Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?

[Hiricine]

The reason that a "multiverse" needs to exist and that "Time" doesn't is a faith based belief for many, that reality is infinite where it is in reality finite and has an expiration date.

[Vynny]

No, it's not anti-scientific anymore than debating history is anti-scientific. The correct term would be non-scientific, as I have already said.

When such a line of questioning ignores the laws of physics then yes it is anti-scientific. Actually disprove the laws of physics then ignore them, but don't hand wave away empirical facts just because they don't suit your needs.

I'm sorry, but give me proof that the majority of contemporary metaphysics or epistemology looks like this. Again, you are claiming that contemporary metaphysics is always asking these types of questions. It would be much like someone saying, "Cosmologists are dumb, lawl. They just stare at the sky with telescopes all day while the world is starving." It's a ridiculous straw man you have there.

Also, never questioning something because it is a "law of nature", is dumb. AGAIN, there's no problem with humans asking/debating about the fundamental nature of knowledge. To insist that is to be anti-intellectual.

I never said that it's a majority and I specifically said that I have a problem with it because such anti-scientific schools of thought are accepted within academic philosophy. It doesn't have to be a majority to still be an issue. Some metaphysical debate stays in the realm of metaphysics without infringing upon the domain of physics and I have no problem with that, but like I said, my main problem is with philosophers who spew their metaphysical crap in place of real scientific physical knowledge.

Also, that's a pretty far stretch you're making there with comparing cosmologists and what they don't do with philosophers and what they don't do because cosmologists deal with the physical plane or as I like to call it, reality while many philosophers deal with the metaphysical plane or as I like to call it, their imagination So the efforts of cosmologists give us new insight and information about reality, philosophers dealing with the metaphysical will never grant us any knowledge that pertains to reality. By the way, don't twist my words on that, I specifically singled out philosophers dealing with the metaphysical and not philosophers in general because so far you're displayed very bad habit or twisting my words into something close to what I said, but not what I said and I explicitly say what I mean for a reason, so don't do that.

On top of that, I never said questioning a law of nature shouldn't be allowed, but just hand waving a law of nature away because it gets in the way of your metaphysical crap being relevant to reality isn't questioning it, that's just completely disregarding it without an ounce of proof of it not pertaining to the nature of reality.

You see a lot of philosophers "spewing their anti-scientific metaphysical crap in place of real knowledge about reality" these days? Examples, lol? There are definitely more scientists infringing upon philosophy with their wild, uncritical philosophical assumptions (e.g. multiverse.)

But really, you simply dislike a discipline because it doesn't give you an immediately useful, empirical answer? That sort of bratty entitlement has no place in the university. Science gives you zero answers about many things that are extremely important. Its great, but philosophy is certainly there to fill in it's gaps with plausible answers. It's attitudes like this which are slowing humanity down from philosophy generating the next great discipline, such as it did with science.[/QUOTE]

Again, the amount doing it doesn't matter, but the fact that it's a legitimate field in philosophy is what bothers me.

The multiverse is not bound to metaphysics. Again, look at metaphysical cosmology and physical cosmology. Both study the universe, but in completely different contexts. On top of that, physicists don't assume that there's a multiverse, they're debating if a multiverse does exist with proponents on one side and opponents on the other. That's the thing with science, you can't just assume something because it could be possible, you have to prove it.

And no, it's not that I don't like philosophy because it doesn't give me an immediately useful empirical answer, but that I don't like philosophy because it's not required to even give an empirical answer regardless of if it's immediately useful. Also, if I had a problem with things that didn't give an immediately useful answer then I'd have more of a problem with science than I do philosophy, but I don't because what I care about is whether or not that information is representative of reality a.k.a true, and yes, I'm stating truth is not relative whatsoever and the only things that can be true are those that are factually accurate in case you're someone who thinks truth is relative as well as being supportive of philosophy.

