Relativity

[Farinata]

This is my opinion of course but I don't believe science is interested in "truth". It's enough that science can reproduce (or produce) certain results on command within statistical bounds and a consistent framework. Inconsistencies or gaps show where work needs to be done as well as the weaknesses of the current model. Physical explanations are appealing, but are really unnecessary and can be downright dangerous. We know quantum mechanics works, extraordinarily well in fact, but will we ever have a really intuitive sense of what's going on? My guess is no but we should be thankful we've been able to develop a rigorous mathematical formalism that can tackle it. It makes perfect sense if you confine yourself to the math. Maybe the best idea is to just think about the universe as one very complex mathematical machine...

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not reduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypothesis...have no place in experimental philosophy...And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
- Isaac Newton

"Shut up and calculate"
- David Mermin on the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

 

[[serious]]

This is my opinion of course but I don't believe science is interested in "truth". It's enough that science can reproduce (or produce) certain results on command within statistical bounds and a consistent framework. Inconsistencies or gaps show where work needs to be done as well as the weaknesses of the current model. Physical explanations are appealing, but are really unnecessary and can be downright dangerous. We know quantum mechanics works, extraordinarily well in fact, but will we ever have a really intuitive sense of what's going on? My guess is no but we should be thankful we've been able to develop a rigorous mathematical formalism that can tackle it. It makes perfect sense if you confine yourself to the math. Maybe the best idea is to just think about the universe as one very complex mathematical machine...

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not reduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypothesis...have no place in experimental philosophy...And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
- Isaac Newton

"Shut up and calculate"
- David Mermin on the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

That's actually probably a better counter to some of the points I've made than those who are actually trying to counter it. I'm not quite ready to say "we can never intuitively grasp what's happening here" as we've come a long way towards an intuitive grasp of special reletivity, various particle interactions, and a bunch of other stuff. People smart enough to figure it out come first. People smart enough to teach it come after.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is my opinion of course but I don't believe science is interested in "truth". It's enough that science can reproduce (or produce) certain results on command within statistical bounds and a consistent framework. Inconsistencies or gaps show where work needs to be done as well as the weaknesses of the current model. Physical explanations are appealing, but are really unnecessary and can be downright dangerous. We know quantum mechanics works, extraordinarily well in fact, but will we ever have a really intuitive sense of what's going on? My guess is no but we should be thankful we've been able to develop a rigorous mathematical formalism that can tackle it. It makes perfect sense if you confine yourself to the math. Maybe the best idea is to just think about the universe as one very complex mathematical machine...

I disagree, though as [serious] said, this is one of the better refutations or counter-arguments to science than those who usually make such attempts.

I think your biggest flaw is seeing science as a non-evolving set of bookkeeping rules - the door is made of atoms because that fits the mathematics, not because we have any genuine reason to believe atoms actually exist. But this isn't how science operates at all - we really do consider particles to be self-interacting probability waves. We really do consider length to contract and time to dilate as you move really fast or sit on a gravitational lip. Black holes aren't just quirks of a theory, an asymptote on a graph - they're actual, physical structures.

Science is just a set of rules for bookkeeping if and only if no new data comes in, if and only if we need new revisions for each new observation - but we don't. Quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive and conceptually difficult, sure, but that doesn't make it any less true, or its ontological implications any less serious. Quantum mechanics doesn't just reside in the realm of complicated algebra, but has actual, real-world implications - which are routinely proven true. The entire particle zoo has been predicted and subsequently discovered (save the Higgs). Black holes, a theoretical conclusion of Relativity, are now thought to be regular occurrences in galaxies.

If you think science doesn't care for the truth, that scientists only seek convenient bookkeeping rules, I put it to you that Sat-Navs are proof of the contrary.

 

[Farinata]

That's actually probably a better counter to some of the points I've made than those who are actually trying to counter it. I'm not quite ready to say "we can never intuitively grasp what's happening here" as we've come a long way towards an intuitive grasp of special reletivity, various particle interactions, and a bunch of other stuff. People smart enough to figure it out come first. People smart enough to teach it come after.

