Shut Up and Calculate!

[curiousphoton]

Just a general topic here. Hope I don't offend anyone. Curious to see what everyone else thinks about this.

I read Lee Smolin's 'Trouble with Physics' a certain amount of time ago and found myself agreeing with him in many respects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the physics community as divide as Lee depicts? He makes it sound like 90% of physicists these days get their doctorate in some advanced String Theory field that lacks any sort of physical observational evidence.

I also more recently read Feynman's books (I forget which one as I've read the majority of his works) and he seems to come from the opposite end of the spectrum in many respects. He believes in 'Shut up and Calculate, don't ask why' type of physics, as his book quotes himself. He also goes on to explain how it takes 8 years of drawing lines in graduate school until students are ready to fully solve QM problems.

I really enjoy Feynman's works and ideas and think he is one of the top physicists we've seen in a while but have to completely disagree with him on the whole 'Shut up and Calculate' idea. I mean if Einstein or Newton or Galileo were drawing lines to work their way up the QM problem solving tree until they were 30, would they have come up with their intuitive thought experiments that led to the fundamental world changing theories we use today? I tend to think not.

Feel free to agree or disagree or disregard.

[humanino]

Einstein, Newton or whoever, they did draw lines for quite some time before coming up with genuine ideas on their own. Most important in this forum in particular (I can not say for sure for Feynman), I would suggest "calculate first, and we'll discuss the interpretation afterwards". Too often around here, we see discussions without underlying substance. "Calculate first and discuss the interpretation afterwards" is exactly what my first teacher in QM told me. She was only too right.

[curiousphoton]

Einstein, Newton or whoever, they did draw lines for quite some time before coming up with genuine ideas on their own. Most important in this forum in particular (I can not say for sure for Feynman), I would suggest "calculate first, and we'll discuss the interpretation afterwards". Too often around here, we see discussions without underlying substance. "Calculate first and discuss the interpretation afterwards" is exactly what my first teacher in QM told me. She was only too right.

"Calcualte first" unfortunately wouldn't apply to physicists such as Einstein and Smolin. But the story of the advice your QM teacher told you is a great example of 'The Trouble with Physics'. Recommended read if you have time.

[GeorgCantor]

"Shut up and calculate" is the physicist's knee-jerk reaction to the question - 'What is the universe made of'?

This is what everyone here is interested in, but it's also kind of hopeless.

[wuliheron]

If there is no more room in academia for dissenting opinions then it is time for a revolution!

[Pythagorean]

The equations are the most accurate description of an observation, and with them come basic logical expressions.

When you start conjecturing about a topic and don't even understand the basic tenants of the logical expression, it's frustrating for people who do.

And specifically, I'm referrering to mathematical statements based in observation. Not string theory (which my U, for instance, doesn't even offer classes for)

[Evo]

"Calcualte first" unfortunately wouldn't apply to physicists such as Einstein and Smolin. But the story of the advice your QM teacher told you is a great example of 'The Trouble with Physics'. Recommended read if you have time.Ahaha, humanino is the only physicist posting in this thread. :tongue2:

[humanino]

Recommended read if you have time.No, I skimmed through it, and I am not interested in it at all. I prefer physics books.

[Pengwuino]

I mean if Einstein or Newton or Galileo were drawing lines to work their way up the QM problem solving tree until they were 30, would they have come up with their intuitive thought experiments that led to the fundamental world changing theories we use today? I tend to think not.

Those thought experiments were the results of a lot of "shut up and calculate" time. There is typically a REASON to have a thought experiment in the first place, and it's typically because there's some set of calculations that are stareing at you that aren't what you perceive as reality.

Relativity wasn't formulated by dreaming up out of thin air "what if gravity is best described by some 4-dimensional mathematical description that can be described like some sort of fabric..." and then make calculations fit that description. The seed of the idea was in what was seen in the math.

[fatra2]

"Calcualte first" unfortunately wouldn't apply to physicists such as Einstein and Smolin.

Hi there,

Can I dare to ask, why would such a theory apply to Einstein. Do you really believe the guy was a complete dreamer, that had no clue about hard core mathematics.

Ok, he was not a mathematician, but to develop a theory in the brownien movement (that enabled him to win the nobel prize), he had to sit there and do the calculation first.

Where Einstein was truly a genius was his ability to give a correct interpretation of his calculation.

Cheers

[apeiron]

It is amusing to consider what the actual inventor of this famous aphorism thinks about it.

David Mermin - who railed against colourless and humorless approaches to physics in Boojums all the way through: communicating science in a prosaic age - was talking about the cultural attitudes imposed upon him, rather than an attitude he really endorsed.

As he now says apologetically....


I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive....So I have nothing to be ashamed of other than having characterized the Copenhagen interpretation in such foolish terms...

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

And would Feynman even have said it, as widely believed?


He said that he "always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents," and added, "I still get nervous with it."2 Nobody who felt that way would ever respond with "shut up and calculate" to conceptual inquiries from the perplexed.

[curiousphoton]

Hi there,

Can I dare to ask, why would such a theory apply to Einstein. Do you really believe the guy was a complete dreamer, that had no clue about hard core mathematics.


Ok so Mr. Einstein was pretty good at math. But remember there were thousands at the time who were better than him. So being the best at 'shutting up and calculating' doesn't seem to produce productive results.

And as far as a dreamer, in his first major breakthrough (SR), he, himself, Mr. Einstein writes about his famous train thought experiment, which led to a simple algebra calculation involving triangles (which a smart 8th grader can solve). Thinking about light, then calculating what was going on, led to a breakthrough unlike any we've seen to date...

And would Feynman even have said it, as widely believed?

Yes. He specifically says so in one of his books (sorry I don't have the collection on me but am sure he said it because it struck me as odd especially having just read 'The Trouble with Physics').

[fatra2]

Ok so Mr. Einstein was pretty good at math. But remember there were thousands at the time who were better than him. So being the best at 'shutting up and calculating' doesn't seem to produce productive results.

And as far as a dreamer, in his first major breakthrough (SR), he, himself, Mr. Einstein writes about his famous train thought experiment, which led to a simple algebra calculation involving triangles (which a smart 8th grader can solve). Thinking about light, then calculating what was going on, led to a breakthrough unlike any we've seen to date...




Hi there,

It's fine to be a dreamer. As a matter of fact, you need to be. But don't forget that if you want people to follow you train of ideas, you need to be able to put them to good use. And, in science, you need to shut and calculate first.

Cheers

[humanino]

Yes. He specifically says so in one of his booksOn his last blackboard was also written "what I cannot create, I do not understand" and "know how to solve every problem that has been solved". If I understand what he meant, one has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim understanding of them.

You only use anecdotal pieces of evidence and authority argument. This is not very convincing. Again, you say "other could calculate better than him and did not come up with such important results". That changes nothing : there has never been in the history of science a physics revolution coming from somebody unable to understand what had previously been found, that is, unable to do calculations. First calculate, then discuss the calculation. Being able to calculate is not sufficient, sure. But it is necessary.

[f95toli]

Ok so Mr. Einstein was pretty good at math. But remember there were thousands at the time who were better than him. So being the best at 'shutting up and calculating' doesn't seem to produce productive results.


No there wasn't. First of all, remember that Einstein and co were active where "physics" was a much,much smaller field than now meaning it didn't take nowhere near as long to study all the basic material (most of the physics that existed in 1905 is today covered in the first 1-2 years of a degree in physics).
Secondly, Einstein was a very competent theoretical physicists who had learned from some of the best scientists of his era, just look at some of his lesser known (but very good) work in e.g. statistical physics; some of it is very much "nuts and bolts" theoretical physics and is nowhere near as "visionary" as SR and GR. So, no, Einstein was most definitely not a dreamer...

[curiousphoton]

First off, I'm not trying to get personal with anyone as my aim is simply to discuss a topic that I've always wondered about.

If I understand what he meant, one has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim understanding of them.

Agreed but with an asterisk. See why in comments below.

No there wasn't. First of all, remember that Einstein and co were active where "physics" was a much,much smaller field than now meaning it didn't take nowhere near as long to study all the basic material (most of the physics that existed in 1905 is today covered in the first 1-2 years of a degree in physics).

That's the hard part for me to accept. Granted I don't have a PHD is physics, I took the first 3 years of university physics and math at a top ranked university. We covered everything through basic QM.

*back to the asterisk : "One has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim an understanding of them". I agree and this is what turned me off to physics. The field has tens of thousands of professionals now, as opposed to Einsteins time when you could work through everyones work in a few years (see quote above). To work through everyone's string theory work and everyone's theory on QM would take a lifetime. The trouble with physics to me is that all of these QM interpretations COULD be correct, so which ones do you focus your time on? The one most popular at the time?

That is why I agree with Smolin and Einstein and Newton who looked at problems through both a mathematician and philosophers lens.'Shut up and Calculate' just doesn't seem right to me.

So, no, Einstein was most definitely not a dreamer...

I disagree. If you read any biography on Einstein, he speaks with enthusiasm about his first passion : PHILOSOPHY. If philosophers don't dream, I don't know who does...

[humanino]

Einstein was not just a dreamer. Doing calculation is not sufficient. "Shut up and calculate" is appropriate to use when there is an imbalance between the amount of philosophy and the amount of calculation, when the amount of calculation is not enough to back up the philosophical discussion. Smolin's book is not a physics book, it is a personal opinion on the sociology of physics research. It is not true that it takes a lifetime to study string theory before one can produce research result : there are young researchers in the field.

Besides, you seem to describe physics as if the only problem in physics was to quantize gravity. Physics is much wider that this narrow specific field. There are many very active areas where one does not need to worry about such philosophical choices. To me, we live in times when physics is even more exciting than at Einstein's time.

[humanino]

I disagree. If you read any biography on Einstein, he speaks with enthusiasm about his first passion : PHILOSOPHY. If philosophers don't dream, I don't know who does...If you read any biography on Einstein, you will know that right after his work started to receive publicity (at times when antisemitism was widespread) the majority of professional physicists would harshly criticize the part of the work dealing with the photoelectric effect and relativity, based on the amount of philosophy it consisted in. Even when Einstein received the Nobel prize, Planck would still dismiss the photoelectric effect interpretation BTW, despite the fact the Planck was one of the first to recognize Einstein's work. Ultimately, this can be understood mostly because they did not fully appreciate the depth of significance in the calculations.

