Are quantum physicisists truly scientific in their pursuits?

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

.....Or are they(at least those who were pioneers in quantum theory) driven by a pre-conceived point of view bordering on philosophy?

Why I am asking this question is because most of the pioneers in quantum theory have been deeply influenced by eastern philosophy.

Einstein propounded the idea of a unified field theory which clearly draws parallel to eastern philosophical concepts.

Neils Bohr was a well documented Upanishadic scholar.

John Wheeler was drawn to the Upanishads too.


Just to name a few.

Why shouldn't the quantum physicists be driven by a philosophical goal in mind, which looks like a scientific goal, such as a unified field theory?

Shouldn't we all be wary of quantum physics? What if one day these scientists say that 'We have discovered that reality is indeed divine'?

Just something to chew on for the scientifically inclined.

 

[Brimshack]

It looks like you've confounded questions about influence with those of methodology. If you have specific reasons for believing the methods of any particular physicist are not scientific, then you should probably make your case. As it stands, this appears to be a generalization made entirely on the basis of loose biographical observations.

The speculation with which you end your post is pretty pointless. What if they do? Do you think the rest of your post describes facts which make that more likely?

 

[JGL53]

Well, if my atheist buddies will excuse the religious metaphor - the Holy Grail of both the ultimate scientific disciplines of cosmology and particle physics has been to engage in radical reductionism to eventually reduce all to a single explanatory theory, a theory of everything (TOE) or grand unification theory (GUT) - i.e.,to a final ONE answer or one final "something".

Eastern thought over the last four thousand years or so has a major tradition of conceiving of ultimate reality in the metaphysical language of pantheistic monism - or ultimate oneness.

These two ideas comport exactly, it is true. It is either a coincidence or (I think) just the fact that the rational experimental science of the west and the intuitive and experiential "realization" knowledge of the east just discovered the correct metaphysics of reality by different methods and at different times.

In the meantime, the three monotheistic or abrahamic religions of the west are just a big waste of time, that cause way more misery than could ever possibly be necessary, and are basically just examples of illogic, magical thinking and superstition at their very worse - excepting scientology, I suppose.

So, then - what exactly is the problem?

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

It looks like you've confounded questions about influence with those of methodology. If you have specific reasons for believing the methods of any particular physicist are not scientific, then you should probably make your case. As it stands, this appears to be a generalization made entirely on the basis of loose biographical observations.

I admit I have a reason for why I created this thread.

I realized that whenever discussing something about philosophy, people used recent discoveries in quantum physics to negate a point made. So I really started wondering why quantum physics plays a more than expected role on a philosophy board.

So when I did some research I figured out that there were more than a cooincidental number of people who were Upanishadic afficionados, who had pioneered the quantum theory.

So I thought 'why shouldn't it be a possibility that Niels Bohr just did not accidetally come upon the subatomic model, but was driven by an intention to prove classical physics wrong and somehow unite science and philosophy?'

The speculation with which you end your post is pretty pointless. What if they do? Do you think the rest of your post describes facts which make that more likely?

Will people who use quantum physics to dismiss a point of view be able to accept it if quantum physics scientifically prove something like a divine reality(if the people in question did not believe in a 'divine' in the first place) ?

My whole intention is to request people to debate using your reasoning and logic. Why use scientific discoveries to debate philosophy?

My post is not intended at anyone specifically.

 

[Brimshack]

Broad Strokes and Giant Leaps, not to mention, not to mention a total a rather marked inattention to context. My suspicion here is that you could stand to pay more attention to the specifics of whatever argument led you down this tangent. If you're going to wander all over the place like this, I don't see much point.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Broad Strokes and Giant Leaps, not to mention, not to mention a total a rather marked inattention to context. My suspicion here is that you could stand to pay more attention to the specifics of whatever argument led you down this tangent. If you're going to wander all over the place like this, I don't see much point.

Looking back at my post, I admit I terribly wandered all over the place . Thanks for pointing it out. It would be better if this thread dies out which I am sure it will.

 

[Brimshack]

...or develops a little more focus.

I'm actually thinking my own posts were way too cranky. I mean, yes, I do think there is a problem, but it's prbably not as bad as all that. Please accept my apologies. I'm even more fun at parties.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

...or develops a little more focus.

I'm actually thinking my own posts were way too cranky. I mean, yes, I do think there is a problem, but it's prbably not as bad as all that. Please accept my apologies.

Hey, humility does the trick, after all!

I'm even more fun at parties.

Good to have you besides if one needs to get sober fast, huh!

 

[Eudaimonist]

.....Or are they(at least those who were pioneers in quantum theory) driven by a pre-conceived point of view bordering on philosophy?

I think there is a difference between being "driven by a pre-conceived point of view", and getting inspiration from somewhere to form a testable hypothesis. I suspect it is the second that is closer to the truth.

Why shouldn't the quantum physicists be driven by a philosophical goal in mind, which looks like a scientific goal, such as a unified field theory?

There is no absolute divide between philosophy and science, but when one conducts science, one should always be prepared to give sway to the results of one's experimentation, not any pre-conceived philosophical ideas one might have used for inspiration.

