Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?
From: Patrick Reany (reany_at_asu.edu)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 20:59:34 -0700
dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrncgirmb.95f.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Patrick Reany:
> >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
> >> Use some common sense patrick. The concept here is not hard to grasp,
> >> even if at some level real questions arise that don't have an obvious
> >> answer. Is there any way to describe even a single phenomenon with a
> >> formula rather than a data set consisting of the entire universe? If the
> >> answer is yes, then obviously there exists some redundancy somewhere.
> >> How formal would like me to be?
> >
> >I'll speak for myself, not for Robert, though we do agree on many
> >points.
> >
> >1) When you say "obviously there exists some redundancy somewhere" are
> >you proclaiming a Truth of existence or merely a personal belief.
>
> I'm proclaiming a ``Truth'' (to use your terminology). The fact that
> I can compress a file is proof. My files obviously inhabit the universe.
Sure, the same way that the images of ducks inhabit clouds.
> If you were looking for something less obvious, the fact that we can't
> discover any phenomena that don't fit two, very short theories, means
> there's a whole lot of redundancy. That reduces the universe to the
> universe itself minus the redundancy we've already established and
> quantified. Unless you believe it's turtles all the way down, that
> leaves a finite amount of the universe left to quantify.
So, what you're claiming is the metaphysical claim that something
called "redundancy" exists in the universe, and that this existence is
"obvious." And you know this to be True because of the economy of
human physical laws?
>
> >I will gladly concede to the claim as a personal belief, since I hold to
> >it too, though in a circumspect way. We can never prove that any
> >formula is a perfecty accurate replacment for any number of data
> >points.
>
> Redundancy is the solution for not having perfect accuracy, not a
> requirement to discover perfect accuracy.
Human theories are the answer for not having perfect accuracy.
>
> >2) The issue of the infinite number of tests of theories is only about
> >proving theories True, not about believing in them, since one is free
> >and even rational to believe in theories that aren't proved true so
> >long as they work rather well.
>
> There is not an infinite number of anything.
Spacetime models a infinite number of events. However, infinity can
always be replaced by 10^100000000000 < oo number of events. That
should keep you busy just the same.
>
> >It's rational to use what works.
>
> I would certainly hope someone who designs airplanes has things
> pinned down better than that. Curve fitting is a theory that works.
Why do you call it a "theory" rather than a "technique"?
> Cueve fitting not only works, it's a perfect theory. There exist
> no N points that aren't exactly specified by an N-1 order polynomial
> or any other set of orthogonal functions. Why do physicists choose
> to fit decay spectra with two parameters and a log function rather
> than the polynomial that represents the log function? Because
> physicists believe the log function contains meaningful physics
> and says something about nature.
>
>
[snip]
> >3) When I say that theories are supposed to "work well," I mean that
> >they are supposed to work well to make predictions of measurements.
> >The theories that work well provide us with a reasonable basis for
> >believing in them, but not that they are either true or that their
> >models employed are true.
>
> I'm sorry, but so long as you cannot see past the superficial
> implementation of a particular law of physics as an equation like
> F = q^2/r^2 as the law itself, there's not much I can say.
I distinguish between an appearant rule that guides the behavior of
the natural realm, which I call a "law of nature," and the
mathematical rules humans invent to describe, in anthropomorphic
terms, natural phenomena (such as your example F = q^2/r^2) as a "law
of physics." Some philosophers doubt the existence of laws of nature,
but I don't.
I do not know where the laws of nature "exist." I'm not willing to
commit to a claim that they exist "in the universe" itself. The whole
question of their existence is irrelevant to physics anyway. Physics
only needs the laws of physics.
>
> [...]
> >> What does it mean to be neither logical nor illogical?
> >
> >
> >Before I answer, I want to thank you for actually asking a question to
> >get clarification of something I said.
> >
> >To claim that the universe is literally "logical" is like saying that
> >"All invisible gods are purple." Both sentences make no sense as
> >claims to be verified. We have no meaning or procedure for verifying them.