[apeiron]

Yes. He specifically says so in one of his books (sorry I don't have the collection on me but am sure he said it because it struck me as odd especially having just read 'The Trouble with Physics').

Yes, please provide the reference for where he says this. Mermin says he invented the quote and can find no trace of it in Feynman's writings.

[Pythagorean]

On his last blackboard was also written "what I cannot create, I do not understand" and "know how to solve every problem that has been solved". If I understand what he meant, one has to know how to build every solution from scratch to claim understanding of them.

You only use anecdotal pieces of evidence and authority argument. This is not very convincing. Again, you say "other could calculate better than him and did not come up with such important results". That changes nothing : there has never been in the history of science a physics revolution coming from somebody unable to understand what had previously been found, that is, unable to do calculations. First calculate, then discuss the calculation. Being able to calculate is not sufficient, sure. But it is necessary.

not that I support the opposin position, but:

What about deBroglie? I was always underthe impression he was like "lol, if light can be a particle, then why can't matter be a wave, haha!"

[curiousphoton]

Well looks like no one agrees with Lee Smolin or I and thinks Physics is progressing in the right direction. That's all I really wanted to find out.

Interesting...thank you all

[curiousphoton]

If you read any biography on Einstein, you will know that right after his work started to receive publicity (at times when antisemitism was widespread) the majority of professional physicists would harshly criticize the part of the work dealing with the photoelectric effect and relativity, based on the amount of philosophy it consisted in. Even when Einstein received the Nobel prize, Planck would still dismiss the photoelectric effect interpretation BTW, despite the fact the Planck was one of the first to recognize Einstein's work. Ultimately, this can be understood mostly because they did not fully appreciate the depth of significance in the calculations.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I was reading an article today on Bell and found out Philosophy was his first passion as well. Funny Einstein and Bell, two of the greatest thinkers of our time, first fell in love with philosophy.

Funny also that Bell considered QM the greatest FAPP (For all practical purposes, a term he coined) theory of all time.

Besides, you seem to describe physics as if the only problem in physics was to quantize gravity. Physics is much wider that this narrow specific field.


Obviously not but it is the biggest problem. And that I hope you can admit.

[apeiron]

This thread talks at cross-purposes. There are two different points to be made.

1) "Philosophy" is always required to ground new science. It is the vague scaffolding of exploratory thought that later becomes crystallised into some precisely expressed model. Usually there will be some powerful imagery or analogy (like replacing point particles with vibrating loops). There is a sense of how things may fit into a shape even before that shape is exactly expressed. And once the model has been constructed, then all the philosophy - the grounding intuition - can be discarded and the model used in "shut up and calculate" fashion.

The inventor must have been a philosopher, but the later users may be just technicians with no interest in the reason why their tools might work.

2) Humanino's point seemed to be about the need for mastery of a field before you can do creative work in that field. And indeed, this is standard wisdom in the psychology of creative genius. You have to make the journey to the edge of current knowledge to then be ready to take a step further into the darkness.

It is important to note that the mastery does not have to be in the same field. Sometimes the big breakthroughs come when someone is a master in one field, then moves into a new area and can see how the ideas of one domain can now solve the problems that exist in another.

However the general point is still that breakthroughs need a solid grounding. You have to know the rules before you can do a good job of breaking them.

[GeorgCantor]

However the general point is still that breakthroughs need a solid grounding. You have to know the rules before you can do a good job of breaking them.



Well, as far as "shut up and calculate" is concerned, and as far as an interpretation is needed, it isn't going to come around as long as QM is a complete theory. That may not always be the attitude in the qm sub-forum, but they are chasing a red herring with those "interpretations" if the theory is complete.

If there is no underlying reality, the interpretation of QM lies somewhere between totally impossible and very likely impossible, no matter what breakthru is made or what kind of experts you gather around. The way our logic works prohibts us from drawing an interpretation of fundamental levels of reality(i am not sure if the experts are always aware of this point). If such is the case with the completeness of qm, the theory of everything is as likely as the cow that jumps to the Moon.

Either we peel another layer of the onion of reality and explain QM or we are stuck here pop-eyed doing the shut up and calculate. Even then, provided that the new level of reality is fundamental, there would be still be no interpretation.

Philosophically speaking, the dream of explaining and interpreting the fundamental level with our usual tools --the so-far successful causal-reductionistic logic, makes as much sense as teaching pigs to fly. Sure, you could kill your spare time trying, but pigs aren't going to fly.

[apeiron]

Philosophically speaking, the dream of explaining and interpreting the fundamental level with our usual tools --the so-far successful causal-reductionistic logic, makes as much sense as teaching pigs to fly. Sure, you could kill your spare time trying, but pigs aren't going to fly.

So now you agree with me that the interesting place to be working is on a more holistic model of logic - such as the systems approach to causality :tongue2:.

The mechanical approach (classical mechanics, relativitisic mechanics, quantum mechanics) is based on a set of clear metaphysical principles - locality, atomism, monadism, determinism, mechanicalism (yes, QM does break some of these principles radically, and yet that is also because it is an attempt to get even close to them).

The mechanical approach to causality is not wrong. It is indeed a very successful brand of modelling.

But QM is one of the things that also reveal its limits rather starkly. To tackle the universe as a whole, as a system, you would indeed need another kind of logic better suited to the task.

But because our logic is also our thinking, our mental habit by which we already view the world, it is in fact very difficult for people to make the change.

[Gokul43201]

He [Smolin] makes it sound like 90% of physicists these days get their doctorate in some advanced String Theory field that lacks any sort of physical observational evidence.Let's fix this little problem right away. By far, the biggest research area in Physics is Condensed Matter. My guess would be that over a third of the Physics community works in Condensed Matter research and less than 10% does research in String Theory + other areas of Quantum Gravity. I expect similar numbers for PhDs. My year of 20-odd grad students saw over 50% go into CM (but our department was particularly strong in CM) and maybe 1 student joined a String group.

[GeorgCantor]

So now you agree with me that the interesting place to be working is on a more holistic model of logic - such as the systems approach to causality :tongue2:.



Well yes, but a hollistic reality of emergent properties seem to my (probably naive) understanding like a 'system' following a goal. I'd go as far as say that 'emergent' seems to implicitly imply a goal/end. It's hard to say what kind of purpose a universe/reality might have for awareness, but certain weird and fundamental cosmic 'coincidences' are quite inline with what(still naively) appears like a universe straining towards life. Consider the fact that at the fundamental level(or what appears to be the fundamental level), all particles in the same quantum state are indistinguishable, except for their behavior determined by their inherent randomness(randomness that strains, quite successfully, towards deterministic causality).



The mechanical approach (classical mechanics, relativitisic mechanics, quantum mechanics) is based on a set of clear metaphysical principles - locality, atomism, monadism, determinism, mechanicalism (yes, QM does break some of these principles radically, and yet that is also because it is an attempt to get even close to them).



My 'favorite' is debb for its attempt to find an underlying reality. Then, someone will concoct an underlying reality for the ftl pilotwave(that will restore causal determinism and common-sense for why the wave acts the way it does) and then some dissident physicist will come up with an idea of another underlying reality that will explain and bring common-sense for the underlying reality of the underlying reality of the underlying reality. The deterministic causality fanboys will always have an array of theoretical toys to play with.



The mechanical approach to causality is not wrong. It is indeed a very successful brand of modelling.

But QM is one of the things that also reveal its limits rather starkly. To tackle the universe as a whole, as a system, you would indeed need another kind of logic better suited to the task.



Agreed and this logic will also have to show more flexibility than a human mind can accommodate, to name a few:

real, but not quite
with properties, but not quite
there, but not quite
then, but not quite
causal, but not quite
deterministic, but not quite

If the emergent 'system' in system science is the goal to be realized, then the emergence of life couldn't be a meaningless occurence(it couldn't be anyway, since there can't be meaningless events in a deterministic reality, it's just our ignorance of preceding events that clouds our better judgement).

[apeiron]

I'd go as far as say that 'emergent' seems to implicitly imply a goal/end. It's hard to say what kind of purpose a universe/reality might have for awareness, but certain weird and fundamental cosmic 'coincidences' are quite inline with what(still naively) appears like a universe straining towards life.

This is where we would take deeply different views. I am happy with a strong idea of purpose and final cause. But I don't see awareness as anything particularly special.

The purpose of the universe seems pretty simple and encoded in the second law of thermodynamics - if there is an entropy gradient, it must be degraded. And life/mind are dissipative structures that use their intelligence to accelerate the universe towards its heat death. That is all. That is their only purpose.

This is what actual systems approaches say. For instance this paper on Ulanowicz's ecological model of ascendency ...

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/biot.2006.1.2.165

Development is a process whereby a relatively unspecified system
comprised of loosely connected lower level parts becomes
organized into a coherent, higher-level agency. Its temporal
corollaries are growth, increasingly deterministic behavior,
and a progressive reduction of developmental potential. During
immature stages with relatively low specification and high
potential, development is largely controlled by local interactions
from the “bottom-up,” whereas during more highly specified
stages with reduced potential, emergent autocatalytic processes
exert “top-down” control. Robert Ulanowicz has shown
that this phenomenology of ascendency follows thermodynamic
principles and can be described quantitatively using information
theory, providing a general theory of development.

You can see how in particular it deals with the issue of determinism as something that develops rather than something that is (that exists outside of time).

Karl Popper (1990) reminds us that only isolated (i.e.,
artificial) systems behave deterministically, whereas natural
systems are always embedded within larger systems of interactions,
making them susceptible to myriad complexities
that inevitably introduce some amount of indeterminacy (cf.
Ulanowicz 1997). The statement “if A then B” might then be
reformulated as the conditional probability p(B|A) = 0.90,
which describes the expected frequency of B given A. This
may seem to be a subtle difference in approach, but it opens
up a materialistic perspective that is less encumbered with assumption
than is a mechanistic worldview. Instead of assuming
that the universe is a causally closed mechanism analogous to
a watch, this perspective allows that the universe to be causally
open; that is, causal relationships are complex and not entirely
predictable, and can originate at any hierarchical level.

[GeorgCantor]

The purpose of the universe seems pretty simple and encoded in the second law of thermodynamics - if there is an entropy gradient, it must be degraded. And life/mind are dissipative structures that use their intelligence to accelerate the universe towards its heat death. That is all. That is their only purpose.



Speaking of entropy and its direction, I am curious how strong a certainty are you willing to express(in percents) that anything is actually moving? As in the statement - "physical motion is possible and actual"?

