3 ms·

Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra - no one is seriously trying to refute these models because lots of people have a comfortable, high social statu

Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra - no one is seriously trying to refute these models because lots of people have a comfortable, high social status living out of it, just like modern theologians or tibetologists - they know the mantras and it's current interpretations, and the question of "How real it is" is frowned upon. Generalisations aside (however valid and useful) most of this theoretical physics is nothing but a socially constructed models, agreed upon. And yes, I have read a few of Bohm's books before forming an opinion.

mnky9800n 7y ago
Is that you jonathan tooker?
- johndoe42377 7y ago
  Before Hegel and his abstract bullshit, the main question of philosophy was "What is real", not what a mind can imagine. Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be. A map is not a territory, a model is not what is. It is that simple and infallible.
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    > the main question of philosophy Well, philosophy is known to ask questions for which there are no answers. As to (theoretical) physics, I think we should look at it first and foremost as a computational tool (similar to applied mathematics) which is the way it has been since Newton, then it becomes clear that physics does indeed help understand "how everything is" - in the sense that it helps us predict the results of experiments, and I am not sure if it even makes sense to talk about a "higher level of understanding" than that. A map is definitely not a territory, but it can indeed be (and will always remain to be) both "true" and "false" to a certain degree; similarly, no one in their right mind would say that physics is, should, or can be equivalent to the reality (aspects of) which it merely reflects.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    > Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be. I assure you, philosophy of physics is much more complicated than that, and a lot of senior physicists and leaders in the community are aware of these subtleties, and constantly argue about it.
  - PTOB 7y ago
    So, are you a model of Jonathan Tooker, or are we encountering the real deal here?
benreesman 7y ago
I don’t endorse the tonality of the comment, it’s rambling and sort of bitter (I’ve been guilty of worse on “the Internet”). With that said it’s at least possible that the commenter is alluding to a trend in physics research that is so concerning to practicing physicists and mathematicians that books called things like “The Trouble with Physics” and “Not Even Wrong” are being written and published. I’m little better than a layman as concerns physics, but I’ve been around the block with organizational dysfunction amongst a group of super smart people, and I don’t find it at all implausible that String Theory is the “Docker-First” of physics funding.
madhadron 7y ago
> Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra Would you care to provide concrete examples? > Generalisations aside (however valid and useful) most of this theoretical physics is nothing but a socially constructed models, agreed upon. Well, of course. Theories are formal systems that we construct to be a "looking glass" of the results of observations and experiments.
8bitsrule 7y ago
An 'esoteric tradition' cannot be overturned by direct observation available to anyone. To an extent, there's certainly an 'esoteric priesthood' in many sciences which can be quite dogmatic about certain models. It's certainly true that valuable observations will sometimes be ignored for a time - but eventually, theory increasingly fits observation. It's certainly not a 'nothing but' in the same sense as tantra. The predictive power of theories is essential to their fame. Einstein's early 1900s models - which seriously refuted earlier models - anticipated many later observations. Esoteric traditions like tantra have been overturned by the experiences of one individual and the insights they transmit to others. All part of the same play.

mnky9800n 7y ago

Is that you jonathan tooker?

johndoe42377 7y ago
Before Hegel and his abstract bullshit, the main question of philosophy was "What is real", not what a mind can imagine. Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be. A map is not a territory, a model is not what is. It is that simple and infallible.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  > the main question of philosophy Well, philosophy is known to ask questions for which there are no answers. As to (theoretical) physics, I think we should look at it first and foremost as a computational tool (similar to applied mathematics) which is the way it has been since Newton, then it becomes clear that physics does indeed help understand "how everything is" - in the sense that it helps us predict the results of experiments, and I am not sure if it even makes sense to talk about a "higher level of understanding" than that. A map is definitely not a territory, but it can indeed be (and will always remain to be) both "true" and "false" to a certain degree; similarly, no one in their right mind would say that physics is, should, or can be equivalent to the reality (aspects of) which it merely reflects.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  > Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be. I assure you, philosophy of physics is much more complicated than that, and a lot of senior physicists and leaders in the community are aware of these subtleties, and constantly argue about it.
- PTOB 7y ago
  So, are you a model of Jonathan Tooker, or are we encountering the real deal here?

benreesman 7y ago

I don’t endorse the tonality of the comment, it’s rambling and sort of bitter (I’ve been guilty of worse on “the Internet”). With that said it’s at least possible that the commenter is alluding to a trend in physics research that is so concerning to practicing physicists and mathematicians that books called things like “The Trouble with Physics” and “Not Even Wrong” are being written and published. I’m little better than a layman as concerns physics, but I’ve been around the block with organizational dysfunction amongst a group of super smart people, and I don’t find it at all implausible that String Theory is the “Docker-First” of physics funding.

madhadron 7y ago

> Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra Would you care to provide concrete examples? > Generalisations aside (however valid and useful) most of this theoretical physics is nothing but a socially constructed models, agreed upon. Well, of course. Theories are formal systems that we construct to be a "looking glass" of the results of observations and experiments.

8bitsrule 7y ago

An 'esoteric tradition' cannot be overturned by direct observation available to anyone. To an extent, there's certainly an 'esoteric priesthood' in many sciences which can be quite dogmatic about certain models. It's certainly true that valuable observations will sometimes be ignored for a time - but eventually, theory increasingly fits observation. It's certainly not a 'nothing but' in the same sense as tantra. The predictive power of theories is essential to their fame. Einstein's early 1900s models - which seriously refuted earlier models - anticipated many later observations. Esoteric traditions like tantra have been overturned by the experiences of one individual and the insights they transmit to others. All part of the same play.