Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?

[Yvaelle]

The problem with most philosophers is that they think they can talk about physics but the reason they're philosophers is that they can't do maths

It's like blind people critiquing cinematography

This isn't really true - Logic is a fundamental component of any proper Philosophical degree, and it gets very mathy. Physics isn't necessary to philosophy, but physics isn't the entirety of maths.

Philosophy doctorates and professors are usually very careful about what is possible through speculation. What you are more likely railing against, is people uneducated in philosophy, who wax philosophic about theoretical physics.

The problem isn't that they are Philosophers talking about physics, it's that they are Not-Philosophers talking about physics.

If a Not-Aircraft Mechanic started giving you financial investment advice, by way of reference to aircraft components - you wouldn't conclude - "Aircraft Mechanics give shitty Financial Advice".

The real underlying problem is more so that Philosophy is central to the human experience - we're all armchair philosophers (and have a right to be) - but without proper training every stoner is compelled to still ask the big questions of their existence, but lacks the rigor to state assumptions and apply logic.

What we need, is philosophy taught in public education - particularly logic and critical thinking (where philosophy always begins).

[Wikiy]

This isn't really true - Logic is a fundamental component of any proper Philosophical degree, and it gets very mathy.

Mathematical logic is one out of a hundred different branches of mathematics. It's true that they all inherently fall down on mathematical logic, but that doesn't mean that someone who knows how to work with mathematical logic knows any of the other branches. Physics doesn't use mathematical logic much, so I think it's correct to say that a philosopher doesn't know the physicist's math.

[Yvaelle]

Mathematical logic is one out of a hundred different branches of mathematics. It's true that they all inherently fall down on mathematical logic, but that doesn't mean that someone who knows how to work with mathematical logic knows any of the other branches. Physics doesn't use mathematical logic much, so I think it's correct to say that a philosopher doesn't know the physicist's math.

He said 'the reason they are philosophers is because they can't do maths' - yet logic is the math on which all philosophy is based. Every philosophy major can do logic, every masters is good at it. They can do maths, they can't necessarily calculate a trajectory is all.

Philosophers (ex. masters, doctorates, professors, etc - not your stoner friend from back in highschool) are entirely capable of debating the logic of a physics hypothesis (ex. multiverse), they may not be able to scribble up on the board a string theory equation that implicates many 'verses - but they can state the assumptions (such as that equation) and the logic that underpins it as well as anybody. There are many maths, the math needed for something like a multiverse hypothesis is at least two-fold, the physical equations that imply its existence, and the logical relationship between the assumed truth of such equations, and the proof of multiverse that it implies.

One is the math of physics, one is the math of philosophy - both are essential here. Any decent philosophy professor isn't going to say, "I know this string theory equation is true; therefore multiverse" - they're going to say, "if we assume this string theory equation is true; then multiverse". They'll leave the equation itself to the physicists, but they are perhaps more qualified than the physicists to state what is possible given the assumptions.

[Wikiy]

Philosophers (ex. masters, doctorates, professors, etc - not your stoner friend from back in highschool) are entirely capable of debating the logic of a physics hypothesis (ex. multiverse), they may not be able to scribble up on the board a string theory equation that implicates many 'verses - but they can state the assumptions (such as that equation) and the logic that underpins it as well as anybody.

Generally, yes, you're right, we're talking about two different maths here. Logical mathematics and physical mathematics. And you're right in claiming that both are critical to the whole process and that philosophers know how to deal in the former.

Just to deal with your example for a bit. Analyzing the logic of a physical hypothesis is the very first step that even a physicist can and must do. If the hypothesis is logically sound in that it is self-consistent, everything else is the job of the physicist. The reason is the fact that after that point, the evaluation of the claims of the hypothesis becomes an entirely probabilistic undertaking. I.e., what the physicist does at that point is try to figure out how likely it is, and he does that by seeing what effect the hypothesis would have, what it would predict exactly and how it could be tested. This a hugely greater task than assessing the logic of the claim. This is why I don't quite understand why we need philosophers in physics. 99% of the job is something only the physicist can do, and the 1% is something both can do. Even the physicist.

Also, let's not mention the fact that there are occurrences in this very universe which completely defy all logic known to man. Mainly quantum thingies, of course.