[brainstorm]

Recently a math-loving physicist explained to me how QM is beyond intuitive modeling of phenomena and yet it is the most successfully proven science. He also said that lasers were invented using QM equations without any qualitative logic whatsoever. Today, I picked up a book at the library that explained in qualitative, intuitively accessible terms how a laser works using a cylindrical synthetic ruby with mirrored ends where light builds up to the point that it overcomes the reflective ends and "zap." This explanation caused me to question what the math-lover was insisting and think that maybe the reason so many math-loving physicists claim that math is an absolute prerequisite to explaining or predicting anything physical is because they really just don't get what they're doing at the intuitive level.

[apeiron]

Speaking of entropy and its direction, I am curious how strong a certainty are you willing to express(in percents) that anything is actually moving? As in the statement - "physical motion is possible and actual"?

100 per cent. Otherwise what is inertia all about? Of course, motion needs to be measured against some background, so there is the contextual or relativistic issue.

[GeorgCantor]

100 per cent.


Hmmm, 100% certainty isn't typical of philosophers and i haven't noticed 100% certanty expressed on PF(except on the math sub-forum), so this must also be valid of physicists.


Otherwise what is inertia all about?


Good question. What is mass all about? What is space all about? Or matter? Or entropy?


Of course, motion needs to be measured against some background, so there is the contextual or relativistic issue.


Well not only. Motion is one of the fundamental physical concepts together with space, matter and time, so the conceptual problems with motion are at least as deep as those with the other 3.

You have the issue of continuous motion where infinity briefly touches on finiteness in a Zeno-like fashion(infinite converging series leading to finiteness). Then you have your physical theories of measurements(GR and QM) that explain motion as a series of measurements(no motion except that which is wrongfully? inferred after the measurements by your perception). Then you have Biology that explain motion as perception of frames per second(you always perceive a "Now" frame out of a series). Motion in qm is even wilder and quite possibly non-existent(sum over histories; seldomly anyone would argue on quantum trajectories). Then you have those involved in the foundational issues of QM sugesting that space and time must be emergent phenomena from the interaction of more basic entities. But the heart of the problem is the cesession of being of the said object at particular coordinates and its appearance at another that we infer to have been caused by 'motion'. A blockworld model, that is consistent with the evidence, is silent on these issues as they are way deeper than physics can currently deal with.

Anyway, i was merely interested where your strong confidence comes from on these unresolved foundational issues and the idea that flow of entropy is a necessary subtrate of all being.


Have a look at this 'motion' example with additional perception surprizes:

http://physicsofopticalillusions.yolasite.com/insane.php

[apeiron]

But the heart of the problem is the cesession of being of the said object at particular coordinates and its appearance at another that we infer to have been caused by 'motion'.

This is going off-topic and if you are interested, you could pose your question in its own thread (not that it matters much as this thread is already at a dead-end).

But briefly, my reply was about theoretical contexts in which motion is an irreducible property. And so - in terms of the model - 100 per cent certainty becomes possible.

What other models might say is another matter.

And the same applies for any claims about entropy gradients. The models cannot be doubted because we have constructed them from axioms.

Both motion and dissipation also seem to be facts about the reality as best we can observe. But there is always the possibility of new facts from more subtle measurements coming along.

Again, you want to focus on the fact that models always leave room for doubt (even when doubt seems to be unreasonable). I'm looking at the same situation from the other point of view. There is surprisingly little doubt now about some very fundamental seeming truths.

[brainstorm]

Could you say that motion is just a way of describing momentum changes in tandem with relative times and distances to other objects? Couldn't you simply say that objects with inertia change momentum and collide with each other (and interact with each other's fields) from time to time, without specifying their location vis-a-vis a coordinate system? I'm not claiming this would be particularly handy, but I feel the need to raise this kind of point whenever a discussion about the fundamental nature of motion, space, time, etc. comes up.

[apeiron]

Could you say that motion is just a way of describing momentum changes in tandem with relative times and distances to other objects?

Such a model would say nothing about relative distances and so nothing about the variable speeds of objects. It might be possible to make such a model, but a failure to represent motion would not throw doubt on motion would it?

But the heart of the problem is the cesession of being of the said object at particular coordinates and its appearance at another that we infer to have been caused by 'motion'.

Georg, the problem you seem to be raising is that motion is deemed to be a continuous action and yet our models presume that motions are constructed as a succession of discrete steps. This leads to familiar paradoxes.

As usual, I would point out that all metaphysical concepts are derived as dichotomies, and dichotomies are limit state descriptions. So the metaphysical model here is discrete~continuous. Or constructed motion vs constrained action. And we can model from either point of view.

We can construct a motion mechanically as a series of discrete steps (which is the classical Newtonian approach, points along a line). Or we can constrain an action to a least mean path (which would be the top-down QM sum over histories approach, a collapse of possibilities to a single crisp path).

Which is more real? Well the dichotomy tells us that neither the discrete nor the continuous is real. They are the limits of what can be achieved (and so are not themselves achievable). But we can get infinitesimally close.

[GeorgCantor]

Georg, the problem you seem to be raising is that motion is deemed to be a continuous action and yet our models presume that motions are constructed as a succession of discrete steps. This leads to familiar paradoxes.

As usual, I would point out that all metaphysical concepts are derived as dichotomies, and dichotomies are limit state descriptions. So the metaphysical model here is discrete~continuous. Or constructed motion vs constrained action. And we can model from either point of view.

We can construct a motion mechanically as a series of discrete steps (which is the classical Newtonian approach, points along a line). Or we can constrain an action to a least mean path (which would be the top-down QM sum over histories approach, a collapse of possibilities to a single crisp path).

Which is more real? Well the dichotomy tells us that neither the discrete nor the continuous is real. They are the limits of what can be achieved (and so are not themselves achievable). But we can get infinitesimally close.




Yes, good point. We at last agree on something truly fundamental - reality cannot be neither continuous nor discrete. That's actually why i raised the point with you about motion, since you seem to like dichotomies and models not being the world.

If this point - reality cannot be neither continuous nor discrete is fully appreciated by physicists and philosophers alike, the interconnectedness/nonseparability issue of quantum theory will begin to pale. It's just that the majority isn't ready for the manouver yet.

[brainstorm]

Such a model would say nothing about relative distances and so nothing about the variable speeds of objects. It might be possible to make such a model, but a failure to represent motion would not throw doubt on motion would it?

Only because the "model" utilized in everyday perception construes objects in terms of relative position. Everyday perception also construes the ground as stationary and flat, while the sun and moon are perceived as rising and falling along with the stars. I forget why this issue came up here in the first place, though.

[Pythagorean]

I think I prefer:

shut up and analyze mathematical statements in a qualitative way

[brainstorm]

I think I prefer:

shut up and analyze mathematical statements in a qualitative way

Yes, and please translate them into other languages too, e.g. English, so the math illiterate or semi-literate among us can understand more about science than we could otherwise.

[Pythagorean]

Yes, and please translate them into other languages too, e.g. English, so the math illiterate or semi-literate among us can understand more about science than we could otherwise.

A lot of my foreign friends claim that English is their preferred language for technical detail, because their native language just isn't descriptive enough. Though, they like to use their native language for emotional expression because it's more suited (maybe it's just a personal preferences though, since they were raised with that language, and thus developed emotionally around it).

I feel the same way about math vs. english. Math is a very descriptive language. When we translate it to English, concepts can be lost and misrepresented. Which is why, for instance, everyone still things Wave-Particle duality exists. The only reason we use wave in wave mechanics is because it utilizes a wave equation. This shouldn't be confused with ocean waves, for instance.

[brainstorm]

Which is why, for instance, everyone still things Wave-Particle duality exists. The only reason we use wave in wave mechanics is because it utilizes a wave equation. This shouldn't be confused with ocean waves, for instance.
So how do particles shift frequencies if they don't move in waves with wavelengths?

[SixNein]

A lot of my foreign friends claim that English is their preferred language for technical detail, because their native language just isn't descriptive enough. Though, they like to use their native language for emotional expression because it's more suited (maybe it's just a personal preferences though, since they were raised with that language, and thus developed emotionally around it).

I feel the same way about math vs. english. Math is a very descriptive language. When we translate it to English, concepts can be lost and misrepresented. Which is why, for instance, everyone still things Wave-Particle duality exists. The only reason we use wave in wave mechanics is because it utilizes a wave equation. This shouldn't be confused with ocean waves, for instance.

I feel much of the same about math vs physics. I sometimes wonder if physicists are not interpreting mathematical problems and descriptions as physical problems and descriptions.

[Pythagorean]

I feel much of the same about math vs physics. I sometimes wonder if physicists are not interpreting mathematical problems and descriptions as physical problems and descriptions.

Generally, physicists don't work on "mathematical problems". They use math in physical problems.

So how do particles shift frequencies if they don't move in waves with wavelengths?

quantum particles don't "move".

Ok... so an ocean wave is classically simulated as a bunch of hard little pellets that move continuously through space according to a wave equation. In other words, the motion of each particle is described by the superposition of several waveforms (i.e. multiple frequencies).

A single quantum particle's position, velocity, energy, etc are described by operations on the probability wave function. Completely different application, it just happens to use the same shape of equation.

please shut up and calculate, then come back and we'll have a philosophical discussion based on relevant arguments.

[brainstorm]

quantum particles don't "move".

Ok... so an ocean wave is classically simulated as a bunch of hard little pellets that move continuously through space according to a wave equation. In other words, the motion of each particle is described by the superposition of several waveforms (i.e. multiple frequencies).

A single quantum particle's position, velocity, energy, etc are described by operations on the probability wave function. Completely different application, it just happens to use the same shape of equation.

please shut up and calculate, then come back and we'll have a philosophical discussion based on relevant arguments.
How foolish does someone have to be to expend time and effort performing calculations for a model that they don't understand qualitatively? It would be like telling someone to make a sacrifice to the volcano to get a good harvest. Then when the person asks how or why it's supposed to work, you tell them "shut up and sacrifice and you'll see." It's utterly anti-scientific to approach research this way. Ironically there's a scene in Madagascar 2 where someone asks how a volcano sacrifice works and it is actually explained to the point of being critically accessible; which is more than can be said about people who think, "shut up and calculate."