I disagree, though as [serious] said, this is one of the better refutations or counter-arguments to science than those who usually make such attempts.

I think your biggest flaw is seeing science as a non-evolving set of bookkeeping rules - the door is made of atoms because that fits the mathematics, not because we have any genuine reason to believe atoms actually exist. But this isn't how science operates at all - we really do consider particles to be self-interacting probability waves. We really do consider length to contract and time to dilate as you move really fast or sit on a gravitational lip. Black holes aren't just quirks of a theory, an asymptote on a graph - they're actual, physical structures.

Science is just a set of rules for bookkeeping if and only if no new data comes in, if and only if we need new revisions for each new observation - but we don't. Quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive and conceptually difficult, sure, but that doesn't make it any less true, or its ontological implications any less serious. Quantum mechanics doesn't just reside in the realm of complicated algebra, but has actual, real-world implications - which are routinely proven true. The entire particle zoo has been predicted and subsequently discovered (save the Higgs). Black holes, a theoretical conclusion of Relativity, are now thought to be regular occurrences in galaxies.

If you think science doesn't care for the truth, that scientists only seek convenient bookkeeping rules, I put it to you that Sat-Navs are proof of the contrary.

Two very good responses so let me backtrack a little and hedge my answer a bit. I didn't mean to refute science in my response but instead advocate the idea that an instrumentalist perspective is superior in many circumstances. It avoids unnecessary philosophical arguments that just end up leading people in circles and leaves them with the idea that science doesn't really know what it's doing. What does it mean to say the wavefunction collapses? Does the world 'split' to allow for all possibilities? Does this have to do with waves advancing forward and backward in time? What is the "real world equivalent" of the curvature of GR? Sure "geometry tells matter how to move and matter tells geometry how to curve" but how precisely does that happen in reality?

My response wasn't to say that interpreting the formalism isn't important (indeed a lot of physicists are beginning to think that our failure to really understand what's going on in QM is behind our lost attempts to create a working theory of quantum gravity) but that we can operate without those assumptions. It's enough for science to work to find the rules/axioms behind observable results without necessarily finding physical analogues that form a perfect explanation for people trying to see how it all works "under the hood". We can consider one without the other.

 

[Resha Caner]

... we really do consider particles to be ...

I was going to ask: Why does it matter if they are real or not? But, maybe Farinata already answered the question.

I didn't mean to refute science in my response but instead advocate the idea that an instrumentalist perspective is superior in many circumstances ...

My response wasn't to say that interpreting the formalism isn't important (indeed a lot of physicists are beginning to think that our failure to really understand what's going on in QM is behind our lost attempts to create a working theory of quantum gravity) but that we can operate without those assumptions.

So, what does it mean that "we can operate without those assumptions"? Does that mean we can continue to advance without those assumptions, or does it mean we can continue to function with what we already have?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was going to ask: Why does it matter if they are real or not?

Because, as a scientist, I want the truth. Mathematical abstractions like a wavefunction are all well and good, but I'm more interested in what they mean.

 

[Resha Caner]

Because, as a scientist, I want the truth. Mathematical abstractions like a wavefunction are all well and good, but I'm more interested in what they mean.

I think you could shorten that first sentence to, "Because I want the truth."

OK. So, can truth ever come from something based on an assumption? Or, must it be based on the self-evident?

 

[Belk]

I think you could shorten that first sentence to, "Because I want the truth."

OK. So, can truth ever come from something based on an assumption? Or, must it be based on the self-evident?

At the bottom is not everything we think we know based on assumptions?

 

[Resha Caner]

At the bottom is not everything we think we know based on assumptions?

There was another option implied in my question. How would you answer that question?

