5 ms·

I will say that the philosophical remarks are pretty obtuse and detract from the post. For example... "Physics–and more broadly the pursuit of science–has been

I will say that the philosophical remarks are pretty obtuse and detract from the post. For example... "Physics–and more broadly the pursuit of science–has been a remarkably successful methodology for understanding how the gears of reality turn. We really have no other methods–and based on humanity’s success so far we have no reason to believe we need any." Physics, which is to say, physical methods have indeed been remarkably successful...for the types of things physical methods select for! To say it is exhaustive not only begs the question, but the claim itself is not even demonstrable by these methods. The second claim contains the same error, but with more emphasis. This is just off-the-shelf scientism, and scientism, apart from what withering refutations demonstrate, should be obviously self-refuting. Is the claim that "we have no other methods but physics" (where physics is the paradigmatic empirical science; substitute accordingly) a scientific claim? Obviously not. It is a philosophical claim. That already refutes the claim. Thus, philosophy has entered the chat, and this is no small concession.

vlovich123 1y ago
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. It’s not really questionable that science and math are the only things to come out of philosophy or any other academic pursuit that have actually shown us how to objectively understand reality. Now physics vs other scientific disciplines sure. Physicists love to claim dominion just like mathematicians do. It is generally true however that physics = math + reality and that we don’t actually have any evidence of anything in this world existing outside a physical description (eg a lot of physics combined = chemistry, a lot of chemistry = biology, a lot of biology = sociology etc). Thus it’s reasonable to assume that the chemistry in this world is 100% governed by the laws of physics and transitively this is true for sociology too (indeed - game theory is one way we quantifiably explain the physical reality of why people behave the way they due). We also see this in math where different disciplines have different “bridges” between them. Does that mean they’re actually separate disciplines or just that we’ve chosen to name features on the topology as such.
- MantisShrimp90 1y ago
  Its just not that simple. The best way I can dovetail with the author is that you are thinking in terms of the abstraction but you have mistaken the abstraction for reality. Physics, biological sciences, these are tools the mind uses to try and make guesses about the future based on past events. But the abstraction isn't perfect, and its questionable on whether or not it could or should one day be. The clear example is that large breakthroughs in science often comes from rethinking this fundamental abstraction to explain problems that the old implementation had trouble with. Case in point being quantum physics which has warped how we original understood newtonian physics. Einstein fucking hated quantum because he felt it undermined the idea of objective reality. The reality (pun intended) is that it is much more complex than our abstractions like science and we would do well to remember they are pragmatic tools and are ultimately unconcerned with the practice of metaphysics which is the underlying nature of reality. This all seems like philosophy ramblings until we get to little lines like this. Scientism, or the belief that science is the primary and only necessary lens to understand the world falls for the same trap as religion of thinking that you have the answer to reality so anything else outside is either unnecessary or even dangerous to one who holds these views.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    I’m not sure I really understand this point. I believe that the scientific method (hypothesis, repeated tests, reality check) is the only successful method we’ve developed to advance our understanding of how the world works. I never claimed it’s perfect but that’s shaky footing that’s being injected onto this position. A counterclaim has to show that there’s something better than the scientific method that humans have been engaging in for attaining a better understanding of reality. Often such attempts try to just wholly put themselves outside the realm of science which I don’t think puts them on strong footing. Just like updates to standard models still have to explain our current understandings of quantum and relativity, alternate methodologies for observing reality have to hold up to scientific scrutiny. But I claim ignorance here. What better mechanisms has humanity developed for observing and understanding reality?
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
dekhn 1y ago
Show us a real example of something that your putative non physics science can do that physics cannot, in a way that would be comprehensible to a sufficiently open minded science. It seems unlikely you could suggest a concrete alternative to physics which explains observable phenomena as well and making generalizable predictions. Showing this would move your theoretical philosophy. In the meantime the rest of us will stick to physics because nobody has a coherent alternative which explains our observations.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  > Show us a real example of something that your putative non physics science can do that physics cannot I just did. Please reread my post. Physics cannot claim to be "all there is", as that is not a proposition that belongs to physics, but to philosophy. And philosophy cannot make this claim, because it would be self-refuting. As far as observables are concerned, physics can only deal with what is quantifiable. So anything that isn't quantifiable is by definition beyond the grasp of physical methods. It is circular to say that all that exists is that which is quantifiable. It would be putting the cart before the horse. Some call this the "streetlight effect".