[Pythagorean]

How foolish does someone have to be to expend time and effort performing calculations for a model that they don't understand qualitatively? It would be like telling someone to make a sacrifice to the volcano to get a good harvest. Then when the person asks how or why it's supposed to work, you tell them "shut up and sacrifice and you'll see." It's utterly anti-scientific to approach research this way. Ironically there's a scene in Madagascar 2 where someone asks how a volcano sacrifice works and it is actually explained to the point of being critically accessible; which is more than can be said about people who think, "shut up and calculate."

But that's a complete misrepresentation of how it works. It' s not like we sit around with calculators and just punch in numbers and get a result. That seems to be the mentality being projected here.

You work qualitatively with the equations in about 90% of the work you do pursuing a physics degree. It's highly stressed in the physics curriculum that you understand the concepts. We don't even use numbers or calculators in the advanced physics courses because it's all algebra and calculus analysis on the general equations themselves, as variables.

It's symbolic manipulation. Each variable has a real, significant meaning. They are logic statements that you can manipulate to find other logic statements. In fact, we're criticized by mathematicians when our concepts outweigh our mathematics. For instance, consider any inverse square law. What happens when the distance between two charged particles is 0? According to the law, the force between them is infinite... but this is impossible of course. Obviously, the equations don't match observation at that point, but that's fine. We're more interested in the qualitative behavior.

[humanino]

How foolish does someone have to be to expend time and effort performing calculations for a model that they don't understand qualitatively? It would be like telling someone to make a sacrifice to the volcano to get a good harvest. Then when the person asks how or why it's supposed to work, you tell them "shut up and sacrifice and you'll see." It's utterly anti-scientific to approach research this way. Ironically there's a scene in Madagascar 2 where someone asks how a volcano sacrifice works and it is actually explained to the point of being critically accessible; which is more than can be said about people who think, "shut up and calculate."The only place I know of where one can experiment on a system for which we do not have mere quantum "corrections", but rather where the system is dominated by wild quantum relativistic fluctuations : hadrons.

It so happens that we pretty much have the exact theory describing those beasts : mostly QCD + electroweak corrections.

It turns out that there are pretty much as many hadronic models as there are people trying to model them : we know the relevant fundamental degrees of freedom (quarks and gluons) but we do not know how to calculate the observed properties of the effective degrees of freedom (mesons and baryons).

So an entire community has developed during the last 1.5 decade or so, doing non-perturbative calculations on the lattice. They hope to gather some insights on the effective models, compare their brute-force calculations with predictions which cannot be compared with experiments (either not yet or not in principles), offer guidance in the perturbative to non-perturbative transition.

Those are literally thousands of highly qualified computational scientists. You just dismissed their entire enterprise from a line you picked up in a cartoon ?

The level of the philosophy sub-forum never ceases to amaze me. It is just plain wrong to have a superficial and distant understanding of what people do (like 99% of the participants of this forum do with Bohr) yet display openly contempt and random judgement on a lifetime's work of Nobel prize winners.

[Pythagorean]

Humanino, maybe you can help me out with another example. I remember learning about a case where a physicist "jumped" from one equation to another using physical intuition.

It sent up red flags for some prominent mathematicians at the time, who immediately jumped in to show formally why he (she?) was wrong... but after pages of tedious calculation, discovered that the expressions were in fact equivalent.

I may be representing over flourishing from my unreliable memory, but do you know what I'm talking about? There may be several such cases for all I know.

[GeorgCantor]

The only place I know of where one can experiment on a system for which we do not have mere quantum "corrections", but rather where the system is dominated by wild quantum relativistic fluctuations : hadrons.

It so happens that we pretty much have the exact theory describing those beasts : mostly QCD + electroweak corrections.

It turns out that there are pretty much as many hadronic models as there are people trying to model them : we know the relevant fundamental degrees of freedom (quarks and gluons) but we do not know how to calculate the observed properties of the effective degrees of freedom (mesons and baryons).

So an entire community has developed during the last 1.5 decade or so, doing non-perturbative calculations on the lattice. They hope to gather some insights on the effective models, compare their brute-force calculations with predictions which cannot be compared with experiments (either not yet or not in principles), offer guidance in the perturbative to non-perturbative transition.

Those are literally thousands of highly qualified computational scientists. You just dismissed their entire enterprise from a line you picked up in a cartoon ?



Did he really mean to degrade the work of those computational scientists? I thought he meant to expose the common false pretense that a few relations written in mathematical equations(shut up and calculate) give one a picture of what is really going on.


The level of the philosophy sub-forum never ceases to amaze me. It is just plain wrong to have a superficial and distant understanding of what people do (like 99% of the participants of this forum do with Bohr) yet display openly contempt and random judgement on a lifetime's work of Nobel prize winners.


You probably misunderstood what he said. The level of the other sub-forums isn't better at times. If every disagreement that arises in a tread is a testament of someone being wrong, then most threads are filled with at least 50% junk, but that's to be expected at the cutting edge of science.

[GeorgCantor]

Which is why, for instance, everyone still things Wave-Particle duality exists.



If we stick to "shut up and calculate" wave particle duality doesn't exist. But i thought people here in the philosophy forum would flat out denounce such an "interpretation" or more appropriately -- such lack of interpretation.


It's more polite to say that fundamental 'particles' display charateristics that don't fall into the realm of comprehensible processes and we have a mathematical model that works but we have no idea why it works. We are trying hard to derive the SE from a more basic and fundamental theory(and make sense of it) but we are unsuccessful.

[humanino]

Did he really mean to degrade the work of those computational scientists? I thought he meant to expose the common false pretense that a few relations written in mathematical equations(shut up and calculate) give one a picture of what is really going on.No, I think I neither misread what he wrote, nor what this implies. Lattice QCD people "shut up and calculate", even more precisely they "expend time and effort performing calculations for a model that [nobody] understand qualitatively".

I find it offensive that people who not only are not professional but do not even know how to calculate dismiss these efforts as "utterly unscientific", and it applies just as well to the Copenhagen school.

Remember Newton knew very well that his "action at a distance" was unsatisfactory ?

I have read as much of Bohr's original texts as I could, and I do not agree that his "shut up and calculate" attitude was inadequate, and I am quite sure that those who believe Bohr was uninterested in philosophy and interpretation are misinformed.

I am not sure about which event Pythagorean is referring to. Again in the topic of hadronic physics, I can mention Yang-Mills theory. When one of them (either Yang or Mills, I am unsure) first presented his work with Pauli in the audience, Pauli used his authority to dismiss it at utter non-sense : there is no other long range force carried by a massless boson. Pauli mentioned that he knew all that business for 30 years, but did not care to publish it. Well, unfortunately for Pauli, massless gluons are confined and Yang-Mills name sticked to the fundamental interaction. It's too bad that the obvious interpretation everybody trusted was flawed. It took about 20 years to understand this aspect, and it was just mathematics missing.


By the way, Pauli also dismissed Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck proposal for spin 1/2.

[brainstorm]

I find it offensive that people who not only are not professional but do not even know how to calculate dismiss these efforts as "utterly unscientific", and it applies just as well to the Copenhagen school.

Taking offense to methodological criticism is also "utterly unscientific." A disciplined discussion about methodology should explore the reasons for how and why to utilize certain methods in pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge without degenerating into an interest-driven defense of certain methods over others on the basis of their inherent value as methods loose from the specific function they fulfill in specific research endeavors. Generally elevating qualitative or quantitative methods, or any specific method for its own sake is "utterly unscientific" or perhaps "anti-scientific," imo - or actually I think this goes beyond my personal opinion and involves basic issues of reasonability and value/interest-neutrality.

To do good science, you have to know more than just how to perform operations and follow recipes. Technical proficiency has its own value, but it is not inherently good science in itself. Good science involves knowing and reasoning why a particular method is used, quantitative or qualitative (i.e. mathematics or something else); and methodological reasoning cannot be done purely with mathematics, as far as I know. Someone please correct me with an example if I am mistaken.

[apeiron]

It so happens that we pretty much have the exact theory describing those beasts : mostly QCD + electroweak corrections.

It turns out that there are pretty much as many hadronic models as there are people trying to model them : we know the relevant fundamental degrees of freedom (quarks and gluons) but we do not know how to calculate the observed properties of the effective degrees of freedom (mesons and baryons).


You seem to be describing a special situation, (much like string theory?), where you have what seems like a concrete beginning (a model of the components), but then no clear path to the next level of description. So a bit like being faced by a combination lock, the only choice seems to be to try every possible combination until one finally clicks.

If this is what you mean by "shut up and calculate", then it sounds like a last resort.

But did the components themselves (QCD) not involve important conceptual leaps? Were the physicists not guided by vague analogies that suggested paths to follow. And then perhaps came the "shut up and calculate" phase where they had to make good on their hopes and intuitions.

[Evo]

Is humanino still the only scientist posting in here?

[Pythagorean]

Is humanino still the only scientist posting in here?

It depends on how you define scientist. I consider myself a scientist, I'm just not a published scientist (yet). I am, however, doing publishable research through an accredited university, but I don't have a PhD. You could call me a baby scientist without offending me too much. I still have much to learn.

[Evo]

It depends on how you define scientist. I consider myself a scientist, I'm just not a published scientist (yet). I am, however, doing publishable research through an accredited university, but I don't have a PhD. You could call me a baby scientist without offending me too much. I still have much to learn.
I define a scientist as someone that is degreed and employed in that science or doing post doctoral work in that science. A BS does not a scientist make, if you are not employed in that field, it is a step in that direction though, IMO. More to the point, this thread is aimed at physicists.


My sister's (now ex) boyfriend has a PhD in astrophysics, both of his parents are tenured professors at a prestigious University. He's never worked a day as an astrophysicist, he delivers pizzas for a living. So is he a scientist or a pizza delivery boy?

My point is that humanino is brilliant in his field, he has refused to accept a Science Advisor medal, but the entire mentor staff acknowledges his brilliance. And then I see posts of members arguing wih him as if they have similar credentials and knowledge.

[Pythagorean]

I define a scientist as someone that is degreed and employed in that science or doing post doctoral work in that science. A BS does not a scientist make, IMO. More to the point, this thread is aimed at physicists.

I agree that a BS is insufficient; I consider myself a (baby) scientist because I'm employed in the sciences, not because of the paper.

[apeiron]

More to the point, this thread is aimed at physicists.