 

[acropolis]

My response wasn't to say that interpreting the formalism isn't important (indeed a lot of physicists are beginning to think that our failure to really understand what's going on in QM is behind our lost attempts to create a working theory of quantum gravity) but that we can operate without those assumptions. It's enough for science to work to find the rules/axioms behind observable results without necessarily finding physical analogues that form a perfect explanation for people trying to see how it all works "under the hood". We can consider one without the other.

This kind of argument has been made over and over at basically every stage of scientific advancement. Yes, what we don't know yet isn't very useful, but that doesn't mean it will remain so if we uncover the deeper truth to reality. It's impossible to know in advance what the utility may be for looking "under the hood." If you personally believe that all useful science ends at some arbitrary time and length scale that's fine, but no one can actually know the results of those kinds of fundamental questions. Thankfully there are enough people are aren't concerned with utility to continue to push the boundaries so that those new forms of utility may be discovered.

 

[Hobz]

Yeah, I understood that. So what is "physical"? If you define everything to be physical, and then claim you don't see anything metaphysical, that's circular reasoning.

So, if science only pertains to the physical, then define for me those things that are not physical.

The physical and natural are tricky concepts to define but i'll give it a swing.

First, the physical: things which are physical are those things which exist independently of human perspective. The tricky problem with the definition is that delusions, hallucinations, and other mental processes can trick the human mind into thinking it is experiencing the physical, however these experiences are not independent of human perspective and this can easily be shown through collaboration.

Second, the natural: the natural is a subset of the physical and excludes any things which are man-made/artficial.

For the record I definately believe in the metaphysical, I enter into a metaphysical world everytime I dream at night, a world in my own head which is separate from the common observed physical universe which exists when I wake. This is where the physical sciences draw the line as far as I can tell, if the evidence is common to all human perspecives it is physical evidence.

It's not what I think. It's what current physics says. In the absence of other forces, gravity determines that a ball will fall to the earth. The probability function of an electron specfies what can happen, but it doesn't determine what will happen. It may tunnel, it may not.

That's more semantics than anything else, current physical says nothing is absolutely determinable. It says due to the uncertainty principle, at the smallest scales things are best described as a distribution of probabilities, as the scale is further increased quantum decoherence kicks in, and the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically appraoch the laws of classical physics. Key word there is asymptotically!

No they haven't (I can provide you some references if you're interested). This is called the "success of science" argument, and it doesn't hold any water. Are you familiar with the idea of falsifiability?

Please elaborate, and yes very interested in any links/references you can provide!

Well, let's see what you consider to be evidence first. Does evidence mean:
1) Sufficient knowledge is gathered to reproduce the event?
2) It is quantifiable?
3) It is a physical residue of the event that can be retained indefinitely?
4) It is independent of human sense & perception?

1) No.
2) Not necessarily, it may be qualitative.
3) It could be.
4) Most definately, see my ramble above.

Does this mean we can prove logic to be complete and no future addition will change any of our current conclusions? (Hint: Has anything been added to logic since Aristotle's time?)

We cannot prove our logic to be complete (Godels Incompleteness Theorem) however no future addition will change any current conclusion, they may only expand our ability to reach said conclusions.

Again, you tell me. Was Newton wrong or just inaccurate? Was Galileo wrong or just inaccurate? Was Ptolemy wrong or just inaccurate? ... Was Einstein wrong or just inaccurate? (i.e. CERN's recent findings about FTL).

To be inaccurate is to be wrong, however you must be fair, the amount of scientific data and literature available at the time made MANY theories viable. It's now getting harder and harder to produce viable hypothesis because there's so many other parts of scientific literature you may clash with, to me this show science getting more and more reliable.

But where are you going with all of this Resha? My original statement was to follow evidence and reason, and I'm still not sure how you find the truth sans evidence and reason.

Loving the debate, haven't had someone make me think like this in a while.

 

[Hobz]

Reality is composed of the metaphysical and the physical.
The metaphysical has no bounds and is largely undefined.
The physical is composed of the natural and artificial.

My opinion is if all humanity instantly ceased to exist, the metaphysical would go with them.

