talkmagic.co.uk

SamGurney wrote:Physics is by it's nature philosophy.

This idea bothers me. I've thought about it for a few days, and it still bothers me. Would you be so kind as to defend it in the context of, say, Newton's Second Law (F = ma)?

Let Lawrence Krauss sort it all out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

Tomo wrote:

SamGurney wrote:Physics is by it's nature philosophy.

This idea bothers me. I've thought about it for a few days, and it still bothers me. Would you be so kind as to defend it in the context of, say, Newton's Second Law (F = ma)?

I concur with Mr Tomo here.
Physics is maths; how can this be philosophical? 1+1=2 however you look at it; any arguement to the contrary is just an algebraic issue through a lack of proper understanding of mathematics.
I don't mean to sound like I'm having a dig here, if you can give me a reasonable arguement I'd really be very interested to hear it.

greedoniz wrote:Let Lawrence Krauss sort it all out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

Great lecture! Very much in the mould of Feynman. Lots of laughs with some profound ideas.

Sorry... impetuous phrasing. I stand by my opinion, although I expressed it inaccuratley but it was right of you to challenge me to explain myself better on this point.

Scientific method is to make observation and experiment, to describe accuratley the nature of such and such a phenomena and then to attribute that phenomena to certain causes or processes. This latter part of science we call 'explanation'. Now, if this is granted, then I say that it follows that physics can only senisbly be studied through scientific method in terms of describing phenomena, namley by conducting experiments and then determining the equations which seem to govern what is observed but that once it tries to explain phenomena through causes and processes, it becomes philosophy.
My reasoning is that in biology, such a scientific process of observation and explanation is unphilosophical, in so far as there is no ambiguity or real philosophical questions aroused by an explanation that- 'mould grows because cells divide'. But in philosophy, our phenomena are themselves causes- 'this massive object a causes 'motion' in this massive object b'. To provide an explanation, which is neccesserily causal, of a phenomena which is itself a cause, is to ask what the cause of a cause is. This is quite clearly philosophical. That is to say, it must transcend the senses. Causes are themselves a concept we become familiar with through our 'intuition' (how this occurs is a massive question amongst philosophers) and this is implied by the fact that they are what our observation is in physics, is observation of a cause- now to explain what caused the cause we must go beyond the sensory form of causes initially used for our observation in order to provide an explanation and at any point this occurs, we are entering the realms of philosophy. In biology, there is clearly something sensible and tangible occuring which is not related to questions of going beyond the senses, and the explanation can be stated in terms with which the senses are already familiar.
I would argue then, that F=ma, is science and not philosophy since Newton makes no effort to explain what caused his causes- he simply invoked the idea of a 'Force'. We have no idea what a force is or what causes it, but we can note from experiment certain properties of that idea and put our observation into mathematical form.
Einstein's field equations however, are philosophy, since they try to explain what a force is through ideas which neccesserily transcend the domain of the senses. That is to say, Einstein tries to record the cause of causal phenomena. He cannot do this with certainty, and Einstein's idea of a force being a change in velocity owing to a change in the rate of time in order to explain the rate of change of velocity with respect to time may be said to add little by way of explanation.
I have defended my position terribly as... well, I can't explain it and in all honesty, I have been in better moods in which I could express myself properly. But I am somewhat sure of my position, certainly as I understand it. When putting the understanding into words, there is always the danger that words become more important than meaning and everything becomes confused and irritating.
To conclude then, I don't think that theoretical physics should give up its endeavours, but simply that it sould accept subjectivity and the neccessity of philosophical questions of meaning which are simply not applicable to explanations in the 'material' sciences, with material explanations.
If I have made my case so poorly that it is completley misunderstood, I shall come back another day and try and explain it better perhaps when I am feeling more up to the clarity required of philosophical argument.

OK. I can see your point, I don't particularly agree with it, but I can see it now.
Fair play.

Glad to hear. Could I be cheeky and ask that you defend your position?

I watched that lecture... as far lots of popular science (I will avoid the term I use for derision of 'pop science') goes, this one was very good indeed. Perhaps I am biased, because I am glad to see someone giving string theory the treatment it deserves- mockery.

Talking of string theory, that is exactley what I meant by my posts. String theory is in my eyes, a peculiar infection spreading in modern physics which would be remedied by a little philosophy. I can understand how my position might sound to someone perhaps already less acquainted with it, but perhaps I could do the taboo and say 'if you understood my position, you'd understand it'- Philosophy puts many questions and indeed the whole of science into a much deeper context, where more profound connections and significances may be pondered in order to explain and ultimatley realised, somewhat hermeneutically, from the 'instrumentalist' view of the purley scientific approach to physics that I hold. Of course, theories, which are what I say are always philosophical in physics, can be falsified and proved wrong, and from experiment in must be accepted that there is some sort of 'truth' to them, but ultimatley they can never be certain and are always philsophical. Philosophy, can also narrow one's mind quite usefully by training it to ask questions which have meaning and are of use... and that is why I say it would kill off string theory as the nonsense that it is, which has no meaning and no use. String theory, though, is perhaps less a question of philosophy and more the product of general infectious craze in physics, which because it is widespread, is respected and even more infectious and the fact it is lazy and rather stupid thinking becomes ignored, because it is presumed that scientists would not fall for such laziness or stupidity. I am not an expert on it (perhaps being an expert would be a disadvantage, insofar as I may become seduced) but I understand its general context in physics and its implications and why it has been accepted and I know enough to know that I don't want to waste my time becoming an expert on it... it is as if some physicists took the paradigm of schrodinger's thoughts and the paradigm of feynman diagrammes and thought the childish thought which plauges modern physics: 'what if? (insert something crazy and 'imaginative') ...' instead of 'let us suppose (insert something reasonable, which has some general reason behind it)... and then examine the implications.'

David Attenborough once told of his proffessor who dismissed a geological theory because there was no evidence for it, calling it 'moonshine'. On reflection, from simply looking at a map I believe it was worth consideration, and it was simple and... as a good initial test for a scientific theory... it didn't involve eleven dimensions, so it was probably worth considering a little. But Attenborough should be carefull that he doesn't insult his proffessor's attitude- at least he said he would wait for evidence. I too, will wait for evidence. But I will not be 'open minded' for fear of being wrong, nor will I be close minded out of conservativism (which is what his proffessor was). Because to adopt open mindedness out of fear of being wrong, is to accept absurdity as possible simply because in the past other have been close minded and proven wrong. But there is a big difference between being rational and close minded. Besides, as I pointed out, many people have been recorded falsley as being close minded, when in fact they may have been correct. So, until any evidence or any more rationality is introduced into the field of string theory, it is no more than 'moonshine' and I look forward to being proved wrong.

With my maths head on i just say it's not real maths if there isn't a proof; and i guess when all you have it a theory there can be arguements against it.
Suppose this is why i always stayed with applied and never ventured into theoretical at uni.

If you can't prove something I just can't believe in it