Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    Ah, I see. In that case disregard my last post. I thought you meant his philosophy was bad when you said "bad philosophy", not that he did not express it well.
    No worries. I had clarified, in an earlier post to Shunyadragon, that by "philosophy" I was referring to the ability to articulate and support a consistent position, and not to a worldview or set of beliefs; but I think it rather quickly became buried by other posts.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #77
      I believe Lee Smolin is a more articulate philosopher when it comes to science, and worthwhile to provide some references on how philosophy can be applied within science. There are the more broader philosophies (worldviews?) such as Metaphysical Naturalism and Theistic Evolution, Lee goes further and addresses the aspects of philosophy within science regardless of the broader world view

      Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507235



      The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

      The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

      © Copyright Original Source



      http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507235
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I believe Lee Smolin is a more articulate philosopher when it comes to science
        I tend to agree.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • #79
          Pixie, you asked earlier, "Can you (or anyone) give any examples of what philosophy and religion have brought to the table in that regard in the last 100 years?"

          I don't know if anyone ever gave you a cogent answer, but I think I can. In the first half of the 20th century, the universe was held to be an eternal everlasting mostly unchanging thing. Hoyle and others invented a hydrogen creation mechanism in order to keep the density of the universe approximately constant in an expanding universe. Many scientists claimed that to have an origin of the universe, like Gamow's cosmic egg was to invoke a creator, and they heartily rejected such ideas..

          But theologians, Christian theologians in particular have always held that the universe had a beginning. When the microwave background was found, it proved the theologians correct and the scientific view of the time, wrong.

          I think I would add that theologians have always held that there are unseen entities an unseen heaven, but science has utterly rejected such a view as hopelessly faith-based. Theologians didn't change and continued to believe in sentient beings in unseen heaven. And theologians were continually riduculed by the intelligentsia for such belief.

          So, what is the difference between their ridiculed view and Tegmark's view of the multiverse in which, out there somewhere unobserved you and I are having the very same conversation in another universe(read HEAVEN)?

          "Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.
          "The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will* just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelganger any less real."* Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes" Scientific American May 2003, p. 41

          So, now science believes in unseen, unobserved sentient beings in unseen heavens and that is considered science, but when theologians do it, it is considered nutso. seems there is a double standard.

          I would add another broad category. Christians are criticized for believing in angels, because they are unobserved. But unobserved (and unobservable) also applies to the graviton, the axion, the sterile neutrino etc, yet, those things are said to exist (and act of scientific faith) and angiels are said not to exist.

          “Four years ago, Tony Rothman, a physicist at Princeton University was chatting with fellow physicist Freeman Dyson about the elusiveness of gravitons. In fact, gravitons are thought to be so elusive that Dyson wondered whether it was possible to detect one at all. And if gravitons are undetectable, do they really exist?
          Marcus Chown, “The Longest Stake-out,” New Scientist, March 18, 2006, p. 32

          Tony Rothman and Steve Broughan calculated that it would take a detector the size of Jupiter running continuously for 42 million years to get one hit by a graviton. And since that could be a fluke of the equipment, one must run it probably 5x that long to be sure you are actually seeing them. This makes gravitons as undetectable as angels--maybe more so.

          I probably won't stick around to reply to your reply. I can't stand this kind of debate any longer.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by grmorton View Post
            Pixie, you asked earlier, "Can you (or anyone) give any examples of what philosophy and religion have brought to the table in that regard in the last 100 years?"

            I don't know if anyone ever gave you a cogent answer, but I think I can. In the first half of the 20th century, the universe was held to be an eternal everlasting mostly unchanging thing. Hoyle and others invented a hydrogen creation mechanism in order to keep the density of the universe approximately constant in an expanding universe. Many scientists claimed that to have an origin of the universe, like Gamow's cosmic egg was to invoke a creator, and they heartily rejected such ideas..

            But theologians, Christian theologians in particular have always held that the universe had a beginning. When the microwave background was found, it proved the theologians correct and the scientific view of the time, wrong.

            I think I would add that theologians have always held that there are unseen entities an unseen heaven, but science has utterly rejected such a view as hopelessly faith-based. Theologians didn't change and continued to believe in sentient beings in unseen heaven. And theologians were continually riduculed by the intelligentsia for such belief.

            So, what is the difference between their ridiculed view and Tegmark's view of the multiverse in which, out there somewhere unobserved you and I are having the very same conversation in another universe(read HEAVEN)?