[Yvaelle]

Analyzing the logic of a physical hypothesis is the very first step that even a physicist can and must do. If the hypothesis is logically sound in that it is self-consistent, everything else is the job of the physicist. The reason is the fact that after that point, the evaluation of the claims of the hypothesis becomes an entirely probabilistic undertaking. I.e., what the physicist does at that point is try to figure out how likely it is, and he does that by seeing what effect the hypothesis would have, what it would predict exactly and how it could be tested. This a hugely greater task than assessing the logic of the claim. This is why I don't quite understand why we need philosophers in physics. 99% of the job is something only the physicist can do, and the 1% is something both can do. Even the physicist.

I think you would be rather shocked by how often the logic of a dissertation is incorrect - it's where most hypotheses fall apart - not in their empirical collecting of observed data and the math that they produce - but in translating that data into information, and then information into knowledge - which is logic.

When you defend a dissertation, some of the questions will go toward the methodology of your data collection - but most of the criticism will be directed toward the logic of your assumptions and conclusions. When you publish a hypothesis for peer review, ~99%+ will trust that the data you collected is accurate to your methodology, virtually all peer review involves a critique or support of the logic of your methodology, and logic of your assumptions/conclusions.

Scientific method is a system of logic - to the point where the criticism of Philosophy that scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson usually make isn't that philosophy is useless - but that science may teach practical logic better than a philosophy degree: via scientific method (a system of logic). That'a a criticism I share, because much of postsecondary philosophy education is now filled with the history or literature of philosophy - and not enough on the logic and models of philosophy. Whereas scientific tenets like skepticism may focus on what philosophy should actually be about.

Still, it's not fair to say that philosophers (actual philosophers!) don't know maths, or can't speak intelligently about physics, or that logic isn't important to physics. The bulk of observational astronomy is in data collection and physics equations, but data is only converted to knowledge via logic. Theoretical astrophysics further foregoes much of the empirical / observational component - and focuses almost entirely on the logic of a set of fabricated assumptions: almost as much in the realm of philosophy as physics.

Also, let's not mention the fact that there are occurrences in this very universe which completely defy all logic known to man. Mainly quantum thingies, of course.

Quantum mechanics has internal logic, there just isn't a physical explanation for how that system of logic becomes consistent with the logic of our experience / perspective / scale.

[May90]

TLDR Having a single theory doesn't do anything but bring us to a "that's good enough" end, and is like a boot heel on the face of deep science.

I agree with you in many regards. I'd just like to point out that a single theory, towards building which we are working, wouldn't mean the end of search in figuring out reality. Having a single theory uniting all other theories in one large and, simultaneously, simple way is necessary for us to be sure that all those theories describe the reality well and don't contradict it - that is why, for example, Superstring theory is such a big deal nowadays, since it has a potential to resolve fundamental contradictions between QM and GR and unite them into a single, beautiful picture.

However, even if, say, Superstring theory gets to the point of being able to explain everything we see in this world - it wouldn't mean, "Okay, we are done, that's it". Our experimental evidence is always limited, and there is always a chance for something to be found, something that won't fit the "theory of everything". When it happens, we might need to expand that theory, or, if it is impossible, find a new "theory of everything", resolving the newly found contradictions.

In the end, the search is always going, the theories are always being developed, and there can't be the moment of us saying, "That is good enough" - it is never good enough, and even if we think we know all the fundamentals, we can always keep working on specific sub-theories and fields, to adapt them better for practical exploitation, or to hopefully find new parallels between them we weren't aware of before.

Just take one topic, supernovas. There is an infinite amount of things we can learn about them. There will never be a point in time at which we will be able to say, "We understand perfectly every single process happening upon every single supernova" - although we can get pretty close to that. But there will always be something to improve upon.

[Ghostpanther]

The short answer to the question, "Has physics gotten something really important really wrong," is usually yes. We constantly think we know things and then our knowledge is informed by knew science and what we thought we knew becomes incorrect to some degree. Since we don't know everything about everything yet there are some things we think we know that are, likely, mere illusions waiting to be revealed as such.

While it is comical to read this, it really is true. Made me chuckle, yet realize it was spot on. Well done.

[Forogil]

I agree with you in many regards. I'd just like to point out that a single theory, towards building which we are working, wouldn't mean the end of search in figuring out reality. Having a single theory uniting all other theories in one large and, simultaneously, simple way is necessary for us to be sure that all those theories describe the reality well and don't contradict it - that is why, for example, Superstring theory is such a big deal nowadays, since it has a potential to resolve fundamental contradictions between QM and GR and unite them into a single, beautiful picture.

