About philosophy. Book “Facing Up”, by Steven Weinberg.
=…
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions
about scientific knowledge) as part of their job description to help
scientists in their research. . . . . why this should be? Why should
the philosophy of science not be of more help to scientists? I raise
this question here not in order to attack the philosophy of science,
but because I think it is an interesting question – perhaps even
philosophically interesting,”
/ page 84 /
“ . . . it’s not the job of physicists or other scientists to define truth;
that is the job of philosophers. If they haven’t done that job, too bad
for them”
/ page 104 /
“My point is rather that no sense can be made of the notion of reality
as it has ordinarily functioned in the philosophy of science”
/page 205/
“Fortunately we need not allow philosophers to dictate how
philosophical arguments are to be applied in the history
of science, or in scientific research itself, . . . .”
/page 205/
“Certainly philosophers can do us a great service in their attempts
to clarify what we mean by truth and reality,”
/page 206/
=====…
We know that “truth” and “reality” mean in our everyday life
(for example we have no trouble to use these words in a supermarket).
But can we explain “truth” and “reality” in science / physics on
the logical “supermarket” level? Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr and
other physicists were sure that it is possible.
===…
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity
and confusion of things.”
/ Isaac Newton /
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”
/ Albert Einstein. /
“A theory that you can’t explain to a bartender is probably no damn good.”
/ Ernest Rutherford /
“It is often claimed that knowledge multiplies so rapidly that
nobody can follow it. I believe this is incorrect. At least
in science it is not true. The main purpose of science is simplicity
and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler.
This, of course, goes contrary to what everyone accepts.”
/ Edward Teller /
==…
It seems that philosophers haven’t done their job.
==…
Best wishes.
Israel Socratus
==…
One way to analyse science is to think about model.
String model.
Where did string-particle come from: from guitar or from violin?
===…
Whatever happens it must happen in a space/time/matter/
" Physicists build philosophical castles in the air;
philosophers move in; government pay the rent. "
It is happened in our earthly space/time//matter/
===…
Really, causality defines causality in a recursive loop? We inevitable end up with an increasing entropic ordering. Inevitability, time… it’s so much more than sequential reactions in spacetime, if such a concept as space time even reflects reality even remotely.
Its back to the concept of the Unmoved Mover as a resolution paradox if we accept your thinking.
Try this instead:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl90tNtKvxs
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_flow_problem
Besides the oxymoronic trespass of every scientist being a philosopher of “natural philosophy”, and waxing poetic in their nomenclature, they are still thinking scientifically, based off a hypothosis, usually just a position as against a competing hypothesis. This can be charted on the algorithm in the links above.
The goal should be to resolve “beauty” as the final solution, not a aesthetic means, by calculating all hypothesis against themselves, finding the paths least frictive, with the largest gain.
In order to do this, we have to control what we expect- a hypothesis is a largely a priori construct, we know on observation usually only that what we can observe, and short of a big bang, we don’t notice what is unexpected. Observation is fixed, so our empericism is presumed… but does the beginning of a experiment justify it’s presumed end? Is the experiment reflective of the underlining reality, or are we thinking in terms much less than what is being recorded by us? Did matter and causality order itself for our observational needs? Did we really crunch every possible variable?
No. Why?
Nope. We aren’t in control of the hypothesis, if you mean me sitting here, you in the lab… your practicing philosophy, using mnemonic directives to access memory of functional values, and presume to know expected behavior on a formulaic basis. Your no different than any Greek philosopher with his heads up his ass and into the clouds contemplating physics.
Truth is a effect, never stable under observation. Reason why, we didn’t evolve that way, life rejects this. Truth is a evolving synthesis in Heraclitian Flux, it’s why we have REM sleep, a adaptive nervous system, and a imagination. We can assert, believe, and doubt. There is no sense of values beyond presumptions, Value Ontology is a meaningless flop of a shameful, bullshit escape from philosophy.
We constantly lateralize, between truth and empirical data. We expect cessation, pleasure or pain to affirm. Its not coming, if you got it, your doing science wrong.
