although There are two steps here: (i) realization that the
Tegmark has argued that MUH has observable conse- apparent physical world reflects a deeper mathemat-
quences, most critics have disagreed.2 Without going ical structure, and (ii) using this insight to address
into extremely complex issues of possible computable the Sixth Problem. Obviously, a separate physical de-
measures in such a large multiverse (sic!), it is impor- scription is entirely redundant, since all information
tant to state that the Level IV mathematical multi- is contained in the mathematical description; this is
verse is arguably the most extreme position within obvious in systems with very high degree of symmetry
the corpus of “postmodern cosmology” (cf. differ- (e.g., crystals), but is indeed present in all systems
ent positions within the same volume in Carr 2007, in the universe. In other words, just as we can derive
Kragh and Longair 2019). The origin of the label is particular secondary quality of a piece of quartz, say
located with Tegmark’s popular review in Scientific its color, from its underlying symmetry group, thus
American (Tegmark 2003), where he offered a ten- could all properties of all objects be derived – accord-
tative classification scheme for easier thinking about ing to Tegmark – from the underlying mathematical
the grand cosmological ensembles. The Level I would structures. Of course, we lack the required level of
be an extension of our universe beyond the cosmo- sophistication at present, but there is no substantial
logical horizons, something which is uncontroversial obstacle in the world itself.
even in the standard Friedmann models. The Level (Of course, one can still hold different opinions on
II multiverse would encompass all cosmological do- the role and meaning of axioms in the mathematical
mains (“universes”) originating through cosmological realm, just as physicists and philosophers of physics
inflation, or a similar symmetry-breaking process, in often have differing views and opinions on the role of
the early universe. On a deeper level still, if many-
3 For some of the novel work motivated by Tegmark’s hy-
2 Schmidhuber (2002), Vilenkin (2006), Porpora (2013). pothesis, see Yampolskiy (2017), Hamlin (2017).

