To answer foundational questions in physics, physicists turn more and more to abstract advanced mathematics, even though its physical significance may not be immediately clear. What if we started to borrow ideas and approaches, with appropriate modifications, from the foundations of mathematics? In this paper we explore this route. In reverse mathematics one starts from theorems and finds the minimum set of axioms required for their derivation. In reverse physics we want to start from laws or more specific results, and (...) find the physical concepts and starting points that recover them. We want to understand what physical results are implied by which physical assumptions. As an example of the technique, we will see six different characterizations of classical mechanics, show that the uncertainty principle depends only on the entropy bound on pure states and recast the third law of thermodynamics in terms of the entropy of an empty system. We believe the approach can provide greater insights into both current and new physical theories, put the physical concepts at the forefront of the discussion and provide a more unified view of physics by highlighting common patterns and ideas across different physical theories. (shrink)

A Turing degree a is said to be almost everywhere dominating if, for almost all $X \in 2^{\omega}$ with respect to the "fair coin" probability measure on $2^{\omega}$ , and for all g: $\omega \rightarrow \omega$ Turing reducible to X, there exists f: $\omega \rightarrow \omega$ of Turing degree a which dominates g. We study the problem of characterizing the almost everywhere dominating Turing degrees and other, similarly defined classes of Turing degrees. We relate this problem to some questions in (...) the reverse mathematics of measure theory. (shrink)