            "Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.
            "The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will* just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelganger any less real."* Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes" Scientific American May 2003, p. 41

            So, now science believes in unseen, unobserved sentient beings in unseen heavens and that is considered science, but when theologians do it, it is considered nutso. seems there is a double standard.

            I would add another broad category. Christians are criticized for believing in angels, because they are unobserved. But unobserved (and unobservable) also applies to the graviton, the axion, the sterile neutrino etc, yet, those things are said to exist (and act of scientific faith) and angiels are said not to exist.

            “Four years ago, Tony Rothman, a physicist at Princeton University was chatting with fellow physicist Freeman Dyson about the elusiveness of gravitons. In fact, gravitons are thought to be so elusive that Dyson wondered whether it was possible to detect one at all. And if gravitons are undetectable, do they really exist?
            Marcus Chown, “The Longest Stake-out,” New Scientist, March 18, 2006, p. 32

            Tony Rothman and Steve Broughan calculated that it would take a detector the size of Jupiter running continuously for 42 million years to get one hit by a graviton. And since that could be a fluke of the equipment, one must run it probably 5x that long to be sure you are actually seeing them. This makes gravitons as undetectable as angels--maybe more so.

            I probably won't stick around to reply to your reply. I can't stand this kind of debate any longer.
            Nice to here from my lurking friend out of advancing desert meeting the world flood of Texas. How are you doing?

            This thread is that scientists have a philosophy too! I hope this would be more a discussion of the nature of the relationship between philosophy and science.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by grmorton View Post
              So, what is the difference between their ridiculed view and Tegmark's view of the multiverse in which, out there somewhere unobserved you and I are having the very same conversation in another universe(read HEAVEN)?

              So, now science believes in unseen, unobserved sentient beings in unseen heavens and that is considered science, but when theologians do it, it is considered nutso. seems there is a double standard.

              I would add another broad category. Christians are criticized for believing in angels, because they are unobserved. But unobserved (and unobservable) also applies to the graviton, the axion, the sterile neutrino etc, yet, those things are said to exist (and act of scientific faith) and angiels are said not to exist.
              The difference is twofold. Firstly, the graviton and Tegmark's multiverse are predictions of mathematical models for which a great deal of physical evidence exists, despite the fact that the objects of those predictions, themselves, are as yet unobserved. This is not the case for angels.

              Secondly, the unobserved entities which are posited by scientists are readily admitted to be hypothetical, and their existence is well-acknowledged to be in doubt. Theologians who posit the existence of gods or angels or other such things, on the other hand, do not usually make any such concession, and instead act as if the existence of those unobserved entities is certain and incontrovertible.
              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                The difference is twofold. Firstly, the graviton and Tegmark's multiverse are predictions of mathematical models for which a great deal of physical evidence exists, despite the fact that the objects of those predictions, themselves, are as yet unobserved. This is not the case for angels.

                Secondly, the unobserved entities which are posited by scientists are readily admitted to be hypothetical, and their existence is well-acknowledged to be in doubt. Theologians who posit the existence of gods or angels or other such things, on the other hand, do not usually make any such concession, and instead act as if the existence of those unobserved entities is certain and incontrovertible.
                I consider the predicted existence of particles and properties of the Quantum World to be better than hypothetical, because of the good track record of predictions by scientists in the past.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I consider the predicted existence of particles and properties of the Quantum World to be better than hypothetical, because of the good track record of predictions by scientists in the past.
                  Lovely. Actual particle physicists, however, consider particles which have been predicted to exist but not yet observed to be hypothetical. They do this precisely because of the track record of scientists in the past.
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    Lovely. Actual particle physicists, however, consider particles which have been predicted to exist but not yet observed to be hypothetical. They do this precisely because of the track record of scientists in the past.
                    And because that's what 'hypothetical' means?
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                      Pixie, you asked earlier, "Can you (or anyone) give any examples of what philosophy and religion have brought to the table in that regard in the last 100 years?"

                      I don't know if anyone ever gave you a cogent answer, but I think I can. In the first half of the 20th century, the universe was held to be an eternal everlasting mostly unchanging thing. Hoyle and others invented a hydrogen creation mechanism in order to keep the density of the universe approximately constant in an expanding universe. Many scientists claimed that to have an origin of the universe, like Gamow's cosmic egg was to invoke a creator, and they heartily rejected such ideas..

