Is science at odds with philosophy?

[SelfSim]

I think the default position with most scientists and perhaps science bodies is that reality is measured with the science method, that everything has a naturalistic cause.

The first is near enough to pass, ..

Whilst I'd agree that's probably the default position held, its also a philosophical one .. and a belief.

Reality is described (or defined) by science .. and the 'thing' it describes never gets measured .. science only ever measures (or tests) its models (or descriptions).

 

[Phred]

I spent a lot of time in philosophy class. I loved it. The only class where I was truly challenged to think. Not just figure out answers based upon data but THINK. For instance. Why is a chair a chair? What qualities make a chair a chair and not a stool? You can line up a whole bunch of these things right in front of you and you will know they are all "chairs." They have a quality. Let's call it -- chairness. Is it four legs and a seat and a back? Then tell me about a bean bag chair.

Or... tell me about the first human capable of seeing it and wondering to see the moon. What did that person think it was?

There is no science behind why a chair is a chair. You can't apply measurements and observations to laz-y-boys. Philosophy is about learning to THINK.

Don't be so fast to dismiss it.

 

[SelfSim]

... isn't it because quantum physics is at odds with how classical physics works which then brings philosophy into being something.

.. I wouldn't say classical physics is 'at odds' with quantum mechanics, it's more an emergent or limit approximation. I don't see how that 'brings philosophy into being something', unless you're suggesting that deciding on an interpretation of the quantum formalism is a philosophical exercise - are you? Otherwise, please explain what you had in mind.

It has been recently proven (in a published study) that when the assumptions, (which constrain the probabilities, such that Wigner's friend, in the Wigner's friend experiment), strictly 'obey' quantum mechanical laws, all of them cannot be satisfied throughout the thought experiment.

This then raises important questions about the notion of so-called 'persistent reality', (namely of the friend's perceptions). The proof, (a theorem .. here), demonstrates that it is impossible to consider the friend's perceptions, to be co-existent at different points in time.

This then, makes it questionable whether a quantum observer, in general, can consider their own past or future experiences, to be as 'real' as their present ones.

At least one of three key assumptions of quantum mechanics must be violated in this proof.
Which one is violated, then entirely depends on one's preferred interpretation of QM (as you appear to allow for, in your above response?)

What 'reality really is' however, is then subject to a specific, preferred, QM interpretation .. (which is clearly a philosophical choice).

It seems to me that quantum physics changes nothing in the relationship between science and philosophy - but if you care to argue your case, I'll be happy to listen and agree or disagree as appropriate.

I think that recent theorem above, argues that case quite nicely .. Ie: that what many scientist/philosophers merely assume as being a something which exists 'out there' .. and science is measuring, is just another philosophically held belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What precisely does it mean to observe in QM? It’s too small to see anything. When I read an explanation it seems to me like they’re saying that it just means that a person has become aware of it, but it also always seems like they’re skipping an explanation of how seeing in QM actual works. One person was making a point about how just the atoms that make up our bodies should be enough to interfere with a superposition state, so why would it even matter if we became aware of it or not. I just can’t visualize what they mean by the difference between the atoms of our body “Interfering” with superposition as opposed to us “Seeing” a superposition state.

An observation or measurement in QM is what happens when a quantum system in a superposition interacts with another quantum system and its superposition decoheres into the environment. If you are the observer or are associated with the measurement apparatus, you become aware of the outcome indirectly and long (by micro-timescales) after the decoherence has occurred.

You don't see a superposed state because (depending on your preferred interpretation) either all but one of the outcome possibilities mysteriously disappear, and the wavefunction instantaneously collapses to a single eigenstate (wavefunction collapse interpretations), or you and the environment join the superposition (because you are quantum systems too), i.e. you become a superposition of multiple versions of you, each of which sees a single outcome (Everettian 'Many Worlds'). There are other, less popular, interpretations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It has been recently proven (in a published study) that when the assumptions, (which constrain the probabilities, such that Wigner's friend, in the Wigner's friend experiment), strictly 'obey' quantum mechanical laws, all of them cannot be satisfied throughout the thought experiment.