45
 M. M. ĆIRKOVIĆ

laws of physics in the physical world; see, for instance, 3. THE SIXTH PROBLEM IN RELATION
Maudlin 2007.) TO OBSERVERSHIP
Perhaps the most predictable objection to the
present suggestion is that this certainly is not what
Hilbert meant when he posed the problem. Putting When he posed the Problems, Hilbert could not
aside a pertinent question whether we should care have been aware of the debate which will become cen-
at all about the “original intent” in science,4 it is tral to most of philosophy of science in the course
hardly the case that other Hilbert’s problems have of the 20th century: the role of observer in physi-
been solved entirely to his liking. We might only cal reality. In contexts of both quantum physics and
speculate what would he thought about the validity modern cosmology, observership has become an ob-
of computer-assisted proofs (18th Problem) – and it ject of scrutiny: both the orthodox Copenhagen inter-
pretation of the wave function and anthropic reason-
is a matter of historical record that he was person- ing in cosmology ascribe important role to particular
ally dissatisfied with the steps taken by Gödel and qualities of emergent or evolved observers. Note that
Gentzen in resolving the Continuum Hypothesis (1st Hilbert’s notion of physics in the formulation of the
Problem), and in the issue of proving consistency of Sixth Problem tacitly implies the observer; kinetic
arithmetic (2nd Problem). This is hardly surprising. theory of gases, hydrodynamics and other examples
With the passage of time, it is only natural that the he mentions are such as they are because we observe
original expectations will be more and more removed them in a habitable universe. Those low-level effec-
from both contemporary reading of the problem sit- tive laws valid near “our” vacuum state are selected
uation and the reality of our scientific insights which from the underlying true laws valid at all energies by
evolve and advance. This is particularly relevant for the filter that they support observers like us. In ad-
broad questions of high generality, as the Sixth Prob- dition, those processes which occur on, for example,
lem certainly is. In particular the solution of the Sec- drastically different spatial scales than the one of our
ond Problem as offered by Gödel’s second incomplete- immediate sensory experiences (e.g., interactions of
ness theorem, contains an analogy with the present molecules in the kinetic theory of gases) are clearly
proposal: Hilbert asked for proving of the consistency contingent on the evolutionary fact that entities qual-
of arithmetic and Gödel showed in 1931 that no proof ifying as observers must have minimal spatial size in
of its consistency can be carried out within arithmetic comparison to the entities in questions.
itself (e.g., Dawson 1997). Nobody doubts that this Under MUH, our cosmological domain (“the uni-
result has been an important step in resolving the verse”) is embedded first into the subset of all hab-
problem; the controversy exists only to what else is itable universes (“the Archipelago of Habitability”),
necessary for the solution (e.g., selecting a richer for- and then into the total Level IV multiverse, described
mal system within which the consistency could be by all mathematical structures. The question which
proven). naturally arises is what true subset of structures is
In addition, Tegmark’s solution neatly avoids an necessary and sufficient for description of both the
important problem plaguing all partial axiomatiza- Archipelago and the universe? What is the true
tions, namely the (lack of) consistency of axioms in “mathematics of the observer”? We clearly lack an-
different local formal systems. As Corry (1997, p. swers to these questions; both Tegmark (1998) and
122) points out: authors on the anthropic selection of habitable uni-
verses within the multiverse (e.g., Susskind 2006,
Modeling this research on what had already been done for
geometry meant that not only theories considered to be Gleiser 2010, Soler Gil and Alfonseca 2013) mention
closer to ”describing reality” should be investigated, but some of the desiderata (supporting threshold com-
also other, logically possible ones. The mathematician plexity, stability, predictability, etc.), but we are still
undertaking the axiomatization of physical theories should far from the detailed, quantitative theory defining
obtain a complete survey of all the results derivable from all necessary and sufficient conditions. The arrow of
the accepted premises. Moreover, echoing the concern al- time, for example, as far as necessary for the existence
ready found in Hertz and in Hilbert’s letters to Frege, a
main task of the axiomatization would be to avoid that of life and observers, could be obtained in a refash-
recurrent situation in physical research, in which new ax- ioned Boltzmann-Schuetz anthropic selection picture
ioms are added to existing theories without properly check- (Price 1996, Ćirković 2003).
ing to what extent the former are compatible with the lat- While Tegmark’s “cutting of the Gordian knot”
ter. resolves the problem of empirical fine-tunings of our
Insofar as Gödelian uncertainty persists in the universe, it can be argued that MUH is seriously in-
foundations of mathematics, we may still worry about complete without more precise, quantitative account
consistency even under MUH. However, we get rid of of the prerequisites for observership. Among other
the additional worry related to possible incoherence things, this points to the ambiguity inherent in the
of specifically chosen axioms for physical theories. proposed resolution of the Sixth Problem: while the
total structure of the Level IV multiverse could have a
compact description as given by the totality of math-
ematical structures, we are still facing uncertainty as
to the substructure supporting observers, which is the
4 Consider examples such as Tycho’s being ardent on prov- relevant physics (or, even more accurately, physicses
ing that Earth does not move, or Einstein’s insistence in 1917 meaning different low-energy effective laws support-
that the universe on large scales must be static which led to ing observers). It might not be the sense of “rele-
his introduction of the cosmological constant. vant” in the originalist meaning of Hilbert’s views,

46
 COSMOLOGY AND HILBERT’S SIXTH PROBLEM

which would anyway be an anachronism, but some- fundamental research it is perhaps the only solution
thing closest to it when we account for the progress of the Sixth on the horizon.
made in fundamental physics and cosmology to this It certainly is not exclusive in the sense that
day. it precludes any further work on the subject mat-
Still more precisely, we wish to understand better ter. On the contrary, if anything, Tegmark’s solu-
how to use the “master equation” giving the proba- tion provokes quite an interesting problem on the
bility p(X) that some observer anywhere in the mul- interface between mathematics, astrobiology, cogni-
tiverse measures a feature X (e.g., Carroll 2006): tive science, and philosophy, namely what is the
most general class of mathematical structures sup-
P
σn (X) Vn ρobs porting evolution of intelligent observers? As dis-
n
n cussed above, there are many auxiliary questions nec-
p (X) = P obs
, (1) essary to address and clarify before the answer to
Vn ρn
n this general query could be given, and these auxil-
iary questions are likely to engage attention of many
where the index n labels all possible vacuum states different research profiles for quite some time to come
(“physicses” or different universes in the multiverse). (cf. Ćirković 2012, Ćirković and Dimitrijević 2018).
In current versions of string/M-theory there is a fi- When “a librarian of genius” in Borges’s Library
nite number of such states, although it is huge (10500 of Babel discovers the fundamental law of the Li-
or so), but in principle it could be infinite. The lat- brary, such an achievement has probably been accom-
ter case poses some interesting problems in the the- panied by various kinds of conservative resistance,
ory of probability, but in general, it will not preclude perhaps including the allegations that he did not un-
the usage of the master equation with appropriate derstand the problem. This Newton or Einstein of
weightings. Vn is the spacetime volume belonging to the fictional world should not have been bothered by
the universe n, ρobs
n is the density of observers in the
complaints that the discovery is “metaphysical”, “ab-
same universe, and the indicator function is: stract”, “ugly”, not to mention “impractical”. Ar-
guably, the discovery of the fundamental law need
not change anything in the daily routine of most in-
habitants of Borges’s universe. Local political and

