11 ms·

If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is alre

by Valmar 8y ago

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. That’s a strong and sweeping claim about a varied field, much of which is only concerned with experiments. Do you have anything like support for your claim? Remember that most of physics isn’t the highly popularized version of theoretical physics you may be familiar with. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. No... shit? That’s why physics is dependent on observation and experiments, and why there is a division between physics and mathematics. We’re talking over the internet because of the concrete, useful things brought to us by physics. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way. How is philosophy in any way a cure for this imagined loss of rigor? The problem with physics according to you is a divorce from reality, and your solution is something even more abstract, less amenable to rigor, and famously fluid? Huh?!
forkandwait 8y ago
Science avoids the "cesspool of rigid dogma" by experimentation not by a priori argumentation. This point seems to be lost on a bunch of physicists these days who wallow in their derivations and forget that the fundamental revolution in modern science was the empirical method. The silly philosophers who got overthrown never knew it.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  I'm currently reading a book that talks a lot about the history of particle physics from 1950 to 2000. It amazes me how diverse the scientist's philosophical outlooks were, the only thing they agreed on in the end was empiricism. Given their success, I think that's a strong testament to the idea that philosophy doesn't "power" science the way math does. Here's a philosophy-free formulation of science: (i.e. one where scientists don't have to know any philosophy) - People set up symbol games with rules, that produce symbols. - They also set up physical machines that produce symbols. - When they match, they're happy. I think that does a good job of capturing why physics was able to progress so well without concurrent progress in philosophy. At the end of a day, a physicist will have a number on their scratch paper and a number on the meter and the goal is to get them to match. Mainly the role of philosophy is to guard them from any distractions that would confuse them away from doing that, and perhaps to bend their brains into coming up with good symbol games.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Except that's unnecessarily inefficient and still incomplete, since it doesn't tell you anything about what to do with multiple games that predict the same symbols, about what sort of games you should focus more effort on, what should you do with games that don't produce the right symbols, why you should or shouldn't modify game rules that fail such tests so they pass such tests, and more. Philosophy informs these questions. For instance, a scientific process modelled on Solomonoff induction would give you more insight on what kind of games you should set up and why, which games are better than others for the same symbol outputs and why, to what extend modifying a game is a valid approach, etc.
naasking 8y ago
> Mathematics can never truly model reality. While I don't disagree with your overall point, this claim is pure conjecture. Ironically, it depends on your philosophy of mathematics. If most physicists were mathematical Platonists, then your argument based on this claim falls apart.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  It's not conjecture at all - it's empirical fact. There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. Physics is made of limited toy models of complex systems. It makes accurate predictions over limited timescales under limited conditions. That's it. That's all you get. The limited accuracy doesn't keep the predictions from being useful over human-friendly timescales. But it takes an unrealistic act of hubris to believe physics does more than this, and that after a few hundred years of effort its predictions and frameworks are already perfectly accurate and perfectly correct.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. You're talking about simulation not modelling, which is what I and the GP are talking about. Totally different basket of fish. A model can 100% accurately represent the underlying system, and yet be practically incomputable. Intractability or incomputability are not hallmarks of modelling failure. Furthermore, you can't dismiss an a priori argument that reality is mathematical by an appeal to empiricism. In such a world, empiricism is itself a mathematical process.
    - oldandtired 8y ago
      No model can ever be 100% accurate. Part of it being a model (whether a physical model or a theory, etc) is that it idealises certain aspects of that which is being modelled. Simulations are one form of model. So to call simulations a different basket of fish is a mistake. Every model attempts to predict the outcome of something. Nor can you say that reality is mathematical as an a priori argument or knowledge. It is simply a claim that is open to dispute. You are now dipping into philosophy. What would be much more accurate is that mathematics is a very useful tool in developing models of the universe around us. Certainly, there are various mathematical streams that give interesting insights in the physical world around us. But just because they are useful doesn't mean that they are correct.