This then raises important questions about the notion of so-called 'persistent reality', (namely of the friend's perceptions). The proof, (a theorem .. here), demonstrates that it is impossible to consider the friend's perceptions, to be co-existent at different points in time.

This then, makes it questionable whether a quantum observer, in general, can consider their own past or future experiences, to be as 'real' as their present ones.

At least one of three key assumptions of quantum mechanics must be violated in this proof.
Which one is violated, then entirely depends on one's preferred interpretation of QM (as you appear to allow for, in your above response?)

What 'reality really is' however, is then subject to a specific, preferred, QM interpretation .. (which is clearly a philosophical choice).
I think that recent theorem above, argues that case quite nicely .. Ie: that what many scientist/philosophers merely assume as being a something which exists 'out there' .. and science is measuring, is just another philosophically held belief.

Strictly speaking, experiments don't establish what reality is, only what happens when you do an experiment. We look for patterns in the results and try to devise testable models to explain them. If they pass the tests, we can say that the model is a good description of what happens (or how 'reality' behaves) when we do that kind of experiment. Going beyond that is speculative - 'hypothesis space'.

 

[SelfSim]

I spent a lot of time in philosophy class. I loved it. The only class where I was truly challenged to think. Not just figure out answers based upon data but THINK. For instance. Why is a chair a chair? What qualities make a chair a chair and not a stool? You can line up a whole bunch of these things right in front of you and you will know they are all "chairs." They have a quality. Let's call it -- chairness. Is it four legs and a seat and a back? Then tell me about a bean bag chair.

Or... tell me about the first human capable of seeing it and wondering to see the moon. What did that person think it was?

There is no science behind why a chair is a chair. You can't apply measurements and observations to laz-y-boys. Philosophy is about learning to THINK.

Don't be so fast to dismiss it.

.. and when the perception of 'chair, stools, bean bag and the moon', came up for them, they must have shared those perceptions with other similar minded human folk. That's how the words in quotes and italics there, then acquired their meanings. Those meanings are models. In science they're all testable ones (which makes them useful). Around a shared campfire, they might not be .. but they're still all demonstrably, models.

Your first paragraph above, reminds me of what philosophy always ignores in its haste to propagate its own mostly lacking-in-utility-value beliefs and its haste to give itself credit for thinking, which is: the recognition of the abundant evidence of how we create the beliefs which philosophy indulges itself in .. aka via the assignment of meanings of the words and concepts it always uses.

This is philosophy's own self-imposed blind spot .. and science exposes that fact.

 

[SelfSim]

Strictly speaking, experiments don't establish what reality is, only what happens when you do an experiment.

That is your own personally chosen philosophical viewpoint in operation there, and it can be easily substituted for other philosophical viewpoints, which then produces a completely different meaning for 'what reality is ..'.
No, Science never tests 'the thing itself', namely because what the thing itself is, is not accessible to us beyond our own sensory/brain preceptions .. it only every tests its models .. which change with new data (eg: what 'an atom' is, or what 'the universe' is .. they're just models).

You use the term 'reality' in your sentence above .. but never, ever, pause to consider (or demonstrate/recognise) 'the how' the meaning in that term comes about .. therefore I will do that and lay claim, (demonstrably showing, where necessary), that: the experiment provides the data, which allows science to (re)assign the meaning of the term 'reality', a term/concept which we humans are more than capable of controlling, (which is unlike your fixed, absolute interpretation of 'what reality must be' by way of apparent, mere (miraculous?) assertion).

My purpose in doing this, if one looks carefully, is an appropriate, objectively conceived, demonstration of swapping in another philosophy there, in order again a different viewpoint. What that does, is exposes how we actually use meanings to create our respective meanings of the term 'reality'.
The creationist/religion battles, so numerous in these forums, demonstrate clearly how two different meanings are held by way of assigning different meanings to that word/concept. What more often than not observably happens is, one or the other party just attempts to 'cancel' the other's meaning there, rather than simply acknowledge the objective evidence of what they're doing (evidence which is right in front of one's eyes, what's more). One actually has to look for, or at, that evidence though, rather than just trying to stomp it out .. which clearly, does not succeed (namely because of the intransigence brought on by failures in understanding how we go about assigning meanings to our respective, demonstrably different, perceptions of the same observations).