Shouldn't we all be wary of quantum physics?

Yes! Not as if they were hucksters, but one should always take their views with a grain of salt. Their scientific views could be poisoned by false philosophical beliefs.

What if one day these scientists say that 'We have discovered that reality is indeed divine'?

I'm not exactly certain of how scientists could support such a conclusion through science, but if they were to do this convincingly, then I would believe that reality is divine.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Thanks for your well thought out reply, Eudaimonist. I try to post like you, cool and calm, but just let my thoughts overtake my fingers.

 

[Im_A]

.....Or are they(at least those who were pioneers in quantum theory) driven by a pre-conceived point of view bordering on philosophy?

Why I am asking this question is because most of the pioneers in quantum theory have been deeply influenced by eastern philosophy.

Einstein propounded the idea of a unified field theory which clearly draws parallel to eastern philosophical concepts.

Neils Bohr was a well documented Upanishadic scholar.

John Wheeler was drawn to the Upanishads too.


Just to name a few.

Why shouldn't the quantum physicists be driven by a philosophical goal in mind, which looks like a scientific goal, such as a unified field theory?

Shouldn't we all be wary of quantum physics? What if one day these scientists say that 'We have discovered that reality is indeed divine'?

Just something to chew on for the scientifically inclined.

i don't know too much about quantum theory. but what i have heard about it, i'm leary of it personally.

i feel as Eudaimonist. i'm skeptical of what i have heard so far, because of the philosophical degrees that come with it, that first must be believed to even believe the claims hold to any ground of truth. a pre-conceived personal belief getting in the way of scientific reasoning/proof leads me to concern.

cause looking at it from a Christian perspective, if the claims of quatum physics is true, faith would un-needed. ironic how it would work out in the favor of so called proving God, but yet it would clearly destroy faith.

and looking it from a non-Christian point of view, the opinions and beliefs prior is obvious with whatever method of proof because the outcome shows this as a reality.

but i'm always interested in discussion with this topic. not to make me stronger, but just interested in the new ideas that evolve as the brains of human beings evolve.

God Bless you! <><

 

[michabo]

Many people think think that science takes observations and then tries to unite them under a theory. However that's very difficult. After all, what do you observe, and how do you know what's related?

Most commonly, people come up with insights, intuitive flashes, or philosophical goals, then formalize them into a theory and try to support or falsify them. It may be that these scientists were motivated by philosophy (though I have serious doubts that any eastern philosophy played even a minor role). Whatever the sparks were that started the investigation, it doesn't matter now.

There have been many people that have tried to unite eastern mysticism with quantum mechanics, as with the Dancing Wu Li Masters and You Don't Know Bleep, but these are scientific horrors and mediocre philosophies. What we need is someone to understand the science and try to infer the philosophical implications, rather than to start with philosophy and try to ram in the science as this is doomed to fail.

 

[StrugglingSceptic]

My whole intention is to request people to debate using your reasoning and logic. Why use scientific discoveries to debate philosophy?

Because questions addressed in philosophy are addressed in other authoritative fields of inquiry as well, and so if you want informed answers, you should pay attention to the research in those fields. This is not exclusive to science, and certainly not to quantum mechanics. For instance, philosophical inquiry into the nature of time is uninformed nowadays when it does not account for the theory of relativity. And ever since Galileo's early scientific work, you have been better off asking a scientist to describe the laws of motion than you have reading Aristotle. It is not just science either. Philosophical arguments concerning the infinite, such as Zeno's paradoxes, or the beginning of Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument, are somewhat naive nowadays if they do not consider mathematical research into the infinite.

In the case of quantum mechanics, we have a highly valued enterprise that has produced an extremely well-tested theory putting a big question mark on the nature of cause and effect. If a philosopher is going to make claims about cause and effect in an argument, they would do well to find out if modern science is consistent with them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thanks for your well thought out reply, Eudaimonist. I try to post like you, cool and calm, but just let my thoughts overtake my fingers.

Thanks, I use this method to encourage rationality in my discussion partners so that the discussion may be productive.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Because questions addressed in philosophy are addressed in other authoritative fields of inquiry as well, and so if you want informed answers, you should pay attention to the research in those fields. This is not exclusive to science, and certainly not to quantum mechanics. For instance, philosophical inquiry into the nature of time is uninformed nowadays when it does not account for the theory of relativity. And ever since Galileo's early scientific work, you have been better off asking a scientist to describe the laws of motion than you have reading Aristotle. It is not just science either. Philosophical arguments concerning the infinite, such as Zeno's paradoxes, or the beginning of Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument, are somewhat naive nowadays if they do not consider mathematical research into the infinite.

In the case of quantum mechanics, we have a highly valued enterprise that has produced an extremely well-tested theory putting a big question mark on the nature of cause and effect. If a philosopher is going to make claims about cause and effect in an argument, they would do well to find out if modern science is consistent with them.

I agree. What you say perfectly makes sense.

Only one clarification I wish to make. The 'concept' of relativity is not new to the eastern philosophies and the eastern philosophies use this 'relative' concept in their worldview. But it serves more of a philosophical purpose(talk about what is real and unreal) than a scientific one(to learn and know what it is).