Well, look at it as if it is a child.
They have the potential to be the new Mozart, the new Einstein - but once they turn twenty you would expect them to at least have taken some steps towards that.
You don't totally rule it out immediately - but you realize that a backup plan seems like a good idea.

As far as I understand the next likely experimental progress in elementary particle physics is getting all the facts about the simplest neutrino - mass, and whether it is its own anti-particle or not. I am unsure what that would mean for super string-theory, whereas supersymmetry that has been talked about for a long time hasn't appeared yet.

[Stonecloak]

Shouldn't it be obvious by now time doesn't exist. I mean it's all in our heads, we can't manipulate anything that has passed the now moment, so I think it's a hard argument to actually prove time exists, and by exists, I mean in nature, not in our measurements or heads.

[Nurvus]

Shouldn't the correct theory be beautiful?

It's always beautiful.
Your long text simply tells me there is a small group of scientists that considers the unknown ugly.
They lost track of what makes science what it is.
Science is 99% about being wrong.

All those scientists want is a compromise with knowledge. They want knowledge to meet them halfway.
There's no halfway.

[Wikiy]

Still, it's not fair to say that philosophers (actual philosophers!) don't know maths, or can't speak intelligently about physics, or that logic isn't important to physics.

Never said that bold part. Nor the first part. I just said the math they know is rarely used in physics for anything.

The bulk of observational astronomy is in data collection and physics equations, but data is only converted to knowledge via logic. Theoretical astrophysics further foregoes much of the empirical / observational component - and focuses almost entirely on the logic of a set of fabricated assumptions: almost as much in the realm of philosophy as physics.

Data isn't converted to knowledge in physics by Aristotelian (or any other logic). It's converted to knowledge via physical theories. Yes, at the very foundation of these theories stands logic. But that's true of anything. It's true of calculus. Calculus can be reduced down to mathematical logic, except that's not a useful thing to do. Saying that a philosopher can speak intelligently about physics just because there's logic at the foundation of physics is no different than saying a philosopher can speak intelligently about calculus for that same reason. And oh, trust me, he cannot, not unless he took a calculus course (which I'm sure some have, I'm only saying there are many steps between pure mathematical logic and mathematical anaylsis/calculus).

Quantum mechanics has internal logic, there just isn't a physical explanation for how that system of logic becomes consistent with the logic of our experience / perspective / scale.

I'm not really talking so much about the fact that quantum mechanics makes no common sense. Like quantum teleportation - why it should be possible. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about fundamental logical axioms, at the very core of classical logic (and thereby philosophy),that are simply false in quantum mechanics. If we wanna get all technical, I could give you, for example, the distributive law. It's not true in quantum logic.

Do you think philosophers are taught quantum logic? Because if they aren't, I don't see how they can have the right to criticize people like string theorists, who have to deal with quantum mechanics. This is a pretty extreme example, where literally the logic is different. The reason why philosophers can't really talk intelligently about other branches of physics isn't that they have their own different logics (they don't), it's simply that the classical logic that they all inevitably stand on is also piled on with a heap of other physical axioms, hypotheses, laws, theories, observations and other whatnots that the philosophers simply don't know. I.e., how can someone talk intelligently about something one doesn't understand?

[Stonecloak]

Never said that bold part. Nor the first part. I just said the math they know is rarely used in physics for anything.



Data isn't converted to knowledge in physics by Aristotelian (or any other logic). It's converted to knowledge via physical theories. Yes, at the very foundation of these theories stands logic. But that's true of anything. It's true of calculus. Calculus can be reduced down to mathematical logic, except that's not a useful thing to do. Saying that a philosopher can speak intelligently about physics just because there's logic at the foundation of physics is no different than saying a philosopher can speak intelligently about calculus for that same reason. And oh, trust me, he cannot, not unless he took a calculus course (which I'm sure some have, I'm only saying there are many steps between pure mathematical logic and mathematical anaylsis/calculus).



I'm not really talking so much about the fact that quantum mechanics makes no common sense. Like quantum teleportation - why it should be possible. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about fundamental logical axioms, at the very core of classical logic (and thereby philosophy),that are simply false in quantum mechanics. If we wanna get all technical, I could give you, for example, the distributive law. It's not true in quantum logic.