What the heck is it doing in the philosophy forum then? :smile:

[humanino]

Generally elevatingWhat am I elevating ? I am not elevating anything. You are the one elevating :To do good science, [...] it is not inherently good science in itself. Good science involves knowing and reasoning why a particular method is used, quantitative or qualitative (i.e. mathematics or something else)I guess you may agree that good science also involve honesty. Sometimes we have methods which provide good answers when compared with data, yet the models do not answer some of our philosophical questions. In that case, it's not that we do not ask the questions, it's just that we are being honest. Some questions are ill-formulated in a given theory. I accept and enjoy criticism. You mention methodology : the method is to understand what people do and then criticize.
You seem to be describing a special situation, (much like string theory?), where you have what seems like a concrete beginning (a model of the components), but then no clear path to the next level of description. So a bit like being faced by a combination lock, the only choice seems to be to try every possible combination until one finally clicks.Yes.

If this is what you mean by "shut up and calculate", then it sounds like a last resort.Yes, it is a last resort. There is a difference between not asking a question, and admitting that the theory cannot answer the question.

But did the components themselves (QCD) not involve important conceptual leaps? Were the physicists not guided by vague analogies that suggested paths to follow. And then perhaps came the "shut up and calculate" phase where they had to make good on their hopes and intuitions.They were guided by precise analogies, the same principles which lead to QED, and a straightforward (in retrospect of course) extension from abelian to non-abelian groups.

[Evo]

What the heck is it doing in the philosophy forum then? :smile:The OP is about physics, but doesn't have enough substance for the physics forum. We still need to have some level of scientific merit here. We are lucky enough that a real physicist is sharing here, perhaps we should listen to what they say since they actually work in this field.

That's all I am saying.

[apeiron]

The OP is about physics, but doesn't have enough substance for the physics forum.

This is unclear thinking. The OP is clearly about the philosophy of science and the nature of creative genius. Physics might be the domain, but the epistemological questions are more general.


We are lucky enough that a real physicist is sharing here, perhaps we should listen to what they say since they actually work in this field.

Yes, thank-you Humanino.

[brainstorm]

The OP is about physics, but doesn't have enough substance for the physics forum. We still need to have some level of scientific merit here. We are lucky enough that a real physicist is sharing here, perhaps we should listen to what they say since they actually work in this field.

That's all I am saying.

I can only really speak for myself, but I don't think anyone wants to alienate or celebrate anyone else on the basis of their professional status as a physicist or otherwise. I thought this thread was just about discussing the relative validity of the logic behind the approach, "shut up and calculate." I would think there would be plenty of seasoned professional physicists with a distaste for people who think they can do physics just by being proficient in mathematics. Aren't there any mathematicians deserving of criticism for insufficiently applying their math skills in terms of theoretical approach? Only a physicist who is truly math proficient themselves would be in the position to evaluate this. Those of us illiterate or semi-literate in math can only bow to the stuff that goes over our head.

[Pythagorean]

@ Evo

Calculations apply to, for instance, mathematical biology as well. Not just physics. :P


To do good science, you have to know more than just how to perform operations and follow recipes. Technical proficiency has its own value, but it is not inherently good science in itself. Good science involves knowing and reasoning why a particular method is used, quantitative or qualitative (i.e. mathematics or something else); and methodological reasoning cannot be done purely with mathematics, as far as I know. Someone please correct me with an example if I am mistaken.

You're not mistaken, that's indeed how science is taught. The mistake is the mentality that qualitative and quantitative somehow live in separate realities. You seem to be implying that by studying the equations, no qualitative or philosophical understanding will come of it. That's what is wrong, imo..

Also, the assumption that the academic study of physics blindly plugs and chugs numbers without thinking about the meaning of their models is equally bogus.

It's not like there's a "formula" (hehe) to learning the material either. You don't study qualitative first than quantitative. There's a dynamic relationship between the two, they supplement, feed, and feed off of each other. You study qualitative and quantitative aspects in parallel over the course of your degree. Some subjects may focus more on one aspect than the other, but 1+1=2 for instance, is meaningless in physics without units or a description of what we're adding up to equal two. And "I have some apples" is not accurate enough. There's a balance between qualitative and quantitative aspects.

"shut up and calculate" is a response from non-physics to a response from physics geared towards people who want to have the qualitative without the quantitative.

[humanino]

<rant>
Yes, thank-you Humanino.I take no pride in being employed as a physicist. This is not fake humility, it just so happens that I imagine it much harder for instance to raise a child (to decency) than to reach an academic position. Louis Pasteur had a quote about pride of academic positions : "The profession does no honor to the man, but the man ought to honor the profession."
</rant>

[Evo]

This is unclear thinking. The OP is clearly about the philosophy of science and the nature of creative genius. Physics might be the domain, but the epistemological questions are more general.Is that an agreement that this can't hold up in the hard physics section, since there is no hard physics?

[apeiron]

Is that an agreement that this can't hold up in the hard physics section, since there is no hard physics?

I don't really understand that comment. But the OP is about how scientists should do science, which is epistemology.

[apeiron]

They were guided by precise analogies, the same principles which lead to QED, and a straightforward (in retrospect of course) extension from abelian to non-abelian groups.

A serious question: isn't the "getting more mathematical" aspect here about the systematic relaxation of constraints so as to move to a more generalised view. So you move from geometry to topology by relaxing constraints (such as the need to define distances, for instance) and so end up in a realm that "looks" more rarified or abstract as a result.

Non-euclidean geometry relaxed the constraints on Euclidean flatness. String theory relaxed constraints on dimensionality. Non-abelian groups relaxed the constraint of commutativity. Progress is about finding what we were assuming to be pinned down, then unbuttoning it and discovering what structure still remains to be described.

But then there is a new problem of how to recover particular physical solutions from the newly created, less physical-seeming, landscapes. We now need a theory about constraints themselves - one that can pick out the right solution for a reason. Either that, or we are reduced to clicking through every possible combination, every possible set of constraints, in the hope one is the unique solution.

So maybe we have no choice but to grope blindly and hope eventually to strike lucky as a result of just grinding the calculations. Or possibly still, a theory of constraints would give us qualitative reasons for say yes, I can see why that feels like the correct choice.

I would think in fact that people even in your field are trying to imagine the correct constraints that would narrow the search for an answer? There is still an important conceptual aspect, even if the level of thinking is rarified.

[brainstorm]

You're not mistaken, that's indeed how science is taught. The mistake is the mentality that qualitative and quantitative somehow live in separate realities. You seem to be implying that by studying the equations, no qualitative or philosophical understanding will come of it. That's what is wrong, imo..
This is the way I've thought about scientific math all along. The problem, imo, is when scientists claim that they can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. When people say this, it is fundamentally naive, yet such people often purport to be right purely on the basis that they are experts in their field. Put more simply, they think scientific expertise automatically makes them experts in philosophizing and/or other meta-knowledge of what they're doing. Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism. This is not to say that people aren't extremely good at what they do or that their expertise is not real expertise. I would just say it is often more technical than scientific.

Also, the assumption that the academic study of physics blindly plugs and chugs numbers without thinking about the meaning of their models is equally bogus.
Great. So why do people resist communicating about them except in maths then?

It's not like there's a "formula" (hehe) to learning the material either. You don't study qualitative first than quantitative. There's a dynamic relationship between the two, they supplement, feed, and feed off of each other. You study qualitative and quantitative aspects in parallel over the course of your degree. Some subjects may focus more on one aspect than the other, but 1+1=2 for instance, is meaningless in physics without units or a description of what we're adding up to equal two. And "I have some apples" is not accurate enough. There's a balance between qualitative and quantitative aspects.
In one sense you study them in tandem, and in another sense they are parallel discourses. Ultimately, I think a mature scientist should be able to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative issues. I also think people should be able to see how quantitative issues emerge into qualitative ones and vice versa.

"shut up and calculate" is a response from non-physics to a response from physics geared towards people who want to have the qualitative without the quantitative.
How can you automatically assume that because someone isn't skilled in mathematics that they can't understand at least some aspect of science? It sounds like what you're arguing is that if someone can't or won't do the math, they should be relegated to studying creationism as their primary explanation of everything in the universe.

[humanino]

....
We have a theory for systems under constraints, or systems in which the symmetries are larger than they appear as you have grasped. That's gauge theories. The appearance of infinities plaguing quantum gauge fields is related to this aspect : we are doing redundant integrals including "directions" in which "the integrand is constant" (which spits out infinity).

There has been recently tremendous progress in calculating amplitudes involving many (massless, which means high energy limit) particles in non-abelian gauge theories. The integrals are re-written over a twistor space. The crucial step was published by Witten in 2003 but it took a few years to digest. The initial construction of general twistor was due to Penrose in the 70s. These twistor constructions allow us to incorporate gauge constraints at a very early stage in the formalism. So Penrose (a general relativist) has put forward a general proposal long time ago that spacetime is emergent from more fundamental geometrical entities (twistors), from general arguments and hints that the formalism should naturally incorporate quantum mechanical counter-intuitive features (such as non-locality). He always had very seducing discussions around, beautiful motivations, elegant and convincing analogies. But note that for about 30 years the majority of people have not really listened to those general quasi-philosophical arguments. It is only once we had down-to-earth concrete calculations (not involving such general arguments) that people follow the lead and get to publish important papers. I can not tell for sure how much Witten cared about the geometrical beautiful aspects of twistors when he first decided to work on this. But it remains clear that only the efficiency of the calculation was convincing.

I think this illustrates well that people do care about discussions and permanently reflect over the philosophical interpretations, but that only calculations matter when it comes to convince one another for which direction to explore. This is always what I understood of "shut up and calculate" : calculate first, and then discuss the interpretation of the calculation.

[humanino]

Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism.The reason the attribution of an academic title in science relies on nuts and bolts is because the difficult step is to understand the nuts and bolts. Once this is understood, it is easy to discuss about the interpretations. If nuts and bolts are not understood, the discussion is vacuous. It is very difficult to discuss about colors with someone who never opened their eyes.

This answer is following a background expressed in the previous message.

[yossell]

I'd like to emphasise that instrumentalism is itself a view about methodology, and thus is a kind of philosophy. The view that all we can know or meaningfully argue about is that which is observable - including the discussion of what exactly is observable - is a strong version of empiricism, and many influential philosophers have supported this view. (e.g. Hume, Locke, Quine)

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.

[yossell]

I have read as much of Bohr's original texts as I could, and I do not agree that his "shut up and calculate" attitude was inadequate, and I am quite sure that those who believe Bohr was uninterested in philosophy and interpretation are misinformed.


I had always thought Bohr to be one of the physicists most interested and most determined to try and understand what quantum mechanics told us about the world, that he introduced new concepts, such as complementarity, to aid him in this and, as such, was very removed from the instrumentalist and 'shut up and calculate' view.

