6 ms·

It's not a philosophical notion.

jfengel 3y ago
The book "Physics" was written by Aristotle, who is so much of a philosopher that he's often called "The Philosopher". He's also the author of a book called "Metaphysics", pretty much the quintessential field of philosophy. The entire point of this conversation was that some fields, including physics, get split off from philosophy, leaving behind a mishmash. But many scientific fields absolutely began as aspects of philosophy, and it's only because they're so successful that people deny that.
- Zuider 3y ago
  Aristotle's actual writings are lost. The books attributed to Aristotle are comprised of lecture notes collected by his students, later compiled according to topic, so you get the Ethics, the Politics, the Physics and Metaphysics. They didn't quite know how to name the last book since its contents were so abstract and unrelated to the everyday world, so they simply called it "the book that comes after the Physics," which eventually became known as the Metaphysics. It is worth noting that the title is a specific reference to the book, not to any notion of the subject matter somehow transcending physics. After all, why physics, in particular? In the light of that, it is even more jarring to see the term 'metaphysics' being used to describe spiritualism and new age mysticism.
- dventimi 3y ago
  That "book" whoever wrote it, is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    Not at all, quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle's ideas. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is proposed ad hoc solely to explain one observed phenomenon and not connected to the rest of the theory. It's similar to Aristotle's postulate that stars are made of aether which naturally tends to move in circles around the heavens, this nicely explains motion of stars in geocentric model, and is postulated just for this. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is justified as directly observable phenomenon, anything else is thus not supported by observation. Aristotle used the same argument: that geocentrism is directly observable, thus heliocentrism is not supported by observation. You're right that science can be done better, but that's the state of modern science.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.
      - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
        I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. Some even argue you don't need anything better, as Popper commanded. Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers. Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such".
        dventimi 3y ago
        > I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern science, but I'm willing to entertain the notion if you spell out exactly what you mean by "Aristotle's approach to physics." > Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers. This makes zero sense to me. > Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such". OK. What, if anything, does the study of the philosophical notion of solipsism contribute to resolving the black hole information paradox?
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
In 1687 Isaac Newton wrote a book "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica", where he describes laws of motion and gravitation.
- dventimi 3y ago
  Yet today the branch of physics that bears his name and still embodies his ideas and methods is typically taught within the physics department but not the philosophy department.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Which in no way negates the claim that physics answers the question of What's an example of a philosophical notion that did pay off? FWiW modern physicists that have been short listed as replacements to Hawking for the Lucasian Chair have studied philosophy as part of their education and found it useful in advancing their ability to reason. eg: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.gauntlett https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.gauntlett
    - dventimi 3y ago
      > which in no way negates the claim [about physics and philosophy] Whether that claim is true or not depends on the meanings people assign to the terms "physics" and "philosophy." Newton may have called himself a philosopher but we're not obliged to follow suit. If the fruits of his labor today are taught as physics but not as philosophy, that supports the argument that today we should regard him as a physicist by today's standards and not a philosopher.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Are you claiming that modern physics is not a branch of past philosophy? Myself and a number of others who have studied and work in physics|mathematics regard it as such and thus regard physics as an example of something worthwhile that arose from philosophy. Similarly one can regard modern 20th century logical philosophy in the same light and embarce the work of Russell, Godel, Turing, Church, et al as worthwhile developments of philosophy.
JonChesterfield 3y ago
In a literal sense it is no longer considered philosophy because it did pay off. The field is somewhat doomed to only contain the good ideas of the future and the bad ideas of the present, because as soon as they are identified as good ideas they get their own branding and are no longer part of philosophy. For example, my current distraction is homotopy type theory which is a way to reason about computable functions without error, amenable to machine checked proof. That is, it's a credible path to building software that actually works. Here is is under the philosophy department of Cornell. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/philosophy/hott/ https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/philosophy/hott/
- dventimi 3y ago
  That's Carnegie Mellon University, not Cornell.