>
> Come on, patrick. Your example is an attempt to choose two mutually
> exclusive properties which are mutually exclusive by definition (purple
> and invisible) and equate that to choosing between one of two mutually
> exclusive properties (logical and illogical) as a comparison. On the other
> hand, I can use your example as an example of symmetry breaking.
>
> I really hate this sort of example, since I always feel like I'm
> explaining something in terms of a romper-room philosophical argument,
> but I can't seem to get the point across any other way. You mistake
> any specific example to illustrate a very broad generality as an
> excuse to create an argument regarding the limitations of the specific
> details of the example. So, let me translate your example into a field
> theory with a spontaneously broken symmetry.
>
>
> (1) So long as all gods are invisible (meaning that there exists no
> physical process in the universe that would indicate their presence),
> they don't exist. Nature itself has provided no property which
> gives the concept any meaning. This is called a symmetry. Symmetries
> mean something is unobservable.
>
> (2) All of a suddent nature changes the laws of physics and we discover
> gods because some property makes it possible to detect them by
> by whatever effect they have on the universe. We call the property,
> purple. Now, if we were naive and assumed the that was all there
> was to purple gods, we'd be thinking about nature much like you
> and most people do. They just exist.
>
> (3) But in physics, we ask more fundamental questions, which in
> retrospect are rather obvious like why purple? By being a
> bit clever, we deduce that purple is one of an infinite
> number of possibilities which we call degenerate vacuua.
> In the true vacuum state, gods don't exist because no such
> property purple exists. The universe was forced to make
> a choice from among an infinite number of different laws
> of physics that would follow.
>
>
> (4) We call that choice ``spontaneous symmetry breaking''. We say
> the real symmetry, the entire set of possible equivalent options,
> is ``hidden in the ground state''. The true symmetry is that
> the universe is invariant under a transformation which rotates
> purple to green. Prior to the symmetry breaking, purple had
> no significance, so it's no longer relevant to the theory we
> are interested in nor are the gods through which the universe
> gave purple some significance.
>
> >Those who want to claim that the universe is literally "logical" are
> >addicted to anthropomorphizing the universe in their own "thought
> >image." What are things that can be logical? 1) thinking, 2) theories
> >(because they are by definition deductive systems), 3)descriptions
> >(when they're structured as deductive systems) 4, .... 5) ....
>
> OK. You assume then, that the universe has a set of physical laws
> which differ from the physical laws of that which the universe contains.
> Have you ever seriously thought about the possibility that the universe
> and what it contains are not independent? The universe is not simply
> a container into which some arbitrary contents were added.
>
> >However, if what is meant by the statement "The universe is logical"
> >is "Our human description of the universe is logical," then that
> >statement actually makes sense (is meaningful), as descriptions are
> >things capable of being logical. I happen to agree that overall, "Our
> >human description of the universe is logical."
>
> So, in other words, we can organize what is inherently illogical
> into a logical structure? This sort of mental masturbation is precisely
> what gives philosophy a bad name. I feel sorry for the contingent of
> philosophers to whom john baez has referred who are truly making an
> attempt at employing philosophy in a useful way that they hope will
> assist physicists at the same time. The rest of this sort of crap
> only makes it harder for such persons to establish any scientific
> credibility.
>
> >The first requirement of a statement (proposition) is that it make
> >sense, then we can decide if it's true of not, or likely or not.
>
> All you are doing is asking why for the sake of asking why, not because
> you think there's a point to asking. I can only conclude that you think
> that asking a question is somehow an intellectual endeavor so long as
> one implicitly assumes the question can't be answered. For some reason,
> only the unwashed masses ask a question and consider the possibility of
> answering it.
The universe is NOT a thinking being capable of logical thought nor is
it an argument or a deductive system, so it cannot be "logical." Logic
is not a possible predicate of the term "universe."
Patrick
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: John Wilkins: "Re: Science, Religion, Philosophy."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