Lastly, remember epistemological ruptures that I mentioned? You know, how science has to clean up philosophies and religions screw ups before it can advance? Yeah, we've moved to a better system of understanding and you guys are 3 to 5 centuries behind or are piggy backing off of modern science in some cases. Philosophers are not making discoveries or trying to prove their assertions with evidence. All they're is doing is throwing anything and everything at the wall and then wait for science to verify what they asserted in some capacity. For example, the multiverse was first proposed by philosophers about 100 years ago, but there has been no scientific evidence of it until fairly recently, and philosophers had not even attempted to define how the multiverse behaves in relation to our universe. I mean it's ridiculous that despite a 100 year or 50 year head start (depending on when you say the multiverse hypothesis started being studied in physics) physics has found more evidence and created more models or hypotheses based on that evidence than philosophy has. Think about it, a group of monkeys on typewriters could put all the knowledge (facts about reality) in the universe to paper if you give them long enough, but their would be vastly more gibberish and contradictory information than knowledge produced by such an exercise and we would never know when they were actually done, so why would you give them any sort of credibility? The same goes for philosophers, they can think and assert all they want, but if they don't bother to verify their claims with evidence from reality then why should they receive any credibility. So all in all, it's attitudes like yours that are slowing humanity down from science advancing because it constantly has to placate the lowbrow philosophers who have no idea what their talking about and make claims based on no evidence whatsoever.

[Wikiy]

No, dude. Meta-physics cannot be studied by physics. Physics is not defined as the study of reality, lol. That's philosophy, remember? Physics, and more broadly science for that matter, only studies the natural, physical world. It's right there in the name.

Definition: the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

If there is something else that exists above/beyond the physical, then it would be metaphysical.

So, of all things constituting reality, how exactly do you separate those that are physical and those that aren't?

Also, sorry, I gotta chuckle at "philosophy=study of reality". Right, the discipline which pretends its claims are meaningful despite offering no empirical evidence for them.

[Thresh1]

So, of all things constituting reality, how exactly do you separate those that are physical and those that aren't?

Physical things are made of matter and/or energy. Non-physical things aren't. Thanks for the easy question.

Also, sorry, I gotta chuckle at "philosophy=study of reality". Right,

You can't afford to be so ill-informed. The definition of philosophy, which I have already posted, is "the study of the nature of reality and existence, of what it is possible to know, and of right and wrong behavior, or a particular set of beliefs of this type:

- Cambridge Dictionary

the discipline which pretends its claims are meaningful despite offering no empirical evidence for them.

Empirical evidence is not always necessary to determine reality, lol. This logical positivist idea of verificationism is dead in philosophy. Maybe if you weren't so dismissive of philosophy, you wouldn't make such naive philosophical statements.

The scientism is strong with this one.

- - - Updated - - -

When such a line of questioning ignores the laws of physics then yes it is anti-scientific. Actually disprove the laws of physics then ignore them, but don't hand wave away empirical facts just because they don't suit your needs.

This does not describe all scholarly metaphysics. Again, strawman.

Again, the amount doing it doesn't matter, but the fact that it's a legitimate field in philosophy is what bothers me.

If you are "bothered" by metaphysics in philosophy on the whole, that is anti-intellectual...

That's the thing with science, you can't just assume something because it could be possible, you have to prove it.

It's the same with philosophy. If someone is spewing crap, then that's on them, not on the field of philosophy of science or metaphysics. You haven't given any evidence, empirical or other, to show that this is a pervasive "problem" in philosophy. Science need criticism from philosophers and vice verse.

[Vetis]

you are not saying anything revolutionary. Science is never "right" it's a series of understandings strengthened or replaced in light of new discoveries and due to this process we get the best description of something available to us at the time.

also, I get the point Agent K but people have known the world wasn't flat for a long longer than a few hundred years.

[Thresh1]

Lastly, remember epistemological ruptures that I mentioned? You know, how science has to clean up philosophies and religions screw ups before it can advance? Yeah, we've moved to a better system of understanding and you guys are 3 to 5 centuries behind or are piggy backing off of modern science in some cases. Philosophers are not making discoveries or trying to prove their assertions with evidence. All they're is doing is throwing anything and everything at the wall and then wait for science to verify what they asserted in some capacity. For example, the multiverse was first proposed by philosophers about 100 years ago, but there has been no scientific evidence of it until fairly recently, and philosophers had not even attempted to define how the multiverse behaves in relation to our universe. I mean it's ridiculous that despite a 100 year or 50 year head start (depending on when you say the multiverse hypothesis started being studied in physics) physics has found more evidence and created more models or hypotheses based on that evidence than philosophy has. Think about it, a group of monkeys on typewriters could put all the knowledge (facts about reality) in the universe to paper if you give them long enough, but their would be vastly more gibberish and contradictory information than knowledge produced by such an exercise and we would never know when they were actually done, so why would you give them any sort of credibility? The same goes for philosophers, they can think and assert all they want, but if they don't bother to verify their claims with evidence from reality then why should they receive any credibility. So all in all, it's attitudes like yours that are slowing humanity down from science advancing because it constantly has to placate the lowbrow philosophers who have no idea what their talking about and make claims based on no evidence whatsoever.