We look for patterns in the results and try to devise testable models to explain them. If they pass the tests, we can say that the model is a good description of what happens (or how 'reality' behaves) when we do that kind of experiment. Going beyond that is speculative - 'hypothesis space'.

.. and the patterns every objective thinker there, (aka: scientific thinkers), agree upon as being the worthwhile criteria for assessment of the results, comes from where, exactly?
Answer is: our shared, in-common human mind type .. and never from something which can be shown as existing independently from that mind driven process.

Your conclusion is just a logical flow-on from your premise .. which is all one can ever expect from the rules of logic .. which is not the same process as the scientific method. Your premise of assuming some reality exists independently from our perceptions, is not objectively demonstrable .. it is a 'truth' you decided upon, using a philosophically flavoured basis. The reasoning your logic arrives at all of its subsequent conclusions, is not in question. All that reasoning however does not overcome the shortfall of assuming an untestable posit.

 

[Landon Caeli]

.. and when the perception of 'chair, stools, bean bag and the moon', came up for them, they must have shared those perceptions with other similar minded human folk. That's how the words in quotes and italics there, then acquired their meanings. Those meanings are models. In science they're all testable ones (which makes them useful). Around a shared campfire, they might not be .. but they're still all demonstrably, models.

Your first paragraph above, reminds me of what philosophy always ignores in its haste to propagate its own mostly lacking-in-utility-value beliefs and its haste to give itself credit for thinking, which is: the recognition of the abundant evidence of how we create the beliefs which philosophy indulges itself in .. aka via the assignment of meanings of the words and concepts it always uses.

This is philosophy's own self-imposed blind spot .. and science exposes that fact.

I think all the italics, parentheses, underlinings, etc., make your posts a little difficult to follow.

 

[SelfSim]

I think all the italics, parentheses, underlinings, etc., make your posts a little difficult to follow.

They're being used for a reason .. perhaps you & others just don't recognise that, so perhaps there's more to learn for you there?

 

[AV1611VET]

The only class where I was truly challenged to think.

You want to be challenged to think?

Try playing chess.

Or reading one of my challenge threads.

 

[Vap841]

Scientific laws culminated in philosophy, until the grand finale of consciously aware organisms there was nothing in the universe to even philosophize. The lines can really get blurred, I just now was reading something that mentioned “Nonpurposive Teleology”, I mean come on this is an oxymoron and is blurring the lines between atheism and deism. (According to Nonpurposive Teleology) Along with our known laws of nature there is also a universal tendency for things to progressively move towards self organization over time, with the final outcome being conscious beings. This could automatically introduce value into the universe, if they universe is driving in the direction of a final result then inside of that universe it would be of more value to be that final product than to be a rock (kind of like a fully finished Toyota would have more value than a Toyota in the beginning stages of the assembly line where it’s just a frame). Furthermore things that are instantiations of the teleology of the universe just also happen to be the only things that even comprehend the concept of value.

Value has no meaning at all in science outside of a scientist claiming that something is valuable. A scientist might claim that there is value in our sun causing all of Earth’s processes to flourish. But according to empty science based laws what does the word flourish even mean, who cares if an asteroid ends all life on Earth? Who cares if the universe is lifeless and full of supernovas? An evolved universe (life, and then conscious life) spits out a concept called value. And value is a philosophical argument that is only had by the same organisms that are also the only organisms that do science lol

 

[SelfSim]

Value has no meaning at all in science outside of a scientist claiming that something is valuable. A scientist might claim that there is value in our sun causing all of Earth’s processes to flourish. But according to empty science based laws what does the word flourish even mean, who cares if an asteroid ends all life on Earth? Who cares if the universe is lifeless and full of supernovas? An evolved universe (life, and then conscious life) spits out a concept called value. And value is a philosophical argument that is only had by the same organisms that are also the only organisms that do science lol

Science values some idea, when it leads to predictions which have objective consequences.

