4 ms·
Idk, just looking at it now Barbour seems much, much more rigorous. The linked article is more “using scientific terms to muse about philosophy” than physics, I
by bbor 2y ago
Idk, just looking at it now Barbour seems much, much more rigorous. The linked article is more “using scientific terms to muse about philosophy” than physics, IMHO. For example;
In essence, therefore, we experience time because of the interplay between our computational boundedness as observers, and the computational irreducibility of underlying processes in the universe.
His big insight is literally the starting point of Hegel’s The Science of Logic, namely that we are finite. That in no ways justifies all the other stuff (especially multiverse theory), and it’s not enough to build a meaningfully useful conception of time, at all. All it gets you is that “if you were infinite you wouldn’t experience time”, which is a blockbuster-sci-fi-movie level insight, IMO.
I can’t help but think of Kant as I write this; he wrote convincingly of the difference between mathematical intuition and philosophical conception, a binary Wolfram would presumably—and mistakenly-identify with solid logic vs meaningless buffoonery. But refusing to acknowledge our limits makes you more vulnerable to mistakes stemming from them, not less.
…the metaphysic of nature is completely different from mathematics, nor is it so rich in results, although it is of great importance as a critical test of the application of pure understanding—cognition to nature. For want of its guidance, even mathematicians, adopting certain common notions—which are, in fact, metaphysical—have unconsciously crowded their theories of nature with hypotheses, the fallacy of which becomes evident upon the application of the principles of this metaphysic, without detriment, however, to the employment of mathematics in this sphere of cognition.
Worth remembering at this point that Aristotle coined “physics” for the mathematical study of physis (nature), which was then followed up by a qualitatively different set of arguments interpreting and building upon that basis in a work simply titled metaphysics (after physics). We’ve learned infinitely more mathematical facts, but IMO “what is time, really?” will forever remain beyond their reach, a fact determined not by the universe but by the question itself.
TL;DR: if you’re gonna try to talk cognition you should at least admit that you’re writing philosophy, and ideally cite some philosophers. We’ve been working on this for a hot minute! Barbour seems to be doing something much less ambitious: inventing the most useful/fundamental mathematical framework he can.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoI swear as I get older philosophy feels more and more like religion for intellectuals. If you want to talk about cognition or time you should study science, not philosophy. You’re not going to learn about the universe in any significant way by studying hegel or aristotle or kant harder.
- svieira 2y agoFunnily enough, the scholastics thought of philosophy as the handmaid of theology. Ultimately, it's in the name (love-of-wisdom). You can learn wisdom from science, but that body of wisdom eventually becomes a philosophy. And the older philosophers definitely saw something, even if they are not completely correct.
- bbor 2y agoWhy are you so confident that Philosophy isn't the superclass to "science"? How could you hope to start on any science without philosophy, much less arrive at a definition for the term? I could maybe see mathematics without philosophy, as I mentioned above, but physical science/physics/"science" is inherently subjective. That doesn't mean truth doesn't exist, of course -- but I'd have to get into philosophy to explain why I think all of that ;). The best defense for philosophy by far is that you can't criticize it without engaging in it, and "it all seems obvious to me, just use common sense"-style citations are much less convincing than ones to long famous books. More provacatively: have you engaged with it? I know that's a big ask, but it's also a bit unfair IMO to write off a field without taking the time to understand it. For example, Aristotle founded multiple scientific fields, including the big two -- Physics and Biology -- and established a theory of mind that still has immense sway in the west to this day. Kant was a reknowned scientist before he started into philosophy (even having a good claim to "first to show the existence of galaxies"), and the quote above is from A Critique of Pure Reason (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm#chap10 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm#chap1...) where he establishes cognitive science: From all that has been said, there results the idea of a particular science, which may be called the Critique of Pure Reason.... Such a science must not be called a doctrine, but only a critique of pure reason; and its use, in regard to speculation, would be only negative, not to enlarge the bounds of, but to purify, our reason, and to shield it against error—which alone is no little gain. Hegel built on this directly with his famous book The Phenomenology of Mind, of which I highly recommend the short preface titled On Scientific Cognition. I don't think there could be a more clear piece of evidence that these were the leading thinkers of their time on matters of systematic thought, aka science. Without the academy, we'd have no Francis Bacon, no Newton or Liebniz, no Einstein or Bohr, and definitely no Popper, Kuhn, Carnap, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, or any of the other amazing modern thinkers on how to improve our scientific endeavors. This one's less verifiable but I imagine it hits home the most: I don't even think we'd have Turing without Boole, Russell, and Whitehead to draw from. ...sorry, clearly I'm a bit sensitive ;) It's frustrating being valued for your puzzle solving abilities (aka SWE) much more highly than your engagement with science, as I'm sure you can relate to or imagine!