The picture you paint here is not one that is found in western academia. It's a cartoon you have drawn for yourself based on the just-so stories of people like Lawrence Krauss, who are blissfully unaware of what philosophy has been doing. Ever hear of paradigm shift, falsification, better views to important issues concerning abortion, theism, religion, morality, free will, your blessed empiricism, etc? These are all issues in philosophy and your views have, however uncritically, been shaped by philosophy in hundreds of ways.

You just want your own metaphysical views to the TRUE one and to dismiss all others that cause you issues. There is no great schism between science and metaphysics/philosophy. Rightly, there is cross-correction, and anyone who views this conversation between the two as a pissing contest on "who's more right", has a fundamentally wrong outlook.

[Wikiy]

Physical things are made of matter and/or energy. Non-physical things aren't. Thanks for the easy question.

That's a pretty stupid definition of a physical thing. Physics also deals with things that are neither of those. And undoubtedly, we'll encounter more such things. Keeping the definition at "matter and energy" is, for that reason, really silly.

Physics will always evolve to take into its realm of study whatever it may be that it actually can study. You probably believe that the idea of a multiverse is a metaphysical concept, for example, but the moment that humans become capable of probing that concept in a mathematical, repeatable (already possible in theoretical physics in certain ways, hence some people viewing the concept of a multiverse as a physical one) and experimental fashion, it'll become a fully physical concept.

Empirical evidence is not always necessary to determine reality, lol. This logical positivist idea of verificationism is dead in philosophy.

Right, give me an example of a thing you can determine with regards to reality without evidence.

Maybe if you weren't so dismissive of philosophy, you wouldn't make such naive philosophical statements.

I'm actually dismissive of metaphysics. I don't have an issue with the rest of philosophy, on the contrary.

The scientism is strong with this one.

Well... Errr.... The science is strong with this one because this one is a scientist (well, not quite there yet). [/QUOTE]

Now, alright, seriously, if you're so convinced metaphysics is a useful discipline, give me one thing that metaphysics has spawned that's actually of use (either intellectual or practical)?

[Veyne]

Shouldn't the correct theory be beautiful? Something that when you learn it makes you say "yes, I see how it's all connected now, how wonderful!"

As one of the documentaries I let run in the background as I go to sleep puts it "There's no rule in physics that says theoretical physicists have to be happy."

[Valech]

I'd be surprised if Maths and Philosophy isn't one of the more common joint honours at the better universities. It's probably incorrect to say that all "fillosofers can't do sumz". I'd also be surprised if someone can get through a respectable straight philosophy degree without having to pass some discrete maths courses.(?) Anyone able to comment on that who has looked at a syllabus in recent years?

I had the option to take "Logic" as a subject during my philosophy studies. It operates on formalizing phrases and statements and connecting them with operators. It also uses logic gates. All pretty math-y.

[Thresh1]

That's a pretty stupid definition of a physical thing. Physics also deals with things that are neither of those. And undoubtedly, we'll encounter more such things. Keeping the definition at "matter and energy" is, for that reason, really silly.

Physics: "the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy".

Here's another "a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions."

Of course, I didn't say "physics only deals with matter and energy" did I? I said "Physical things are made of matter and/or energy." Another strawman...

Right, give me an example of a thing you can determine with regards to reality without evidence.

I'll remind you that you originally said empirical evidence. So, in that vein, we can determine a ton of stuff without empirical evidence, like "there are no married bachelors," "there are no square circles," etc. We can also negate self defeating statements like, "no statements are true except those backed by empirical evidence." We can also learn about reality from deductive arguments like:

Tom only eats fish on Monday.
It is Tuesday.
Tom is not eating fish today.

It's ok to have theories of reality too, like the multiverse or free will. Not everything HAS to be a proof with 100% certainty.

I'm actually dismissive of metaphysics. I don't have an issue with the rest of philosophy, on the contrary.

Well... Errr.... The science is strong with this one because this one is a scientist (well, not quite there yet).

Now, alright, seriously, if you're so convinced metaphysics is a useful discipline, give me one thing that metaphysics has spawned that's actually of use (either intellectual or practical)?

Physicalism, atheism, determinism, atomism, b-theory, etc.

[May90]

Reality is under no obligation to be appealing to anyone.