 

[Resha Caner]

My apologies, Hobz, but I'm feeling a bit lazy. This discussion has a thousand and one threads, and it's a daunting task to address all of them. So, if I seem brief, that is intentional (not necessarily brief in totality, but brief on each point). I'm hoping we can find one (or at least a very few) things to focus on. But, if I'm overly brief to the point of being incoherent, I will do my best to clarify.

The physical and natural are tricky concepts to define but i'll give it a swing.

It is tricky. That is my point. When one has to jump through hoops to defend an idea, one should question the validity of that idea. I can't see that your definitions are anything I could work with. So let's focus on the point of my asking for a definition, and do this a different way.

For the record I definately believe in the metaphysical

I get the impression, though, (based on post #52) that you equate the metaphysical with the human mind. Isn't the human mind physical? And so, any thought a human would have is merely a chemical reaction, and thus also physical. I don't see that you've distinguished anything as not being physical. So, my point in asking for the definition was this: If something non-physical exists, how will you know it when you see it? Can you give me an example of something that is physical, and then something that is not physical?

From my perspective, the metaphysical can exist apart from the human mind. So, let me give two examples:
1) Is "number" physical? Does it exist apart from mind?
2) Is "time" physical? Does it exist apart from mind?

That's more semantics than anything else, current physical says nothing is absolutely determinable ... Key word there is asymptotically!

You could be right, and your example is more an analogy than a mathematical certainty, so there isn't much to argue. It is, in fact, an argument without end because I can always claim that what you call undetermined is simply unexplained, and neither of us can establish our claim.

Please elaborate, and yes very interested in any links/references you can provide!

There are any number of links. Here is just one as an example:
· The ‘Success Argument’ For Scientific Realism

In that link I will point you to reference 1 (Cover & Curd). That is an excellent reference for the philosophy of science. Chapter 9 contains a series of essays on the "success" argument - both for and against. As you can tell, I find the arguments against more persuasive.

1) No.
2) Not necessarily, it may be qualitative.

Does that mean history is a science?

4) Most definately, see my ramble above.

Are you sure? Can you give me an example of evidence I don't perceive?

We cannot prove our logic to be complete (Godels Incompleteness Theorem) however no future addition will change any current conclusion, they may only expand our ability to reach said conclusions.

I would disagree, but I suppose this depends on how one approaches the topic. Two examples come to mind.

First, there is Hegel's dialectical method that is a challenge to the law of non-contradiction. One could dismiss Hegel outright, or qualify him as saying that all he did was reword the ancient idea of disputing a premise, but he definitely had a huge impact on logic that caused some old ideas to be overturned.

Second, there is Bayes and his concept that truth is not binary, but that truth has a "value." That has had a huge impact on logic as well.

To be inaccurate is to be wrong, however you must be fair

So, science has been wrong. I don't think it's unfair for me to say that. I think it perfectly valid to ask the question: If science has been wrong, how do we know when it's right?

What often happens is that people take a position on science that tries to combine "success" with an unassailable ideal. If science is right, it's because the scientific method produced that success. If science is wrong, that's just a step on the journey to success - no matter how long that journey is and whether or not we ever actually achieve the success we're seeking.

Hmm. Well, I could do the same thing with FSM. It cuts both ways.

When I reply that way, people often take me as anti-science. Not true. I just don't think we should use a hammer for cutting wood.

But where are you going with all of this Resha? My original statement was to follow evidence and reason, and I'm still not sure how you find the truth sans evidence and reason.

I'm not really going anywhere. I got the answer to my question.

But if you want me to state other possible ends to "truth", they are these:
1) Maybe we can't find the truth. So if truth exists, it doesn't matter. It's essentially meaningless. If so, we shouldn't pretend evidence and reason will get us there.
2) Maybe the only way to find truth is for it to be revealed. You may want to know whether I prefer Pepsi or Coca-Cola, but you won't find out unless I reveal it to you.