What is the one defining principle of all sentient life? The one thing we ate certain of? Its dualistic… it’s in a dialectic, binary the simplest expression of it’s intelligence, organs to process the code.
So why the fuck does science get to become transcendental to this process, hiding in Theories of Everything, Truths, Values, Names, Being, Becoming? Existence between metaphysical extremes?
All it does is asserts the same feedback loops reinforcing one another over and over again. We get a scientific community when we all get hooked on the same monoamine cascade effect, reinforcing our presumptions.
Maybe the trick is, to stop worrying so damn much about Ontology and Telelogy in scientific experimentation, and look at the epistemic structures instead.
We can’t determine how these flow maps in the mind begin or end on a macro level. We say something baby gibberish like “Culture” or “Ideology”, and map out a silly Eschatology, say we’re atheists, most rational… and come up with some pretty fucking backwards ideas that are embarrassingly pushed aside in later generations.
I think our inability of the right hand nor knowing what the left hand is doing in science, and human thinking at large, parallels our inability to solve causality paradoxes.
We are basically using a kind of flow maximization algorithm, set into motion by opposite ends of the mind that can’t see one another, but are symbiotically tied together. Neither subject nor object, but the alpha and omega of each others process.
What is rationality, what is truth? Can the two ever know one another? No, never… but we can’t think scientifically unless we accept this paradox as the foundation of our logic. Hypothesis has invisible beginnings and ends, you can’t see one side and the other simultaneously. Brain is dependent on feedback loops to think, so there will always be subjective blind spots, where we presume objectivity. Computers can’t erase it, we just put our trust in them to better optimize our presumptions, do a better job at types of thinking.
Were dealing with flow calculations, and each path is a hypothesis, and we can’t know how many are in play unless we count every nerve in every brain, run a formula based on that, and tell ourselves what our limitations are.
Are you ready to see the limits on Beauty? To be told the universe is greater than we can ever know, and here is the proof of our limits? That is a brutal, painful beauty. It will be the most beautiful form of mathematics we can ever know, because it will make the most sense in application after application, our every understanding. Maybe as a species we can expand and prosper for seemingly ever… I just see one problem. Our capacity to think Physics is terrestrial. We see movements like frogs, at the size of frogs. We panic at the size of mammals on earth, we instinctively fight for air kicking as if we are drowning, or caught in something.
I’m not sure if a really rational aspect to our thinking process exists… we’ve never been smaller than a organelle, or larger than a blue whale with minds like ours on earth.What is the use of beauty on the event horizon of a black hole, where our every instinct is a sham?
Will we adapt? Yep… optimize the flow again and again… but the whole time we would be butterfingers with safety protocols and plain old isolation safety figures to keep us from fucking our precarious survival up. What can we really know about the universe beyond running through the same old mazes we’ve been running through in our thinking for the last few billion years on earth. Just how plastic is our brain, can it make a truly radical adaptation, reordering what is hardwired like a brain of a amputee rewiring the cells of a missing limb through phantom pains, eventually to entirely new uses?
Its similar to what I wrote to Gib in my last PM, just phrased differently, with a emphasis on phenomological appreciation of extremes and occurances when the senses are indulged in both subtle and extreme contrast… the stuff that paradox, duality, is made of. Too bad he didn’t take my advice, it would do him a lot of good.
Scientists discover new facts and laws in nature and give them
different interpretations. Today they come to conclusion that
the Universe was begun from “Big Bang”. But “big bang”
cannot be the origin of nature because “big bang” doesn’t give
answer to the question: “ Where did the masses for big bang
come from?” Somebody can think that God created these masses.
And if Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics.” it is also because the beginning
of creation was chosen wrong.
Therefor philosophers must explain physicists, astronomers, . . . . .
to understand this fact and help them to find another source of
creation of the Universe. But philosophers haven’t done their job.
===========…
Feynman did a lot of the work already, hus main accomplishment in mathematics wasnt any formula, but showing people how to think better.He has over 14 pages of mentions on this siye (and I am one of them, six pages back), but I do t think anyone here actually grasped ehat he was saying. My post in this thread is a conscious build on his ideas, I had him in mind when I wrote it.