I would argue that a well developed theory is bound to be simple and appealing, just by the nature of scientific method. A good example is particle physics: it used to be a big mess in the past, when new particles would be discovered regularly, and everything seemed chaotic, uncontrollable, illogical. But now we have Standard Model, that is very beautiful and concise in its basic representation. We managed to make a sense out of something that looked like a cruel joke by nature. If a theory looks ugly and unappealing, then it is likely that we just haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet; when we will, it will look much better and more concise.

The Big Bang theory looks fine to me overall, but I have some problems with the way inflation is explained there. It is probably something that will be addressed and understood well at some point, but as it is now it is a bit of a mess.

[Osmeric]

- the big bang therorie doesn't appeal to me. something is wrong there. we'll figure it out some day...

The basis of the big bang theory -- that the universe has expanded from a hot, much denser state -- is unavoidable. There's no other way to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation.

[Vynny]

This does not describe all scholarly metaphysics. Again, strawman.

Did I say all? No. And I have clearly stated multiple times that my problem with philosophy is the metaphysical schools of thought that make claims about reality without any empirical evidence being legitimate fields philosophy. You literally just strawmanned my argument in making your strawman accusation.

If you are "bothered" by metaphysics in philosophy on the whole, that is anti-intellectual...

And if you're not bothered by philosophers mixing the metaphysical with the physical and ignoring the empirically proven laws of reality then you're anti-scientific, so your point is? Also, not on the whole, but when philosophers try to use the metaphysical to makes claims about reality itself which is physical.

It's the same with philosophy. If someone is spewing crap, then that's on them, not on the field of philosophy of science or metaphysics. You haven't given any evidence, empirical or other, to show that this is a pervasive "problem" in philosophy. Science need criticism from philosophers and vice verse.

So you're saying that interpretivist, anti-positivist, or relativist schools of thought are uncommon in modern philosophy? The schools of thought that rather than focus on modeling reality accurately and understanding the cause of and effect of things ask the age old question of why or try to ascribe meaning to something that may or may not be meaningless? Yeah, certainly, they're just not common whatsoever, right?

[Thresh1]

Did I say all? No. And I have clearly stated multiple times that my problem with philosophy is the metaphysical schools of thought that make claims about reality without any empirical evidence being legitimate fields philosophy. You literally just strawmanned my argument in making your strawman accusation.

Which field in metaphysics or school of thought do you have a problem with? And it goes without saying that you can make claims about reality without empirical evidence.

And btw, you DID say that you dislike philosophy in general, because it isn't a good tool for knowledge. "I'd like to clarify why I dislike philosophy. I dislike it because it's not a good tool for gaining knowledge,"

When it's the only tool we've got for some questions, I think I'll go with philosophy instead of nothing, lol.

And if you're not bothered by philosophers mixing the metaphysical with the physical and ignoring the empirically proven laws of reality then you're anti-scientific, so your point is?

If philosophers truly are mixing the metaphysical with the physical, then that would be a mistake. But it wouldn't be a "thing I dislike about philosophy" anymore than scientists saying dumb things are a "thing I dislike about a science." It is simply bad philosophy, and it isn't representative of any school in philosophy. It would be illogical, which would be pointed out in peer review.

Also, not on the whole, but when philosophers try to use the metaphysical to makes claims about reality itself which is physical.

Reality is physical....hmmmm. That is a metaphysical assumption by you. This is exactly what I was predicting was true. I said, "You just want your own metaphysical views to be the TRUE one and to dismiss all others that cause you issues." But the problem is, you don't even know you're doing this. Peter Atkins has the same disease, lol. You don't even understand the criticisms that are leveled against your metaphysics because you are simply uncritically assuming your own position and philosophers tend to call you out on that.

Maybe you should try to understand what they are saying before you dismiss entire schools of thought, rofl.

So you're saying that interpretivist, anti-positivist, or relativist schools of thought are uncommon in modern philosophy? The schools of thought that rather than focus on modeling reality accurately and understanding the cause of and effect of things ask the age old question of why or try to ascribe meaning to something that may or may not be meaningless? Yeah, certainly, they're just not common whatsoever, right?

You are simply assuming that they are not modeling reality accurately. Why would these be a problem for you unless you don't want to listen to their insights? Logical positivism tried and failed miserably. Why don't you understand that these schools of thought are helpful in shaping an accurate view of reality?

Also, as someone mentioned earlier, all fields assume their subject of study.

Again, if the existence of schools of thought that you disagree with is "something you dislike about philosophy," then why not the existence of differing scientific camps? Or maybe you shouldn't assume that you know everything about reality and ignore all criticism to the contrary.