1, if universe n has property X
σn = . (2) administrative structures could elect to ignore it en-
0, otherwise
tirely. All that does not, however, subtract from the
importance of the discovery – if anything, it adds to
In principle, Vn is calculable from our understand- the magnitude of the required intuitive leap and the
ing of cosmological physics, although in weird enough elegance of the solution. Few Borgesian lessons could
universes it might be quite difficult to calculate in not be applied to the real world, however. While the
practice. It is also likely to be infinite in some or architecture of our multiverse is likely to be the topic
most of the universes, so an appropriate weighting of much work in the centuries to come, a possibility
procedure is certainly necessary. But, of course, the that the quest will result in unexpected side benefits
biggest uncertainty comes from the quantity ρobsn , the and resolutions should not be discounted.
density of observers. It is usually assumed to be pro-
portional to the density of galaxies, but that is a sort
of gimmick, since obviously galaxies have vastly vari- Acknowledgements – The author wishes to thank
able habitability even within our single universe (e.g., Ksenija Petrović, Anders Sandberg, George Dvorsky,
Dayal et al. 2015, Vukotić et al. 2016, Stojković et al. Jelena Dimitrijević, John Smart, Slobodan Perović,
2019). One of the foremost tasks for the theoretical Karl Schroeder, Aleksandar Obradović, Neda Sto-
astrobiology of near future is to build quantitative jković, Branislav Vukotić, Milan Stojanović, and
models which go beyond this gimmick. Srdja Janković for pleasant discussions and sugges-
In any case, the project initiated by MUH cannot tions. The author acknowledges financial support
be completed even in the most abstract, conceptual from the Ministry of Education, Science and Tech-
sense without providing means for answering tough nological Development of the Republic of Serbia
questions on the physics of observership. These ques- through the projects #ON176021 (“Visible and Invis-
tions point to a new confluence between fundamen- ible Matter in Nearby Galaxies: Theory and Observa-
tal physics and cosmology on one side and astrobiol- tions”) and #ON179048. (“The Theory and Practice
ogy, evolutionary theory, and cognitive science on the of Science in Society: Multidisciplinary, Educational,
other. In this sense, the Sixth Problem might become and Intergenerational Perspectives”).
even more interdisciplinary in the foreseeable future.

REFERENCES
4. DISCUSSION
To summarize, I have argued that Tegmark’s Borges, J. L. 1999, Collected Fictions (New York: Pen-
mathematical universe theory actually provides a so-
lution to Hilbert’s Sixth problem. It might be im- guin Books)
plicit, it might not be the solution Hilbert and others Carr, B., ed. 2007, Universe or Multiverse? (Cambridge:
had in mind, it might not be a likeable solution, it Cambridge University Press)
might not please the community, but it is a solution Carroll, S. M. 2006, Natur, 440, 1132
nonetheless. In the current rather fractured state of Ćirković, M. M. 2003, FoPh, 33, 467