It's true that the term `copenhagen interpretation' is associated both with Bohr and the shut up and calculate view, but I had never seen Bohr himself as properly belonging to this school. Indeed, many of the views that are now associated with the copenhagen interpretation owe more to Dirac and von Nuemann's development of quantum mechanics than to Bohr's work.

[humanino]

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.I realize that I have sometimes used the words "philosophical question" in a sense which can be interpreted as pejorative. It would have been better to specify "only philosophical" in the sense that we are interested in the question but unable to answer it scientifically. My entire point was that those questions which are sometimes answered by "shut up and calculate" have most probably been thought of by the likes of Bohr. So the answer "shut up and calculate" (which is not meant to be aggressive) is an acknowledgment of ignorance, and the reason for this ignorance can only be traced back to technical dead-ends.

Thank you for pointing out the clarification.

[Pythagorean]

This is the way I've thought about scientific math all along. The problem, imo, is when scientists claim that they can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. When people say this, it is fundamentally naive, yet such people often purport to be right purely on the basis that they are experts in their field. Put more simply, they think scientific expertise automatically makes them experts in philosophizing and/or other meta-knowledge of what they're doing. Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism. This is not to say that people aren't extremely good at what they do or that their expertise is not real expertise. I would just say it is often more technical than scientific.

Nobody can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. Equations are meaningless without qualitative assumptions and definitions attached to them. I think they are in denial about philosophy if they make those claims. In other words, scientists that deny that philosophy enters their mind are in denial.


Great. So why do people resist communicating about them except in maths then?


Well, traditionally, they didn't and there's still many authors like Brian Greene who still attempt it. But that led (leads) to a lot of misconception by people who don't want to study the quantitative aspects. It's the same complaint that you've given only from the other end: to think you can understand these concept in a purely qualitative manner is incorrect.

How can you automatically assume that because someone isn't skilled in mathematics that they can't understand at least some aspect of science? It sounds like what you're arguing is that if someone can't or won't do the math, they should be relegated to studying creationism as their primary explanation of everything in the universe.

It's not an "automatic assumption", it's an observation that's been demonstrated repeatedly here in the philosophy section of physics forums. It's also a matter of having studied the subject for 4+ years in a standardized academic institution. It's not an assumption I was born with, it's one I developed after interactions with laymen (even offline).

But you also have to realize that that 4+ years is also spent developing and learning the qualitative aspect, so even if we ignore the quantitative aspect, you're not going to reach the same level of understanding in even a year of philosophy forum threads.

[brainstorm]

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.
Or even just reasoning about the relationships between variables or the implications of a particular model.

[brainstorm]

Well, traditionally, they didn't and there's still many authors like Brian Greene who still attempt it. But that led (leads) to a lot of misconception by people who don't want to study the quantitative aspects. It's the same complaint that you've given only from the other end: to think you can understand these concept in a purely qualitative manner is incorrect.

I think this is a good point, and part of the reason it hasn't come out is because of the relative superiority many mathematics-proficient scientists exude when dismissively regarding those who aren't academically trained to the extent they are. There are basic mathematical relationships that are fundamental in concepts like velocity, acceleration, momentum, heat, etc. but it seems like highly trained physicists will dismiss these as mathematics because they are more interested in math that challenges them intellectually. Basic understanding of quantification does, however, allow people with poor math skills understand a lot of science, and I think it would be unfair to presumptively invalidate any thoughts they have because of this. Granted, it always helps to know what people do and don't understand, and be mindful of how this affects their perspective on specific issues, but it just seems unnecessary and wrong to use math-skill as a basis for completely alienating people who are actively interested in your subject matter. It also seems more like chest-beating than constructive discourse to me. What is ultimately the purpose of science except to facilitate progress in culture generally, regardless of people's relative academic level?

[Pythagorean]

I think this is a good point, and part of the reason it hasn't come out is because of the relative superiority many mathematics-proficient scientists exude when dismissively regarding those who aren't academically trained to the extent they are.

Yeah, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated among my peer group. What is tolerated is getting frustrated at people who keep insisting and arguing from ignorance. And it's generally a lack of mathematical formalism that is the cause of their ignorance.

Of course, it would be fine if it was just one little thing to clear up, but when the number of misrepresentations is so high, it's likely that the mathematical formalism will clear up all their misconceptions at once instead of me trying to micro-manage every little misconception (and some of them I'll never see because they're hidden assumptions). It's not like they're going to be a math zombie while they're doing the formalism... they're still going to be wondering about their questions and their ideas and THAT'S the part that will help them WHILE doing the formalism. Most newbie physics majors are completely ecstatic about the qualitative/philosophical part. They can't avoid pondering it while doing the mathematical formalism. I know I couldn't.

Also, you might be interested in the demographic of philosopher mathematicians. Hurkyl is an example of one here at physicsforums. Most mathematicians are actually quite philosophical minded. Mathematics augments philosophical thinking, in my opinion, because it's the language that logic uses. So the end point, I guess, is don't be afraid of the math; you can do it, and you will gain a lot from it.

[brainstorm]

Yeah, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated among my peer group. What is tolerated is getting frustrated at people who keep insisting and arguing from ignorance. And it's generally a lack of mathematical formalism that is the cause of their ignorance.

Of course, it would be fine if it was just one little thing to clear up, but when the number of misrepresentations is so high, it's likely that the mathematical formalism will clear up all their misconceptions at once instead of me trying to micro-manage every little misconception (and some of them I'll never see because they're hidden assumptions). It's not like they're going to be a math zombie while they're doing the formalism... they're still going to be wondering about their questions and their ideas and THAT'S the part that will help them WHILE doing the formalism. Most newbie physics majors are completely ecstatic about the qualitative/philosophical part. They can't avoid pondering it while doing the mathematical formalism. I know I couldn't.

Also, you might be interested in the demographic of philosopher mathematicians. Hurkyl is an example of one here at physicsforums. Most mathematicians are actually quite philosophical minded. Mathematics augments philosophical thinking, in my opinion, because it's the language that logic uses. So the end point, I guess, is don't be afraid of the math; you can do it, and you will gain a lot from it.

Sorry, but as kind as your words are, they are still basically condescending. They make me wish I had direct experience with training in academic physics, though, because then I could provide more specific arguments about how math can get in the way of valid qualitative reasoning. Unfortunately, it is extremely time and resource consuming to go to all the trouble of learning all the rigorous quantitative exercises that are required for gaining a higher degree only to get ostracized when you actually have the gaul to point out the flaws in the reasoning behind them. Ideally, professional scientists wouldn't get their feathers ruffled or feel offended or threatened when someone exposes the short-comings of one or more methods that are their bread and butter, but as human beings they tend to. Then they insist that if you don't like their method, you better pick another one and stick to it because you can't be a scientist by remaining methodologically critical. Of course critical methodology is more scientific than methodological dogmatism, but it is not what drives grant-funded research that relies on established methods to pursue other goals than critiquing and reforming those methods.

So, yes it would help for qualitatively bright people to learn the math well enough to use or critique it as necessary, but the cost of learning it in order to critique it sufficiently is too high - so many of us prefer to hover in the informal discourse instead of wasting loads of money and effort pursuing a formal education to answer questions that you can pursue qualitatively to satisfy your curiosity and engage in meaningful discourse with others. If credentialed academians wish to withhold contact from the unschooled in hopes of stimulating more patronage of the academic institutions, they may make some more money from some people, but many others will probably just find themselves that much more in the dark ages. It's a shame that scientists can't just maintain a function of public-enlightenment to the extent that it is possible with us ignoramuses (ignorami?).

[Pythagorean]

The point wasn't that you should get a degree in mathematics. Just look at the equations yourself, try to understand them, and ask questions in a place like this.

[yossell]

Sorry, but as kind as your words are, they are still basically condescending.

Why do you think this? Whether it's maths or philosophy or logic or buddhist meditation that leads to understanding and insight and djana, just because someone sincerely believes and so states that X is the best way of getting there doesn't mean it's condescending. Nobody's saying that method X is closed to you, or that you're too puny to master method X.

[GeorgCantor]

It's time to get back on Earth - There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that math will EVER manage to describe and help us understand reality. As things currently stand in physics, it's more of a question of wishful thinking than solid, forged way to understanding reality.

The mathematical formalism, no matter how well mastered, isn't helping physicists to understand reality better - it's only making them utterly confused about their everyday experience, often times denying the very obvious. Assuming that the universe really exists, this purported 'understanding' is borderline schizophrenic and the real trouble is that it's getting deeper, more acute and psychic. I wouldn't be surprized to see suicide among scientists who take thier philosophical ideas and 'understanding' too seriously.

The technical side of the development of the new physics is of tremendous importance but the interpretative issue could well be just a black blind alley.

[apeiron]

The mathematical formalism, no matter how well mastered, isn't helping physicists to understand reality better - it's only making them utterly confused about their everyday experience, often times denying the very obvious.

You are missing the point that is being made. Maths is a stronger language for making statements about reality than ordinary English.

Those who are fluent in maths-speak would be doing more than just "shut up and calculate" in fact as they would have a conceptual grounding that allowed them to have meaningful conversations with other maths-speakers.

Now there are perhaps many who may just parrot mathematical sentences. They can repeat what they have heard, without really understanding. They can apply the rules and get a result without really knowing why. This would be much like school kids being made to act out a Shakespeare play - you can read the lines convincingly but there is little meaning.

But maths, properly used, would be meaning-driven.

Should it then be possible to translate accurately from the maths-level understanding back into everyday English? Only roughly at best.

And perhaps more the point Humanino was stressing, should we be able to arrive at the same understandings using only English language? Why should we expect to when English is just not a precise enough tool?

Compare the situation also to music. Being able to speak musical notation fluently is clearly a skill that lifts musical thinking to a higher level of precision and creativity.

The reason for objecting to the slogan "shut up and calculate" is the "shut up" part. It implies that thought stops and mindless, reality-ignoring, symbol manipulation begins. But I have no problem with the demand that at some point we have to shift from a generalised language to a more precise one.

Even in philosophy, this is also true. And in my own area of particular interest, mind science.

[GeorgCantor]

Apeiron, it's not about those who know what the new physics means and those physicists who don't. It's about waging an endless, possibly meaningless, argument between confused people of high intellect and social status about what the equations mean for the world we inhabit. Feynman didn't understand what the hell is going on better than you are. It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

[humanino]

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.So can you develop ? Do you suggest that not mastering the math could help ?

