- #1
ice109
- 1,714
- 6
i am he. what am i going to do? I'm seriously having a philosophical crisis here. i think I'm going to switch my major to math.
ice109 said:i have a problem with empiricism as a philosophy in that i don't think it's the right one
Ivan Seeking said:Why?
that is the crisis.G01 said:Yes. Please explain what you don't find correct about it. We can't offer our insight into your crisis if we don't know what the crisis is.
because its leads to inherently tautologous systems. yes the theories we create come from empirical phenomena and so they're "seeded" by something outside of themselves. but the predictions are based off of the axiomatic system we've created so if they're confirmed they're tautologically true.Ivan Seeking said:Why?
ice109 said:that is the crisis.
because its leads to inherently tautologous systems. yes the theories we create come from empirical phenomena and so they're "seeded" by something outside of themselves. but the predictions are based off of the axiomatic system we've created so if they're confirmed they're tautologically true.
honestly this is all very murky in my mind right now so please no one get upset if I'm talkin bs.
to be a little more specific
when people have asked me why i do physics the answer has always been : "because i want to know how things works." so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.
G01 said:Well, let me ask you this question:
How would you go about finding out how nature works if not through science? (I am asking this seriously. If you think science isn't going about things correctly, how would you go about it if not through the scientific method?)
ice109 said:i don't think you can find out how nature works.
ice109 said:so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.
no offense but i don't think you've ever read about epistemology. I'm not a run of the mill crackpot and this isn't a run of the mill dilemma.G01 said:We may not be able to find out EVERYTHING about nature, but saying that we can't know how nature works is a little absurd. There is a reason why the average human life span has doubled since the scientific revolution. There is a reason why we have automobiles, planes, space shuttles, telecommunications and electricity. It is because we understand those aspects of nature that we were able to make those advances. We may not understand them completely, but with every piece of evidence and every experiment done, we get closer and closer to the real truth. We may never know everything about how the universe works, but we can keep learning more and more. If you assume your never going to understand everything and say, why bother, of course your not going to understand anything.
Also, here's something to think about. If a model makes accurate predictions with no measurable deviation within experimental error about how nature works, how are you so sure that it's just a mathematical construct, and not the actual operating principle of that part of nature. Can you distinguish between them? I don't think you can.
yea I've seen you in my threads before, kindred spirits we would be if i believed in spirits.Ivan Seeking said:I know how you feel! You are correct in that physics cannot provide the answers that you seek; nothing can. However, you will get as close to the essence as possible through physics. Mathematics doesn't even try to do that.
My motives were much the same as yours in that I wanted to REALLY understand things at the most fundamental level, but I certainly don't regret sticking it out. Then again, as much as I enjoyed the subject, there is no way that I would have ever considered becoming a math major, so we are different in that regard.
Ivan Seeking said:Even if we ignore the limitations, in the end, unless you are among the elite of the elite, people in physics get paid to do practical work.
The only thing that got me through was a "fundamental" love of the subject; limitations and all. And I would have never worked so hard for something that I didn't love.
Werg22 said:Ice06, why not perceive science as the attempt to discover nature's "axioms"? If the axioms we suggest lead to an inference that we can observe in nature, then it is supporting evidence. When there is a contradiction between nature and theory, we try to come up with a new set of axioms and go on from there. In mathematics we don't have to have a system of axioms confirm anything outside of themselves, science is the opposite.
Proggle said:Physics is what it is: A model for making predictions out of phenomena that can be measured. Trying to extend it beyond that will no doubt leave you unsatisfied. Physics does not explain the "why" of things, and should not attempt to.
The only reason mathematics is any different is because you are able to define your fundamental principles. That does not mean it has any more or less value as an expression of what is true.
ice109 said:when people have asked me why i do physics the answer has always been : "because i want to know how things works." so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.
Isn't that the point of science? If you accept that these tools do, in fact, make good predictions(and they do), then I don't understand why you don't accept the scientific worldview.ice109 said:...they're tools used to make good predictions.