Take a fairly tough example of ideas like Quantum Mechanics Interpretations. Its a tough one for a scientist, because it is even more clearly in the realm of personal preference.
The question to ask there, is not "do you believe in many worlds", because you shouldn't care less. The question to ask is "how does imagining there are many worlds, give you improved insight into how quantum mechanics works" or, "why do you prefer the many worlds interpretation?"
Notice how the question has so much more utility or scientific value, when it is not framed in the language of concern about someone's philosophically held beliefs?

 

[Vap841]

Science values some idea, when it leads to predictions which have objective consequences.

It’s still only the scientists who value it. We can either have ourselves a reality where things are unpredictable or a reality where things are predictable. If reality had been unpredictable instead of predictable then science would be impossible. But only humans can claim that there’s value in a reality with science over a reality without it.

Take a fairly tough example of ideas like Quantum Mechanics Interpretations. Its a tough one for a scientist, because it is even more clearly in the realm of personal preference.
The question to ask there, is not "do you believe in many worlds", because you shouldn't care less. The question to ask is "how does imagining there are many worlds, give you improved insight into how quantum mechanics works" or, "why do you prefer the many worlds interpretation?"
Notice how the question has so much more utility or scientific value, when it is not framed in the language of concern about someone's philosophically held beliefs?

That’s true I shouldn’t simply say that reality could have only been either predictable or unpredictable, QM is a good example of how reality might also skate in the middle.

 

[SelfSim]

It’s still only the scientists who value it. We can either have ourselves a reality where things are unpredictable or a reality where things are predictable. If reality had been unpredictable instead of predictable then science would be impossible.

Yet science has distinguished observable processes which produce unpredictable outcomes and therefore, they are still demonstrably part of what we mean by objective reality.

But only humans can claim that there’s value in a reality with science over a reality without it.

Only humans care about reality .. (and only humans do science).

That’s true I shouldn’t simply say that reality could have only been either predictable or unpredictable, QM is a good example of how reality might also skate in the middle.

More like the meaning of reality, includes the meanings of predictability and unpredictability.

 

[Vap841]

Yet science has distinguished observable processes which produce unpredictable outcomes and therefore, they are still demonstrably part of what we mean by objective reality.

Yes the meat behind science (it’s usefulness) is the parts of reality with predictability. If all of reality lacked predictability we would just call it nature gazing instead of science. I mean we could say that predictability has “Value” in science simply because in that context the word value is referring to science itself, it’s deductive to the point of what science seeks out in that context. But only humans can assign the broad use of the word value to science, no matter where it lands in predictability vs randomness.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is your own personally chosen philosophical viewpoint in operation there, and it can be easily substituted for other philosophical viewpoints, which then produces a completely different meaning for 'what reality is ..'.
No, Science never tests 'the thing itself', namely because what the thing itself is, is not accessible to us beyond our own sensory/brain preceptions .. it only every tests its models .. which change with new data (eg: what 'an atom' is, or what 'the universe' is .. they're just models).

You use the term 'reality' in your sentence above .. but never, ever, pause to consider (or demonstrate/recognise) 'the how' the meaning in that term comes about .. therefore I will do that and lay claim, (demonstrably showing, where necessary), that: the experiment provides the data, which allows science to (re)assign the meaning of the term 'reality', a term/concept which we humans are more than capable of controlling, (which is unlike your fixed, absolute interpretation of 'what reality must be' by way of apparent, mere (miraculous?) assertion).

My purpose in doing this, if one looks carefully, is an appropriate, objectively conceived, demonstration of swapping in another philosophy there, in order again a different viewpoint. What that does, is exposes how we actually use meanings to create our respective meanings of the term 'reality'.
The creationist/religion battles, so numerous in these forums, demonstrate clearly how two different meanings are held by way of assigning different meanings to that word/concept. What more often than not observably happens is, one or the other party just attempts to 'cancel' the other's meaning there, rather than simply acknowledge the objective evidence of what they're doing (evidence which is right in front of one's eyes, what's more). One actually has to look for, or at, that evidence though, rather than just trying to stomp it out .. which clearly, does not succeed (namely because of the intransigence brought on by failures in understanding how we go about assigning meanings to our respective, demonstrably different, perceptions of the same observations).
.. and the patterns every objective thinker there, (aka: scientific thinkers), agree upon as being the worthwhile criteria for assessment of the results, comes from where, exactly?
Answer is: our shared, in-common human mind type .. and never from something which can be shown as existing independently from that mind driven process.