Then, with respect to evidence, I think you're going to find your attempt to put evidence beyond human perception to be an impossible task. But I understand why you want to try. The issue at stake here is where evidence is objective or subjective. Scientists don't like to admit that evidence is subjective.

Further, if qualified evidence is accepted, then what is to say your metaphysical experiences (your dreams, etc.) aren't real? But before we jump too far down that road, let's discuss my earlier question about history first.

 

[sandwiches]

The advocates of science who bother me the most are those who can't articulate the assumptions behind what they say ... or who think they can prove their assumptions ... or who think the predictive power of their theory makes their assumptions better than other assumptions.

I may disagree with someone's theory of evolution or time or randomness vs. determinism, but I will greatly respect them if they recognize one thing about science. Attempts to make science complete cannot escape Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. They will either become circular or an infinite regress. In the end, everything must make an appeal to something above itself. It must appeal to the self-evident or the self-actuating.

Whatever you think that appeal is, that is where you claim to find your truth.

I agree with what you said that even science has fundamental assumptions. However, I disagree with what I understood you to claim or imply that all assumptions are equally valid. Just the same that not all morality is equally correct, in specific instances and for specific purposes, not all assumptions are equally valid for specific purposes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think you could shorten that first sentence to, "Because I want the truth."

OK. So, can truth ever come from something based on an assumption? Or, must it be based on the self-evident?

Short answer: the latter.

Long answer:
Your question gets into the nitty-gritty of what 'truth' is - is it a belief that happens to be true, or a belief that is known to be true, or an objective thing irrespective of whether anyone believes it?

So, can truth ever come from something based on an assumption? That implies truth is a believed statement that happens to be true (and not a statement that is known to be true), and so I would say - yes. If my premises lead me to the right conclusion, then truth has been attained.

But can I know that my conclusion is right, for more reasons than "my premises tell me so"? Maybe not - the premise "The Bible is right in all its particulars" leads to the conclusion "God exists", which may well be correct - but the premise alone doesn't justify calling the conclusion 'knowledge', as any atheist will gleefully tell you

On the other hand, if our premises are self-evident, then logic demands that any valid conclusions we draw must also be true. So, if truth is something justified, then assumptions aren't enough - we need self-evident premises to build upon.

 

[Resha Caner]

I disagree with what I understood you to claim or imply that all assumptions are equally valid.

Yes, I think we've discussed this before. And, yes, we disagree.

But let me clarify. Some assumptions have no predictive power. I could claim that the reason electron behavior is probable and not determined is because they have free will to act within a certain distribution. That may be, but the result is no different than assuming randomness is at the root of the behavior. Neither assumption has more predictive power. In that instance, scientists typically prefer the more parsimonious assumption. So, there is a reason to say one is better than the other, but it doesn't have any impact on the outcome.

I'm not referring to parsimony. I'm referring to predictive power.

Likewise, IIRC QM works well for the very small and GR for the very massive, yet they disagree about the behavior of things that are very small AND very massive. So, QM is a better assumption in one case, GR in another case. There may be pragmatic reasons for choosing one over the other, but again, with respect to predictive power - though they are different - one can't really say one is better than the other.

So again, I'm referring to predictive power, not pragmatic considerations.

Yet again (and this is the most important point) I could assume that mixing red and yellow will make black, but my "assumption" is easily disproved with an experiment. It can be falsified by mixing red and yellow to produce orange. So, yeah, assuming red and yellow make black would be a bad assumption. In fact, it's not really an assumption. It's a hypothesis. However, it can be difficult at times to determine whether something is an assumption or a hypothesis.

But, when we come to assumptions with equal predictive power, that are not irreducible, that cannot be falsified either because they are ideals or because the evidience that would supposedly establish one as an acceptable hypothesis over another is inconclusive ... well ... then it's impossible to say that one is better than another.

And when I speak of assumptions, that is what I am usually driving at - those irreducible, ideal, first principles.

 

[Resha Caner]

Short answer: the latter.