Do you think philosophers are taught quantum logic? Because if they aren't, I don't see how they can have the right to criticize people like string theorists, who have to deal with quantum mechanics. This is a pretty extreme example, where literally the logic is different. The reason why philosophers can't really talk intelligently about other branches of physics isn't that they have their own different logics (they don't), it's simply that the classical logic that they all inevitably stand on is also piled on with a heap of other physical axioms, hypotheses, laws, theories, observations and other whatnots that the philosophers simply don't know. I.e., how can someone talk intelligently about something one doesn't understand?

I think the fact that philosophers, physicists can't ignore quantum theory should be a sign that it's relevant in some capacity, and we all don't understand it. I don't technically think we're really meant to, but that's not going to stop anyone from trying. I mean some people are so driven they just go back and forth, searching for the answer, but that's telling as well isn't it.

[Coombs]

This is not quite right. The classical model had spheres of earth, water, and air, but these were different spheres. The common spherical earth, with pools of water here and there on is surface, was a product of the age of exploration. The discovery that there were points of dry land antipodal to one another was inconsistent with a model with separate earth and water spheres.

Thresh is right. The spherical Earth was measured in like the 3rd century BCE.

[Vynny]

It seems you don't know what philosophy is: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

So it seems philosophy is exactly about what is real. Your objections to philosophy are, themselves, philosophical objections. There is no proof that the bulk of academic philosophy consists of conclusions based off too little info or anecdotal evidence. This is a bare assertion. I thought you science groupies would think a thing like evidence might be important...

So I guess your suggestion would be to...what? Give up thinking about the hard questions, lol?

Like I said, it's not bound to reality or forced to constrain itself to reality. Are there schools of philosophy that are more empirical or based on reality? Yes. Is it required for philosophy to be based on reality? No. I mean, very good that you underlined one out of 3 major topics that philosophy touches upon while completely ignoring the example I gave of a philosophical questions in regards to "the fundamental nature of knowledge" portion of that definition you gave. This is like if you were to claim that all H2O is wet when in reality frozen H2O isn't wet unless it starts melting and gaseous H2O isn't wet unless it starts condensing into liquid. The point is that yes philosophy can be bound to reality, but it's not required to and that's my problem with it.

The problem with philosophy is that it allows the philosopher to put the metaphysical and physical on the same plane of existence which when done causes issues that lead to faulty conclusions that are internally consistent, but not representative of reality.

[dadev]

Quantum mechanics has internal logic, there just isn't a physical explanation for how that system of logic becomes consistent with the logic of our experience / perspective / scale.

Of course there is, it's called Ehrenfest's theorem.
If quantum effects didn't have an effect (which can be described) on the macro world then what would be the point in studying them?
Furthermore, if this would be so then how would you measure Planck's constant? Or make any QM related experiments for that matter?

[Yvaelle]

Never said that bold part. Nor the first part. I just said the math they know is rarely used in physics for anything.

You didn't say the bold part but Xarim did, this whole chain began with me responding to him - about the bolded part. Logic is not used to measure the pull of gravity approaching a black hole, it is however used constantly to interpret data into theories.

Data isn't converted to knowledge in physics by Aristotelian (or any other logic). It's converted to knowledge via physical theories. Yes, at the very foundation of these theories stands logic.

Like I said, virtually all rebuttal of a physical theory occurs not toward the quality of the collected data, or the output of the proposed math, but on the logic that the assumptions imply: if you're doing scientific method, you're doing logic.

I'm talking about fundamental logical axioms, at the very core of classical logic (and thereby philosophy),that are simply false in quantum mechanics. If we wanna get all technical, I could give you, for example, the distributive law. It's not true in quantum logic.

Which is fine, you just take that axiom and subtract it from your set of assumptions, and then continue on as normal. What matters to logicians is whether the system of logic is internally consistent, and generally quantum logic is - it's okay that in your example - the distributive law isn't true within every system - only that it is axiomatic within the system to which it is applied as an axiom. You subtract it from your assumptions, then you try to solve without relying on it (because it isn't there). Let's do a simpler example for brevity - Gravity:



Assumptions:

F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

An observational astronomer is very concerned with precisely measuring the masses, the gravitational constant, and the distance between the objects. A philosopher is only concerned with the relationship between the variables. A philosopher can speak intelligently about the theory of gravity without being able to recite or reproduce the gravitational constant, it is sufficient that it is represented as G.

Do you think philosophers are taught quantum logic? Because if they aren't, I don't see how they can have the right to criticize people like string theorists, who have to deal with quantum mechanics.