Your conclusion is just a logical flow-on from your premise .. which is all one can ever expect from the rules of logic .. which is not the same process as the scientific method. Your premise of assuming some reality exists independently from our perceptions, is not objectively demonstrable .. it is a 'truth' you decided upon, using a philosophically flavoured basis. The reasoning your logic arrives at all of its subsequent conclusions, is not in question. All that reasoning however does not overcome the shortfall of assuming an untestable posit.

That is your own personally chosen philosophical viewpoint in operation there, and it can be easily substituted for other philosophical viewpoints...

 

[SelfSim]

That is your own personally chosen philosophical viewpoint in operation there, and it can be easily substituted for other philosophical viewpoints...

.. at the expense of science's amazing consistency ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. at the expense of science's amazing consistency ..

Science appears to be remarkably consistent regardless of my or your philosophical views.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientific laws culminated in philosophy, until the grand finale of consciously aware organisms there was nothing in the universe to even philosophize. The lines can really get blurred, I just now was reading something that mentioned “Nonpurposive Teleology”, I mean come on this is an oxymoron and is blurring the lines between atheism and deism. (According to Nonpurposive Teleology) Along with our known laws of nature there is also a universal tendency for things to progressively move towards self organization over time, with the final outcome being conscious beings. This could automatically introduce value into the universe, if they universe is driving in the direction of a final result then inside of that universe it would be of more value to be that final product than to be a rock (kind of like a fully finished Toyota would have more value than a Toyota in the beginning stages of the assembly line where it’s just a frame). Furthermore things that are instantiations of the teleology of the universe just also happen to be the only things that even comprehend the concept of value.

“Nonpurposive Teleology” sounds like philosopher Thomas Nagel's idea from his book 'Mind and Cosmos'. He's a well-respected philosopher, and, as an atheist, he has no truck with gods. Here he uses an 'argument from incredulity' fallacy - he simply doesn't believe that science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular, can explain the observed trajectory towards the emergence of intelligent life. He compounds this with an 'appeal to common-sense' fallacy to assert that common-sense suggests that therefore there must be some inherent tendency towards complexity and especially intelligence in the functioning of the universe. But, as an atheist, he doesn't believe in deities, so this must be a non-purposive tendency. Hence 'non-purposive teleology'. He's using 'teleology' here in its sense of an explanation in terms of goals, ends, or functions, and explicitly rejecting any purposive or intentional aspect.

It's a remarkably honest attempt to find a compromise between his religious scepticism and his scientific scepticism, but... Yikes!

From my reading, he doesn't seem to have an adequate understanding of the evolutionary theory he finds inadequate, and he seems unaware that physical laws (thermodynamics) favour the development of complexity given suitable conditions but don't mandate how it will manifest beyond being consistent with those laws.

 

[Vap841]

“Nonpurposive Teleology” sounds like philosopher Thomas Nagel's idea from his book 'Mind and Cosmos'. He's a well-respected philosopher, and, as an atheist, he has no truck with gods. Here he uses an 'argument from incredulity' fallacy - he simply doesn't believe that science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular, can explain the observed trajectory towards the emergence of intelligent life.

But it wouldn’t be an argument from incredulity unless evolution gives an explanation and he just fails to grasp it. He’s saying that evolution doesn’t give an explanation of consciousness at all, that it just tacks it on as nothing more than some mysterious byproduct that just shows up at some point. Whereas the development of physical structures and the mechanisms to get there that take place with evolution are described very well. So the consciousness part is inexplicable, and if something in a theory is inexplicable it can’t be called an argument from incredulity to not understand it because the theory didn’t even explain it.

He compounds this with an 'appeal to common-sense' fallacy to assert that common-sense suggests that therefore there must be some inherent tendency towards complexity and especially intelligence in the functioning of the universe.

he seems unaware that physical laws (thermodynamics) favour the development of complexity given suitable conditions but don't mandate how it will manifest beyond being consistent with those laws.

Wait how are these two paragraphs different? Isn’t suggesting an inherent tendency towards complexity the same thing as laws favoring the development of complexity?