Einstein as the great philosopher/science he was ( how ever he is seen ) came up with his philosophic doctrines of “relativity”. His gravity worping theorys are as we know are not the undisputable theorys that Newtons had for centurys, as there is also quantum mechanics in my view seen from a much more empirical, observational side of science. Is science waiting for a Kant? does anyone think someone will match Einsteins Rational side of science with Plancks Empirical side of science? if anyone is familar with Popper, he believes the answer lies in the reduction of chemistry into physics and one day perhaps biology.
Biology is just chemistry which is but physics. The only issue is one of complexity. We could make good empirical predictions of biology if we had the computational power to resolve the necessary equations.
What something like quantum computers? All the major computer producers like IBM are trying to build such computers and believe they will and could radicalise the whole way we look at science as it could calculate every atom in the universe (if big enough;) even though it would still be fixed in ower dimensional awareness, and so never true, only relative to what we could detect. If reducing science into one comprehensible method wouldnt that not be just simplifing it! then it would go all backwards: look at physics, it simply lies in energy and understanding things in there connected fields-chemistry since plato has now became the quantum in its giving characteristics to elements (like people gave spiritual powers to fire, earth etc.) Today chemistry resembles a “wicka basket” structure from many cultures with its angular momentum and diracs light absorbing equations, chemistry looks more like something we wont then something that is.
Genetics in biology looks like it could be reduced into chemistry if quantum computers ever did come around, this though would be based in quantum (where you cant know what you already know and everthing is chance.) Einstein found energy to be determined, quantum finds nothing determined so i couldnt see quantum computers ever been built without some new scientific concept to match them.
Then you could ask “why bother?”
I suppose it is a learning curve and some sort of animal stimulas for more technology: As it was science fiction/myth–that created conspiracy.
Is that deliberately unintelligable, or have I missed something?
Think I can decipher it if I correct some speeling istakes, but you are heading off into perception/reality arguments that are all a bit dull.
I think people are expecting a little too much of quantum computing. For a start, it is hugely complicated, and secondly, probably limited by the imagination of the people who build it - i.e. humans. People are equally placing great store in DNA computers, becasue it offers a massively parallel procesing advantage over binary, but it is extremely limited in what it can do. I get the impression that it will be very hard to build a simultion of the universe without actually simulating the universe. Predictions to suit our needs will be of reduced complexity. Regarding genetics, there is no need to calculate the interactions of genes from the ground up, because the fine complexity becomes irrelevant at a certain level. As much effort must be invested in measurement as in computing power so as to ensure we understand the many permutations that must eventually be modelled.
There is no telling where philosophy and science are ultimately headed. They are however intertwined. No one is just a philosopher or just a scientist, but a little of both. Einstein also had some thoughts about god, although I’m not sure that he ever expressed a religious bias. What bothers me is that most people do not grasp the importance of the scientific method in deciding what is true. It doesn’t take scientific training to understand that something has to be repeatable to be true. That’s the essence of the scientific method. One time occurances are not enough, nor is one guru’s opinion. We do not have to do the experiments ourselves, but should at least look for an allegation that someone tested for repeatability. If the issue is important then we should then look to see if someone assessed the testor’s qualifications and read what they actually reported.
We need more evidences from experimental results that always precise and accurate when every time you carry out the experiment to support his theory than philosophy of his theory.