They can't, without supporting observational evidence, contest the accuracy of the gravitational constant at a quantum level. They can, based purely on the relationship of the variables, support or contest the conclusions being drawn, or offer up alternatives which are not being explicitly ruled out by the equation.

This is a pretty extreme example, where literally the logic is different.

For philosophers logic is different all the time, since most philosophic logic is highly abstract, only the language of logic itself is often axiomatic (and not always).

The reason why philosophers can't really talk intelligently about other branches of physics isn't that they have their own different logics (they don't), it's simply that the classical logic that they all inevitably stand on is also piled on with a heap of other physical axioms, hypotheses, laws, theories, observations and other whatnots that the philosophers simply don't know.

I would say, if anything, the opposite is true. Precisely because logic is a purely abstract concept to philosophers - the classical logic of physics is just a string of irrelevant variables to them - each an assumption easily dismissed - what matters is the relationship between the set of the assumptions and the conclusions that are available. If you tell me that the assumption of gravity is no longer true, I just take the letter G out of my set and throw it over my shoulder - if you tell a physicist to assume gravity doesn't exist - they're much more likely to have trouble embracing that.

That's kind of irrelevant though - what matters is that physicists use logic constantly (scientific method is discipline of logic, along with both classical and quantum logic) - and characterizing all philosophers as being stoners waxing on about how - all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration, that we are all of one consciousness, and the earth itself is subjective - is more a reflection on stoners, and not the discipline of philosophy or its relationship to physics.

[Mihalik]

This is wrong. Philosophical considerations were part of Einstein's creation of both SR and GR. It's why GR is viewed as a 3+1 dimensional geometric theory instead of a 3 dimensional dynamics theory, even though they're equivalent.

The famous disagreement between Bohr and Einstein on what Quantum Mechanics was all about was philosophical. And this debate caused Bell to formulate his famous Bell Theorem, whose experimental verification allowed us to rule out a large class of theories. Hell, the fundamental assumptions of physics itself are basically philosophical since they aren't testable.

While the Philosophy of science is a thing, it's approach to science is fundamentally different than both that in the OP and that of Aristotle. The OP refers to something that is a strange hybrid between Feyerabend and Aristotle, in a sense of throwing out accepted models and then substituting it with something that would make logical sense, but wouldn't necessarily be falsifiable or perhaps couldn't be counter intuitive.

I specifically have a gripe with their 3rd point regarding mathematics. To me that just sounds like rejecting universal methodological rules. Which in turn contradicts their point about the supposed lack of empirical validation.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you start calling every disagreement a "philosophical difference" then sure, philosophy is in everything.

This is kinda the problem with the term "philosophy". It can easy be interpreted as broadly as the speaker wishes, often to the point that the term loses any relevant meaning. A disagreement over which flavor of donuts is the best gets framed as, "Philosophical differences regarding the nature of pastries" by the overzealous.

Specifically on the Bohr/Einstein thing, it actually was a philosophical disagreement. Einstein simply did not believe that the universe could be anything other than deterministic. It wasn't motivated on scientific grounds. Bohr had a different conception of how science and the world behaved.

[Thresh1]

I mean, very good that you underlined one out of 3 major topics that philosophy touches upon while completely ignoring the example I gave of a philosophical questions in regards to "the fundamental nature of knowledge" portion of that definition you gave...The point is that yes philosophy can be bound to reality, but it's not required to and that's my problem with it.

There's no problem with humans asking/debating about the fundamental nature of knowledge. To insist that is to be anti-intellectual.

The problem with philosophy is that it allows the philosopher to put the metaphysical and physical on the same plane of existence which when done causes issues that lead to faulty conclusions that are internally consistent, but not representative of reality.

And why would the existence of metaphysics necessarily lead to faulty conclusions? Seems like you are assuming a lot of philosophy without actually thinking about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Specifically on the Bohr/Einstein thing, it actually was a philosophical disagreement. Einstein simply did not believe that the universe could be anything other than deterministic. It wasn't motivated on scientific grounds. Bohr had a different conception of how science and the world behaved.

Exactly. Einstein had a deep respect for philosophy of science. He warned of the dangers of lack of progress when scientists dismiss philosophy.

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc."

"The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long-commonplace concepts and exhibiting [revealing, exposing? -Ed.] those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."

[Mormolyce]

Scientists dismiss philosophy's role in science.

A scientists who dismisses philosophy's role in science has had a very poor education. Science is a field of philosophy.