That statement is straightforwardly false and directly contradicts the one I quoted above.i don't think you can find out how nature works.
More philosophically important: does it matter? I tend to believe they are one and the same, but even if they aren't, so what? Science has still done it's job by finding an approximation that works to within our ability to measure it.G01 said:Also, here's something to think about. If a model makes accurate predictions with no measurable deviation within experimental error about how nature works, how are you so sure that it's just a mathematical construct, and not the actual operating principle of that part of nature. Can you distinguish between them? I don't think you can.
Are you saying that you believe the universe does not act consistently? Science is the evidence that it does. Perform an experiment 10 times and get the same result ten times. That means the universe obeys some rule to make that happen. Whether you want to call them "a priori truths" is really an irrelevant question. Maybe God has a bunch of stone tablets where he wrote them down? Maybe the universe just always acts consistently and the only equations describing it are ones we constructed? It doesn't matter which is correct. Either way, science still works.ice109 said:the attempt to discover nature's axioms is to imply that there are a priori truths which there are not.
Math avoids the conundrum since you can always just say that what you are doing only exists on the piece of paper on which it is written. It doesn't have to be "real", just logically consistent. Of course, for ice, I would think that put him down squarely on the wrong side of the issue: he seems to care a lot about what is "real".G01 said:I was thinking ice109, and I also don't know how going into mathematics is going to help you. From your point of view, how do you know that anything in mathematics is "real?"
russ_watters said:More philosophically important: does it matter? I tend to believe they are one and the same, but even if they aren't, so what? Science has still done it's job by finding an approximation that works to within our ability to measure it.
russ_watters said:Math avoids the conundrum since you can always just say that what you are doing only exists on the piece of paper on which it is written. It doesn't have to be "real", just logically consistent. Of course, for ice, I would think that put him down squarely on the wrong side of the issue: he seems to care a lot about what is "real".
russ_watters said:That statement is straightforwardly false and directly contradicts the one I quoted above.
Allow me to throw a monkey wrench into things...ice109 said:math atleast doesn't pretend to describe anything except itself so a solved problem in math is the truth.
Hurkyl said:Allow me to throw a monkey wrench into things...
Just as you have no a priori reason to believe that empiricism leads to "truths" (whatever a "truth" might be)... you have no a priori reason to believe that rationalism leads to truths.
To put it another way... why do you allow yourself to believe that logic yields truths, but not experiment?
Actually, this is exactly the impression I had gotten, but I wanted to make sure.ice109 said:about the first: some people are misunderstanding, i don't think math yields any truth about the world. i do think a problem solved in math yields a truth about math. this is more psychologically gratifying than solving a problem which doesn't mean anything.
Hurkyl said:Actually, this is exactly the impression I had gotten, but I wanted to make sure.
So, mathematics defines a "game"; the rules are logical deduction, and if you play the game correctly, you get a "theorem" (whatever that means).
Empiricism is formally similar; the rules are experimentation, and if you play the game correctly, you get "empirical evidence" (whatever that means).
Combining the two is really neat: if you play the mathematical game, you get theorems. If you play the empirical game, you get empirical evidence. Then, you can combine your theorems with your empirical evidence to produce evidence for other things.
ice109 said:i guess you could say that in math when you solve a problem you literally solve a problem. in physics when you solve a problem you define something( a quantity, a force, a field etc).
empiricism is a philosophy
But in some sense, you're not treating them equally. You view science in terms of one of its driving philosophies, but you don't do the same for mathematics.ice109 said:well you don't need to combine the two to make predictions. but anyway the way you've defined these two things they seem similar but they're not. empiricism is a philosophy and math is not. a philosophy seeks to explain things, empiricism seeks to explain the world. math just is.
Yes, they are different practices. Mathematicians apply reason to make theorems. Experimental scientists apply experiments to gather evidence. Theoretical scientists attempt to discover theories that have the most evidence supporting them.i guess you could say that in math when you solve a problem you literally solve a problem. in physics when you solve a problem you define something( a quantity, a force, a field etc). they're wholly different practices.