vlovich123 1y ago

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. It’s not really questionable that science and math are the only things to come out of philosophy or any other academic pursuit that have actually shown us how to objectively understand reality. Now physics vs other scientific disciplines sure. Physicists love to claim dominion just like mathematicians do. It is generally true however that physics = math + reality and that we don’t actually have any evidence of anything in this world existing outside a physical description (eg a lot of physics combined = chemistry, a lot of chemistry = biology, a lot of biology = sociology etc). Thus it’s reasonable to assume that the chemistry in this world is 100% governed by the laws of physics and transitively this is true for sociology too (indeed - game theory is one way we quantifiably explain the physical reality of why people behave the way they due). We also see this in math where different disciplines have different “bridges” between them. Does that mean they’re actually separate disciplines or just that we’ve chosen to name features on the topology as such.

MantisShrimp90 1y ago
Its just not that simple. The best way I can dovetail with the author is that you are thinking in terms of the abstraction but you have mistaken the abstraction for reality. Physics, biological sciences, these are tools the mind uses to try and make guesses about the future based on past events. But the abstraction isn't perfect, and its questionable on whether or not it could or should one day be. The clear example is that large breakthroughs in science often comes from rethinking this fundamental abstraction to explain problems that the old implementation had trouble with. Case in point being quantum physics which has warped how we original understood newtonian physics. Einstein fucking hated quantum because he felt it undermined the idea of objective reality. The reality (pun intended) is that it is much more complex than our abstractions like science and we would do well to remember they are pragmatic tools and are ultimately unconcerned with the practice of metaphysics which is the underlying nature of reality. This all seems like philosophy ramblings until we get to little lines like this. Scientism, or the belief that science is the primary and only necessary lens to understand the world falls for the same trap as religion of thinking that you have the answer to reality so anything else outside is either unnecessary or even dangerous to one who holds these views.
- vlovich123 1y ago
  I’m not sure I really understand this point. I believe that the scientific method (hypothesis, repeated tests, reality check) is the only successful method we’ve developed to advance our understanding of how the world works. I never claimed it’s perfect but that’s shaky footing that’s being injected onto this position. A counterclaim has to show that there’s something better than the scientific method that humans have been engaging in for attaining a better understanding of reality. Often such attempts try to just wholly put themselves outside the realm of science which I don’t think puts them on strong footing. Just like updates to standard models still have to explain our current understandings of quantum and relativity, alternate methodologies for observing reality have to hold up to scientific scrutiny. But I claim ignorance here. What better mechanisms has humanity developed for observing and understanding reality?
lo_zamoyski 1y ago

dekhn 1y ago

Show us a real example of something that your putative non physics science can do that physics cannot, in a way that would be comprehensible to a sufficiently open minded science. It seems unlikely you could suggest a concrete alternative to physics which explains observable phenomena as well and making generalizable predictions. Showing this would move your theoretical philosophy. In the meantime the rest of us will stick to physics because nobody has a coherent alternative which explains our observations.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
> Show us a real example of something that your putative non physics science can do that physics cannot I just did. Please reread my post. Physics cannot claim to be "all there is", as that is not a proposition that belongs to physics, but to philosophy. And philosophy cannot make this claim, because it would be self-refuting. As far as observables are concerned, physics can only deal with what is quantifiable. So anything that isn't quantifiable is by definition beyond the grasp of physical methods. It is circular to say that all that exists is that which is quantifiable. It would be putting the cart before the horse. Some call this the "streetlight effect".