[slider142]

It's about waging an endless, possibly meaningless, argument between confused people of high intellect and social status about what the equations mean for the world we inhabit.
The meaning of equations are, at most, a fun intellectual aside. Philosophically, it is quite impossible to differentiate qualia: that one person's experience is the same as yours, or, taken to an extreme, that anyone other than yourself exists. These "meanings" may give impetus to a new viewpoint that creates a new hypothesis or model, but given that there are a great many models that generate the same equations, there isn't much celebrity given to "meanings" of the equations in anything other than popular science books for entertainment value, or to create an analogy that the reader has a more everyday acquaintance with. Most people do not consciously easily think in terms of pure higher mathematics without falling back on some easier to use visual or physical analogy.

Feynman didn't understand what the hell is going on better than you are.

This is a highly questionable statement, at most. Feynman shows great understanding of the connection between mathematics and physics in his texts, papers, and the collections of personal vignettes that are published as popular science. As a measurement of understanding the physical world, the agreement of a physical prediction with empirical measurement is paramount. Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.
There is no content in this statement to show otherwise. Mastering any form of knowledge is beneficial towards understanding the known world, as the known world is the only source of impetus for that knowledge.

[Pythagorean]

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science. That's sounds more like religion to me. I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

[GeorgCantor]

This is a highly questionable statement, at most. Feynman shows great understanding of the connection between mathematics and physics in his texts, papers, and the collections of personal vignettes that are published as popular science. As a measurement of understanding the physical world, the agreement of a physical prediction with empirical measurement is paramount. Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.



That a theory is becoming MORE mathematical doesn't mean that its interpretation(classical, it couldn't be otherwise) has become any more clear. Feynman was notorious for his rejection to get into the interpretation issues by his own "shut up and calculate"(subject of this thread).



Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.



Did you know why some of the best physicists in the field(foundations) think that a lot of the basic elements of the theory are too contrived? Like the SE or the values of the free parameters in the SM? Or what the widely used virtual particles really are?





There is no content in this statement to show otherwise. Mastering any form of knowledge is beneficial towards understanding the known world, as the known world is the only source of impetus for that knowledge.



You are failing to see the math posed 2 MAJOR problems in 1935 that sparked the EPR argument(the main issue was Einstein's idea of realsim, BUT...):

1. What the Hell is going on(the interpretative issue) and

2. The Nature Of Reality

Now i can safely say that the latter is the main reason for the mathematical 'fence' kept on purpose by physicists to the question - What is qm saying about the world? It's 'designed' to keep philosophical hordes away from the main issue - that of reality itself. It's surprising there are still people here in the Philosophy who have not come to grips with this little fact.

[GeorgCantor]

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science.


Really? You are now mandated to speak on behalf of the scientific community?



That's sounds more like religion to me.


The interpretation of the controversial issues are called foundational problems, not religion. Witten is not working for the clergy.


I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.


"How everything fits together" is the holy grail of science. How and why this may become (or is becoming) unattainable is another matter.


I have a plane to catch and won't be able to respond for at least another 10 hours.

[brainstorm]

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science. That's sounds more like religion to me. I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

Great point - one of many that gets obscured when people with mathematical skill insist that their overall worldview is superior as a result of their mathematical proficiency. They end up thinking that grand perspectives like, "how does everything fit together into a coherent all-encompassing model of the universe" are relevant because a few trans-equations logics appeared to their oracle eyes as generalities and they started believing that this was possible for everything and they could rise to rule over the universe. Sorry to be so blatant, but hopefully anyone who reveres science has had such a guilty megalomanic fantasy - and hopefully gained some perspective on it as well. Science and math are enormously powerful conceptual tools and even when they're not directly generating revolutions in technology, they are usually generating revolutions in consciousness and faith in the potential of technology to radically alter the world "as we know it." I love this transformative power of science, but I also recognize that for every 100 scientists, there are at least 100 radically transformative visions of the future possible, and probably many more.

[GeorgCantor]

So can you develop ? Do you suggest that not mastering the math could help ?


No, i have a very deep respect for those who actually take the pain , effort and consequently lose their sleep over these issues. The core of my issue is the implicit(sometimes explicit) assumption that mastering the math will lead to a better understanding of the world.

As far as i can tell, everyone that gets out of a quantum theory or relativity major is very confused. A debb theory is helping some to get back to reality, but at a cost(which borders on religion).

[humanino]

his own "shut up and calculate"(subject of this thread).Feynman never said that. What is your reference ? The proper reference (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2810422&postcount=19) was already provided. As I said earlier, discussions here go nowhere.
Did you know why some of the best physicists in the field(foundations) think that a lot of the basic elements of the theory are too contrived?As I said, they certainly all have their own ideas, yet manage to convince each other only by calculations.

[humanino]

As far as i can tell, everyone that gets out of a quantum theory or relativity major is very confused.To this I certainly agree. I quote Grothendieck sometimes :
Passer de la mecanique de Newton a celle d’Einstein doit etre pour le mathematicien comme passer du vieux dialecte provencal a l’argot parisien dernier cri, passer a la mecanique quantique j’imagine c’est passer du francais au chinois
Alexandre Grothendieck, Recoltes et Semailles
which loosely translate into
"To go from Newton's mechanics to Einstein's must be for a mathematician like going from provincial dialect to the latest parisian slang, to go to quantum mechanics I imagine must be like going from french to chinese language"

[yossell]

The meaning of equations are, at most, a fun intellectual aside.

Mach's relationist interpretation of Newtonian inertial frames, Einstein's (and Poincare's) interpretation of the t' in the Lorentz transformations as genuinely representing time in a frame (as against Lorentz' view that they were just mathematically useful adjuncts), Born's interpretation of the wave function as probability, Minkowski's geometric interpretation of Relativity, QFT's reinterpretation of creation and annhilation operators to avoid Dirac's infinite sea and negative energy.

I think there's still debate about the degree of significance of these interpretations, but conceptual changes about the interpretation of the mathematics has played an active role in inspiring or motivating at least some physicists and at least some physics at least some of the time, and so can be more than just a fun intellectual aside.

[Pythagorean]

Really? You are now mandated to speak on behalf of the scientific community?

Don't be so hostile. You can ask for sources without implying arrogance. Would you perhaps trust a poet?

"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."
— Bertolt Brecht (Life of Galileo)

If not, read on for scientific sources:

The interpretation of the controversial issues are called foundational problems, not religion. Witten is not working for the clergy.

of course, I didn't mean literally "working for the clergy" I meant this whole concept of whether "everything fits together" is fantastical. Please find me one non-celebrity (i.e. you can't find them on Wikipedia) physicist that really thinks like that and get them to post in this thread. If you're correct, it shouldn't be hard; there's a big pool to choose from here. If you're right, and I'm wrong, they'll put me in my place as the authority on the subject.

Also, if you ask a scientist how to detect a pseudo-science, that's one of the fundamental traits of a pseudoscience: it claims to explain everything:

Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

(citation)
Hines T (1988) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.


"How everything fits together" is the holy grail of science. How and why this may become (or is becoming) unattainable is another matter.


Ah, here we are... the "holy grail" of science... a contradictory notion in the first place...

[Reasonable1]

Math can be used as a tool of predictability but at times the unknowns may well prove to be it's undoing. As an example let's travel at the speed of light, then the traveler turns on a flashlight pointed in the direction of travel. Do we see the light, a ray, or the reflection on an opposing surface? Math says the light from the flashlight will never be seen by the traveler because we consider the speed of light as diffinitive. But is it or is that speed a point of perspective? Until we travel that fast we will never know if the math is correct and can only infer that it is.

[apeiron]

The initial construction of general twistor was due to Penrose in the 70s.

Yes, and I like twistor theory because of its conceptual appeal rather than because I can speak its mathematics. This soliton-style approach to particles as trapped broken symmetries is the kind of theory that seems most natural to me (as it is a systems view).

I accept your point that twistors were long ignored until some concrete mathematics came along to animate them - to do some actual calculating. But also it is amusing that Penrose is far from a "shut up and calculate" type of guy. He is very conceptual in his physics (as he admits himself with all his drawing in the Road to Reality). He is an ardent Platonist. And he is happy to throw himself into fields like mind science where really he has not mastered the basics at all. (But a lot of people did that in the 1990s I guess).

[apeiron]

I meant this whole concept of whether "everything fits together" is fantastical.

Why is it fantastical in principle? Is there an argument to support this? And why do people talk about arriving at a theory of everything (ToE)?

Personally I think it is possible that there is only one way reality can self-organise. The alternative is that there are infinitely many and we just happen to exist randomly and anthropically in one of those realities. If those are the choices, I think the simpler one at least deserves a shot.

[Pythagorean]

Interesting... You're one of the people I thought wouldn't mistake the ToE for an explanation of everything (the title is deceptive).

We wouldn't, for instance, be able to suddenly explain all mammilian behavior with a ToE. The ToE is a reduced model that explains all four fundamental forces at once.

[apeiron]

Interesting... You're one of the people I thought wouldn't mistake the ToE for an explanation of everything (the title is deceptive).

We wouldn't, for instance, be able to suddenly explain all mammilian behavior with a ToE. The ToE is a reduced model that explains all four fundamental forces at once.

Correct. But people in physics do talk about final theories. And when it comes to reality, it does seem reasonable to believe that everything does seem to fit together (that there are not a number of separate causalities or whatever). So a final theory seems conceivable rather than fantastical.

But you may have some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

[brainstorm]

Correct. But people in physics do talk about final theories. And when it comes to reality, it does seem reasonable to believe that everything does seem to fit together (that there are not a number of separate causalities or whatever). So a final theory seems conceivable rather than fantastical.

But you may have some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

I don't think it's silly to think that certain essential forces drive all physical processes at every scale, or that certain patterns of force interaction are the same for different forces at different scales, etc. What I think is ridiculous is when someone thinks there is an underlying logic to the universe that explains everything from biological development to psychology to physics to culture to political economy. The kinds of principles invented to account for such qualitatively distinct fields are so peculiar to one's philosophical perspective or political worldview that they could never be generalized to the subject material itself in a valid way, as far as I can imagine anyway.

[Pythagorean]

But you may have (a) some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just (b) too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that (c) we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.
(reference letters added)

Little bit of b, little bit of c. But b doesn't quite say what I was thinking. It's a matter of information. You couldn't possibly hope to build a complete model of the universe with only the universe available as a resource, other than just moving every atom and interaction over to a new spot and saying "there, I did it". This is a common theme in modeling: there's no way to generalize and specialize at the same time. You always lose information (and this is just considering relatively simple systems, not the whole universe).