                      But theologians, Christian theologians in particular have always held that the universe had a beginning. When the microwave background was found, it proved the theologians correct and the scientific view of the time, wrong.
                      Hmm, kind of. That was a position theology brought to the table thousands of years ago. I do not think theology (or philosophy) bought anything new in the way of theory or evidence in the last century. Science did that.
                      I think I would add that theologians have always held that there are unseen entities an unseen heaven, but science has utterly rejected such a view as hopelessly faith-based. Theologians didn't change and continued to believe in sentient beings in unseen heaven. And theologians were continually riduculed by the intelligentsia for such belief.

                      So, what is the difference between their ridiculed view and Tegmark's view of the multiverse in which, out there somewhere unobserved you and I are having the very same conversation in another universe(read HEAVEN)?
                      The multiverse is Tegmark's speculation as to the most likely explanation that fits the very limited evidence we do have. If evidence appears that refutes the multiverse, he will abandon it.

                      Christianity is held as fact by Christians, rather than speculation, despite a similar lack of evidence. That is a big difference. Where the evidence does not fit a Christian's worldview, the Christian will reject the evidence, not the worldview (just look at how YECs deal with evidence for an ancient earth).
                      "Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.
                      "The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will* just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelganger any less real."* Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes" Scientific American May 2003, p. 41

                      So, now science believes in unseen, unobserved sentient beings in unseen heavens and that is considered science, but when theologians do it, it is considered nutso. seems there is a double standard.
                      No, one scientist believes that. As far as I am aware, that view is not mainstream science. It is not something I believe, and it is quite different to the multiverse as I understand the term (in that he is describing parallels within a single universe).
                      I would add another broad category. Christians are criticized for believing in angels, because they are unobserved. But unobserved (and unobservable) also applies to the graviton, the axion, the sterile neutrino etc, yet, those things are said to exist (and act of scientific faith) and angiels are said not to exist.
                      The graviton, the axion and the sterile neutrino are hypothetical, and reading the Wiki page for each makes that clear.

                      Are you prepared to go on record saying angels are merely hypothetical?

                      In fact, here is a quote in which a scientist acknowledges gravitons may not exist:
                      “Four years ago, Tony Rothman, a physicist at Princeton University was chatting with fellow physicist Freeman Dyson about the elusiveness of gravitons. In fact, gravitons are thought to be so elusive that Dyson wondered whether it was possible to detect one at all. And if gravitons are undetectable, do they really exist?
                      Marcus Chown, “The Longest Stake-out,” New Scientist, March 18, 2006, p. 32

                      It is the same one you quoted. Strangely you cite it as evidence that scientists believe in things they cannot detect, despite this scientist stating clearly they might not even exist.
                      I probably won't stick around to reply to your reply. I can't stand this kind of debate any longer.
                      Yeah, probably best that way. You might realise you were wrong.

                      Which is kind of the point here. Science makes claims tentatively, and is upfront about when something is hypothetical. It may be that someone will join the debate and explain why Tegmark holds the view cited above, and will convince me. Science is open to new ideas, and changes according to new evidence. So I will stick around, and I might learn something, which wll be good for my scientific knowledge.

                      Religion cannot do that. Religion makes pronouncements, and wil only reluctantly back downfrom them once the evidence is overwhelming. Christianity asserts there are angels, so all Christians are sure there are angels. Evidence and arguments to the contrary are to be avoided. So you will not stick around, as you might learn something, which wll be bad for faith.
                      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        The difference is twofold. Firstly, the graviton and Tegmark's multiverse are predictions of mathematical models for which a great deal of physical evidence exists, despite the fact that the objects of those predictions, themselves, are as yet unobserved. This is not the case for angels.

                        Secondly, the unobserved entities which are posited by scientists are readily admitted to be hypothetical, and their existence is well-acknowledged to be in doubt. Theologians who posit the existence of gods or angels or other such things, on the other hand, do not usually make any such concession, and instead act as if the existence of those unobserved entities is certain and incontrovertible.
                        Bingo.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by lee_merrill, 10-19-2021, 03:24 PM
                        8 responses
                        77 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Sparko
                        by Sparko
                         
                        Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
                        3 responses
                        35 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
                        0 responses
                        12 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
                        56 responses
                        306 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post lee_merrill  
                        Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
                        37 responses
                        200 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Working...
                        X