by Valmar 8y ago

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago

If physics removes itself even further from philosophy... it will slowly become a cesspool of rigid dogma, becoming blind to reality. Physics, as it is, is already lost in a jungle of abstractions, becoming more and more divorced from the real world. That’s a strong and sweeping claim about a varied field, much of which is only concerned with experiments. Do you have anything like support for your claim? Remember that most of physics isn’t the highly popularized version of theoretical physics you may be familiar with. Mathematical models are simply not equal to real world, even if we use models in an attempt to approximate, so that we can do useful things. Mathematics can never truly model reality. No... shit? That’s why physics is dependent on observation and experiments, and why there is a division between physics and mathematics. We’re talking over the internet because of the concrete, useful things brought to us by physics. The best it can do is a caricature, and not the real thing. Without solid philosophy to guide the scientists who drive the scientific institutions, the sciences fall stagnant, because it is philosophy that is the very bedrock and lifeblood of the scientific endeavour, in all fields. Without philosophy, that endless hunt and search for meaning and understanding, we lose our way. How is philosophy in any way a cure for this imagined loss of rigor? The problem with physics according to you is a divorce from reality, and your solution is something even more abstract, less amenable to rigor, and famously fluid? Huh?!

forkandwait 8y ago

Science avoids the "cesspool of rigid dogma" by experimentation not by a priori argumentation. This point seems to be lost on a bunch of physicists these days who wallow in their derivations and forget that the fundamental revolution in modern science was the empirical method. The silly philosophers who got overthrown never knew it.

whatshisface 8y ago
I'm currently reading a book that talks a lot about the history of particle physics from 1950 to 2000. It amazes me how diverse the scientist's philosophical outlooks were, the only thing they agreed on in the end was empiricism. Given their success, I think that's a strong testament to the idea that philosophy doesn't "power" science the way math does. Here's a philosophy-free formulation of science: (i.e. one where scientists don't have to know any philosophy) - People set up symbol games with rules, that produce symbols. - They also set up physical machines that produce symbols. - When they match, they're happy. I think that does a good job of capturing why physics was able to progress so well without concurrent progress in philosophy. At the end of a day, a physicist will have a number on their scratch paper and a number on the meter and the goal is to get them to match. Mainly the role of philosophy is to guard them from any distractions that would confuse them away from doing that, and perhaps to bend their brains into coming up with good symbol games.
- naasking 8y ago
  Except that's unnecessarily inefficient and still incomplete, since it doesn't tell you anything about what to do with multiple games that predict the same symbols, about what sort of games you should focus more effort on, what should you do with games that don't produce the right symbols, why you should or shouldn't modify game rules that fail such tests so they pass such tests, and more. Philosophy informs these questions. For instance, a scientific process modelled on Solomonoff induction would give you more insight on what kind of games you should set up and why, which games are better than others for the same symbol outputs and why, to what extend modifying a game is a valid approach, etc.

naasking 8y ago

> Mathematics can never truly model reality. While I don't disagree with your overall point, this claim is pure conjecture. Ironically, it depends on your philosophy of mathematics. If most physicists were mathematical Platonists, then your argument based on this claim falls apart.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
It's not conjecture at all - it's empirical fact. There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. Physics is made of limited toy models of complex systems. It makes accurate predictions over limited timescales under limited conditions. That's it. That's all you get. The limited accuracy doesn't keep the predictions from being useful over human-friendly timescales. But it takes an unrealistic act of hubris to believe physics does more than this, and that after a few hundred years of effort its predictions and frameworks are already perfectly accurate and perfectly correct.
- naasking 8y ago
  > There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future. You're talking about simulation not modelling, which is what I and the GP are talking about. Totally different basket of fish. A model can 100% accurately represent the underlying system, and yet be practically incomputable. Intractability or incomputability are not hallmarks of modelling failure. Furthermore, you can't dismiss an a priori argument that reality is mathematical by an appeal to empiricism. In such a world, empiricism is itself a mathematical process.
  - oldandtired 8y ago
    No model can ever be 100% accurate. Part of it being a model (whether a physical model or a theory, etc) is that it idealises certain aspects of that which is being modelled. Simulations are one form of model. So to call simulations a different basket of fish is a mistake. Every model attempts to predict the outcome of something. Nor can you say that reality is mathematical as an a priori argument or knowledge. It is simply a claim that is open to dispute. You are now dipping into philosophy. What would be much more accurate is that mathematics is a very useful tool in developing models of the universe around us. Certainly, there are various mathematical streams that give interesting insights in the physical world around us. But just because they are useful doesn't mean that they are correct.