And the "self-evident" is a very knotty problem. As far as I know, no one has an answer for it yet.

I don't know if you ever read pop science or not, but it has an interesting distinction from peer-reviewed papers. When publishing within a profession, colleagues are well aware of where the problems of the self-evident lie. So there is a gentleman's agreement to ignore the elephant in the room and to understate the conclusion (yeah, I know that's the sarcastic view of it).

In pop science, readers are expecting certainty. So, rather than understate as happens in the professional literature, the writer pontificates to give an illusion of certainty (again, the sarcastic view).

 

[Hobz]

I've read all this and let it roll around in my head, my conclusion is while we can never know that we call the truth, is in fact truth. Evidence might not ever be able to allow us to state anything matter of factly, and only give us better and better approximations.

However the validity of science as shown through its application makes a good case for its reliability. While we can muddy the waters about what evidence is, and how strongly our conclusions can be drawn, there is no other system of gathering and processing stimulus into information which is as rigourous or successful as the scientific method has been.

Personally in my own search of truth I see no better tool or method, while I need to be careful of my level of certainty regarding current scientific consensus, there is no logical reason why I should believe anything else, until a superior system than the scientific method is developed.

These are my main reasons for questioning your statement about following the truth instead of logic and reason; I see no better viable alternative.

I wanted to retract something I said earlier, that evidence was independant of perception. After more thought i've decided this statement is quite ludicrous, what I should have said is evidence is independant of personal unique perception. Evidence as I see it can be confirmed by anyone at anytime, and the same basic perceptions of that evidence will be agreed upon. This contrasts starkly with what I consider the metaphysical, where each personal experience is individual and unique, and cannot be shared or verified.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wanted to retract something I said earlier, that evidence was independant of perception. After more thought i've decided this statement is quite ludicrous, what I should have said is evidence is independant of personal unique perception.

Hey, you get points from me for this statement ... if that matters. I just say that because I hope you don't think I'm being overly difficult. I agree with you that you have struck upon a very important aspect of evidence. First, evidence is meant to communicate. If it doesn't communicate something, it's not worthwhile. Second, it is often meant to communicate between people. I have had experiences that I think are very real, but I don't have the evidence to prove those experiences to you.

With that said, it raises yet another problem. Does this mean evidence requires a consensus? Is science "democratic" in that we should vote on the veracity of our theories (or the "experts" should vote)? That just doesn't sit well, does it? Yet, if you study the history of science for very long, you'll discover that is basically what has happened.

However the validity of science as shown through its application makes a good case for its reliability.

So you're sticking with the success argument? Hmm. With respect to engineering applications of science, I basically agree with you. Engineering relies mainly on hard science and so it can quantify the reliability of a solution. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't buy the success thing.

Personally in my own search of truth I see no better tool or method ...

What of my example for revelation? Could you take me to a lab and do a test on me to determine my soft drink preferences that would be more reliable than just asking me?

I don't see why people are so resistant to the idea that some questions cannot be answered by science.

 

[sandwiches]

Hey, you get points from me for this statement ... if that matters. I just say that because I hope you don't think I'm being overly difficult. I agree with you that you have struck upon a very important aspect of evidence. First, evidence is meant to communicate. If it doesn't communicate something, it's not worthwhile. Second, it is often meant to communicate between people. I have had experiences that I think are very real, but I don't have the evidence to prove those experiences to you.

With that said, it raises yet another problem. Does this mean evidence requires a consensus? Is science "democratic" in that we should vote on the veracity of our theories (or the "experts" should vote)? That just doesn't sit well, does it? Yet, if you study the history of science for very long, you'll discover that is basically what has happened.

Evidence isn't a thing. It's what we call events or objects that we use to corroborate a claim. And I'm not sure what you're saying about "voting on evidence." Are you claiming that scientists have voted on accepting DNA as being evidence for evolution, for instance? More importantly, are you saying that some things that we call "evidence" in science, aren't?