47
 M. M. ĆIRKOVIĆ

Ćirković, M. M. 2012, The Astrobiological Landscape: Renn, J. and Stachel, J. 2007, Hilbert’s Foundation of
Philosophical Foundations of the Study of Cosmic Life Physics: From a Theory of Everything to a Constituent
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) of General Relativity, ed. M. Janssen, J. D. Norton,
Ćirković, M. M. and Dimitrijević, J. 2018, Foundations of J. Renn, T. Sauer, and J. Stachel (Dordrecht: Springer
Science, 23, 427 Netherlands), 1778
Corry, L. 1997, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 51, Sauer, T. 1999, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 53,
83 529
Corry, L. 2004, David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Schmidhuber, J. 2002, International Journal of Founda-
Physics (1898–1918) (Dordrecht: Kluwer) tions of Computer Science, 13, 587
Dawid, R. 2013, String Theory and the Scientific Method Slemrod, M. 2013, Computers and Mathematics with Ap-
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) plications, 65, 1497
Dawson, J. W. J. 1997, Logical Dilemmas, The Life and Smolin, L. 2006, The Trouble with Physics: the Rise of
Work of Kurt Gödel (Wellesley, Mass.: AK Peters) String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes
Dayal, P., Cockell, C., Rice, K., and Mazumdar, A. 2015, Next (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
ApJL, 810, L2 Soler Gil, F. J. and Alfonseca, M. 2013, Journal for Gen-
Ellis, G. and Silk, J. 2014, Natur, 516, 321 eral Philosophy of Science, 44, 153
Feynman, R. P. 1965, The Character of Physical Law Stojković, N., Vukotić, B., Martinović, N., Ćirković,
(London: British Broadcasting Corporation) M. M., and Micic, M. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 408
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. L. 1964, Susskind, L. 2006, The Cosmic Landspace: String Theory
The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Reading, Mas- and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (New York: Back
sachusetts: Addison-Wesley) Bay Books)
Gleiser, M. 2010, IJMPD, 19, 1299 Tegmark, M. 1998, AnPhy, 270, 1
Gray, J. J. 2000, The Hilbert Challenge (Oxford: Oxford Tegmark, M. 2003, SciAm, 288, 40
University Press) Tegmark, M. 2008, FoPh, 38, 101
Hamlin, C. 2017, Synthese, 194, 571 Tegmark, M. 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My
Hilbert, D. 1902, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 8, 437 Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality (New York:
Kragh, H. and Longair, M. S., eds. 2019, The Oxford Random House)
Handbook of the History of Modern Cosmology (Ox- Vilenkin, A. 2006, Many Worlds in One: The Search for
ford: Oxford University Press) Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang)
Maudlin, T. 2007, The Metaphysics Within Physics (Ox- Vukotić, B., Steinhauser, D., Martinez-Aviles, G., et al.
ford: Oxford University Press) 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3512
Norton, J. 1993, Reports on Progress in Physics, 56, 791 Wightman, A. S. 1976, Hilbert’s Sixth Problem: Mathe-
Porpora, D. V. 2013, Philosophical Studies: An Interna- matical Treatment of the Axioms of Physics, ed. F. E.
tional Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Browder (Providence: American Mathematical Soci-
163, 133 ety, Providence), 147
Price, H. 1996, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: Wigner, E. P. 1960, Commun Pure Appl Math, 13, 1
New Directions for the Physics of Time (Oxford: Ox- Yampolskiy, R. V. 2017, PhyS, 92, 093001
ford University Press)

48
 COSMOLOGY AND HILBERT’S SIXTH PROBLEM

KOSMOLOGIJA I HILBERTOV XESTI PROBLEM

Milan M. Ćirković1,2
1
Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade 38, Serbia
2
Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford,
Suite 8, Littlegate House, 16/17 St Ebbe’s Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK
E–mail: mcirkovic@aob.rs

UDK 510.2 : 524.8

Prethodno saopxtenje

Prisutni su intrigantni nagovextaji kao problem koji ”ne spada u matematiku”

iz mnogih oblasti kosmologije da ivimo u (kao da to naruxava njegov epistemioloxki
multiverzumu - ogromnom skupu kosmoloxkih status) ili je prosto ”nerexiv”. Skoraxnje
domena (”univerzuma”). Kakva je struktura radikalne ontoloxke/kosmoloxke hipoteze
ove vee celine u potpunosti je otvoren prob- Maksa Tegmarka, koje identifikuju matema-
lem na prelazu iz fizike u metafiziku. Cilj tiqke i fiziqke strukture, moda mogu ba-
ovog rada je da usmeri panju na vezu citi novo svetlo na ovu navodno antikvarnu
izmeu ovog problema i stare i proslavlje- temu: moda je problem ve rexen, u smislu
ne zagonetke matematiqke fizike. Meu ne- da smo formalizovali matematiqke struk-
rexenim problemima koje je Dejvid Hilbert ture! Iako ovo moe izgledati kao ”prese-
postavio 1900. godine kao izazov za nastu- canje Gordijevog qvora” umesto strpljivog
pajui vek, nijedan nije vixe filozofski kon- rexavanja problema, predoqavamo da postoji
troverzan od Xestog problema, koji zahteva vixe prednosti u uzimanju Tegmakovog rexe-
aksiomatizovanje fiziqkih teorija. U novom nja ozbiljno, prvenstveno u domenu (budue)
veku i novom milenijumu ovaj problem os- fizike posmatraqa.
tao je izazov koji se obiqno gura pod tepih

49