The book "Physics" was written by Aristotle, who is so much of a philosopher that he's often called "The Philosopher". He's also the author of a book called "Metaphysics", pretty much the quintessential field of philosophy. The entire point of this conversation was that some fields, including physics, get split off from philosophy, leaving behind a mishmash. But many scientific fields absolutely began as aspects of philosophy, and it's only because they're so successful that people deny that.

Zuider 3y ago
Aristotle's actual writings are lost. The books attributed to Aristotle are comprised of lecture notes collected by his students, later compiled according to topic, so you get the Ethics, the Politics, the Physics and Metaphysics. They didn't quite know how to name the last book since its contents were so abstract and unrelated to the everyday world, so they simply called it "the book that comes after the Physics," which eventually became known as the Metaphysics. It is worth noting that the title is a specific reference to the book, not to any notion of the subject matter somehow transcending physics. After all, why physics, in particular? In the light of that, it is even more jarring to see the term 'metaphysics' being used to describe spiritualism and new age mysticism.
dventimi 3y ago
That "book" whoever wrote it, is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  Not at all, quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle's ideas. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is proposed ad hoc solely to explain one observed phenomenon and not connected to the rest of the theory. It's similar to Aristotle's postulate that stars are made of aether which naturally tends to move in circles around the heavens, this nicely explains motion of stars in geocentric model, and is postulated just for this. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is justified as directly observable phenomenon, anything else is thus not supported by observation. Aristotle used the same argument: that geocentrism is directly observable, thus heliocentrism is not supported by observation. You're right that science can be done better, but that's the state of modern science.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. Some even argue you don't need anything better, as Popper commanded. Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers. Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such".
      - dventimi 3y ago
        > I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern science, but I'm willing to entertain the notion if you spell out exactly what you mean by "Aristotle's approach to physics." > Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers. This makes zero sense to me. > Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such". OK. What, if anything, does the study of the philosophical notion of solipsism contribute to resolving the black hole information paradox?

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

In 1687 Isaac Newton wrote a book "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica", where he describes laws of motion and gravitation.

dventimi 3y ago
Yet today the branch of physics that bears his name and still embodies his ideas and methods is typically taught within the physics department but not the philosophy department.
- defrost 3y ago
  Which in no way negates the claim that physics answers the question of What's an example of a philosophical notion that did pay off? FWiW modern physicists that have been short listed as replacements to Hawking for the Lucasian Chair have studied philosophy as part of their education and found it useful in advancing their ability to reason. eg: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.gauntlett https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.gauntlett
  - dventimi 3y ago
    > which in no way negates the claim [about physics and philosophy] Whether that claim is true or not depends on the meanings people assign to the terms "physics" and "philosophy." Newton may have called himself a philosopher but we're not obliged to follow suit. If the fruits of his labor today are taught as physics but not as philosophy, that supports the argument that today we should regard him as a physicist by today's standards and not a philosopher.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Are you claiming that modern physics is not a branch of past philosophy? Myself and a number of others who have studied and work in physics|mathematics regard it as such and thus regard physics as an example of something worthwhile that arose from philosophy. Similarly one can regard modern 20th century logical philosophy in the same light and embarce the work of Russell, Godel, Turing, Church, et al as worthwhile developments of philosophy.

JonChesterfield 3y ago

In a literal sense it is no longer considered philosophy because it did pay off. The field is somewhat doomed to only contain the good ideas of the future and the bad ideas of the present, because as soon as they are identified as good ideas they get their own branding and are no longer part of philosophy. For example, my current distraction is homotopy type theory which is a way to reason about computable functions without error, amenable to machine checked proof. That is, it's a credible path to building software that actually works. Here is is under the philosophy department of Cornell. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/philosophy/hott/ https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/philosophy/hott/

dventimi 3y ago
That's Carnegie Mellon University, not Cornell.