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

Well, you ask for argument and reason and that's a lot like asking for an argument or reason that god doesn't exist. Of course, I don't have one, I can't prove a negative, etc. It's a matter of the history: scripture and pseudoscience are the two types of information that have always claimed knowledge of everything. This pertains to my reply to George, as part of regime for detecting pseudoscience.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)


Of course, this is the kind of research I'm interested in so I won't argue with your statement here, but it's still not an implication at all that a theory of everything is possible. It's still subject to the same constraints logistically: you'd need all the computers in the world ever made (and more) to completely describe an system in all its complexity. The best we can do is ask a specific question and tweak our model towards that question, losing information about other questions.

My disclaimer remains, of course, that I can't prove a negative. But in the same vein, I think the idea of a supreme being is equally fantastical, though I can't prove it. The more recent emergent view is actually of a non-euclidean stochastic universe, which philosophers have used as evidence both for a lack of god and a lack of causality. Of course, I don't really have an opinion here, just presenting similar views.

Iovane, G. (2004) Stochastic self-similar and fractal universe.
Berera, A. (1994) Stochastic fluctuations and structure formation in the Universe.

[apeiron]

Little bit of b, little bit of c. But b doesn't quite say what I was thinking. It's a matter of information. You couldn't possibly hope to build a complete model of the universe with only the universe available as a resource, other than just moving every atom and interaction over to a new spot and saying "there, I did it". This is a common theme in modeling: there's no way to generalize and specialize at the same time. You always lose information (and this is just considering relatively simple systems, not the whole universe).


But that is a simulation. A model does indeed shed information about local particulars so as to arrive at a general truth.

A simulation hopes to recreate reality in all its detail (artificial intelligence, artificial life, artificial realities like the Matrix). A model instead is a general abstract statement that can predict particulars. You plug in some specific measurements and crank out some specific predictions.

Ideally, a model is so reduced that it becomes an equation you can write on a t-shirt. So a fundamental model of the universe would not be its simulation but its most compact prediction-generating algorithm.


Well, you ask for argument and reason and that's a lot like asking for an argument or reason that god doesn't exist. Of course, I don't have one, I can't prove a negative, etc. It's a matter of the history: scripture and pseudoscience are the two types of information that have always claimed knowledge of everything. This pertains to my reply to George, as part of regime for detecting pseudoscience.


But you described the idea as fantastical. I just thought that was rather too strong. And I certainly do not agree that believing “everything fits” is the hallmark of psuedoscience. Rather it is the presumption of science traditionally.


It's still subject to the same constraints logistically: you'd need all the computers in the world ever made (and more) to completely describe an system in all its complexity. The best we can do is ask a specific question and tweak our model towards that question, losing information about other questions.


Again, you are thinking of simulation rather than modelling.

Of course there is going to be a problem of levels of description. A model of everything might be too general to be useful when modelling higher level phenomena. But success would be defined by the way everything does still fit.


My disclaimer remains, of course, that I can't prove a negative. But in the same vein, I think the idea of a supreme being is equally fantastical, though I can't prove it.


Seem quite different cases to me. God explanations are illogical (infinite regress, etc). But for reality to be all one – to have some over-arching causality – seems only logical.

[Pythagorean]

@Shut up and Calculate discussion:

Ok, so while writing a reply to apeiron, I had a kind of ah-ha moment. It's consistent with the point I'm trying to make about mathematics being a language. Shut up and Calculate is quite simply an attitude towards learning the language of mathematics. I hope that's well and accepted. I think what people are having trouble accepting is that mathematics actually conveys qualitative concepts that DO have a common language title (i.e. "nullcline"), but DO NOT have a common language definition.

Now, you all KNOW this. You exchange money with services and you can count integers easily. You're taking for granted how mathematics has already ingrained itself into our common language because of it's necessity. You realize the importance of this language on an unconscious level. This is only because you were much more willing to shut up and calculate when you were taught basic mathematics by your parents before you even went to school where you learned even more mathematics, through calculating, and practicing the language, just like you did with the alphabet to practice common language.

(the bold sentence below represents what triggered this thought)

@ apeiron: Well we're getting off-topic. I would participate in a discussion in a new thread. To reply to your post shortly though, I think any time you make predictions with a model that you are simulating (even if you solve a newtonian equation on paper to figure out the trajectory of a cannonball... it obviously has it's shortcomings. But those shortcomings come from the assumptions of the model, and apply where the assumptions fail.

More complex simulations are done on computers; sometimes people get crazy and add 10 or 12 models into a simulations (wtf, right?) to generalize more, the where the word "simulation" gets its bad name.

Is this consistent with your definitions of simulation and model? Anyway the point is that models are useless without simulation (which predictions are made from, but predictions add a layer of intuition to it).

Anyway, a theory of everything would mean: Find a model for which all of it's assumptions are always true, prove me that negative!

You can write maxwell's equations as one equation... but it's pretty useless without the full development of the four equations, and the full development of what each of those equations means. So really, it's a compression algorithm for humans: a sort of memory recall/filling system. Then you have to add the relativistic equations to it if you want to get to QM.

[SixNein]

Generally, physicists don't work on "mathematical problems". They use math in physical problems.



I disagree, respectfully. Physicists create mathematical models that mirror the world, and they work on those models. Those models are indeed matheamtics.

The most simple example I can think of is counting. People learn how to count at a very young age. At first, they start out counting apples or maybe oranges, but eventually, they progress to using mathematical models such as integers.

Do you think in apples or integers?

[SixNein]

@Shut up and Calculate discussion:

Ok, so while writing a reply to apeiron, I had a kind of ah-ha moment. It's consistent with the point I'm trying to make about mathematics being a language. Shut up and Calculate is quite simply an attitude towards learning the language of mathematics. I hope that's well and accepted. I think what people are having trouble accepting is that mathematics actually conveys qualitative concepts that DO have a common language title (i.e. "nullcline"), but DO NOT have a common language definition.

Now, you all KNOW this. You exchange money with services and you can count integers easily. You're taking for granted how mathematics has already ingrained itself into our common language because of it's necessity. You realize the importance of this language on an unconscious level. This is only because you were much more willing to shut up and calculate when you were taught basic mathematics by your parents before you even went to school where you learned even more mathematics, through calculating, and practicing the language, just like you did with the alphabet to practice common language.

(the bold sentence below represents what triggered this thought)

@ apeiron: Well we're getting off-topic. I would participate in a discussion in a new thread. To reply to your post shortly though, I think any time you make predictions with a model that you are simulating (even if you solve a newtonian equation on paper to figure out the trajectory of a cannonball... it obviously has it's shortcomings. But those shortcomings come from the assumptions of the model, and apply where the assumptions fail.

More complex simulations are done on computers; sometimes people get crazy and add 10 or 12 models into a simulations (wtf, right?) to generalize more, the where the word "simulation" gets its bad name.

Is this consistent with your definitions of simulation and model? Anyway the point is that models are useless without simulation (which predictions are made from, but predictions add a layer of intuition to it).

Anyway, a theory of everything would mean: Find a model for which all of it's assumptions are always true, prove me that negative!

You can write maxwell's equations as one equation... but it's pretty useless without the full development of the four equations, and the full development of what each of those equations means. So really, it's a compression algorithm for humans: a sort of memory recall/filling system. Then you have to add the relativistic equations to it if you want to get to QM.

There must be something in the air causing people to think about integers today.

"You're taking for granted how mathematics has already ingrained itself into our common language because of it's necessity"

That was my fundamental point about translating math and physics. And I would go further and say it is ingrained in your mental process. I doubt you count in apples.

[Pythagorean]

I disagree, respectfully. Physicists create mathematical models that mirror the world, and they work on those models. Those models are indeed matheamtics.

The most simple example I can think of is counting. People learn how to count at a very young age. At first, they start out counting apples or maybe oranges, but eventually, they progress to using mathematical models such as integers.

Do you think in apples or integers?

In the advanced courses, you don't even USE numbers for most of the work. It's all variables. The variables represent real, physical, measureable things. So yes, I think in "apples" (or whatever physical observable I'm modeling), not integers.

Even in my advanced math classes, the best math teachers (in my opinion, of course) demonstrated the concepts in real systems to give people an intuitive grasp of the information.

Think about it... if I think in integers, I have to remember x (hehe) different symbols. If I think in variables, I remember one symbol. If I think in functions, I remember a shape of the function on a plot, not the numbers at all (the shape scales to many different sizes and shapes for different integers, but ANY behavior of interest has NOTHING to do with the numbers (until you start making predictions with a model to fit to reality, or start engineering a technology in reality to exploit the behavior).

Of course, we eventually HAVE to use numbers in physics, but they're definitely the annoying part of the whole job.

As for a translation... that's basically what math and physics courses are.

[yossell]

In the advanced courses, you don't even USE numbers for most of the work. It's all variables. The variables represent real, physical, measureable things.

But there are mathematical variables used in physics that don't represent real, physical, measurable things, the most famous being classical quantum mechanics' values of the complex wave function that are solutions of S's equation. Although \Phi is mathematically manipulated in the theory, it's |\Phi| which receives a physical, probabilistic interpretation. Indeed, it was probably the amount of brain power wasted arguing over what the wave represented that gave the shut up and calculate brigade a big boost.

It's not for nothing that the root of minus one is called imaginary!

Line elements, Riemannian metric fields, infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, dirac delta functions...these mathematical objects appear in our physical theories, but it's not at all clear to me that they represent real, physical, measurable things - though of course, we can and do use them in mathematical operations to get results about things that are measurable - as we do with \Phi.

[Pythagorean]

But there are mathematical variables used in physics that don't represent real, physical, measurable things, the most famous being classical quantum mechanics' values of the complex wave function that are solutions of S's equation. Although \Phi is mathematically manipulated in the theory, it's |\Phi| which receives a physical, probabilistic interpretation. Indeed, it was probably the amount of brain power wasted arguing over what the wave represented that gave the shut up and calculate brigade a big boost.

It's not for nothing that the root of minus one is called imaginary!

Line elements, Riemannian metric fields, infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, dirac delta functions...these mathematical objects appear in our physical theories, but it's not at all clear to me that they represent real, physical, measurable things - though of course, we can and do use them in mathematical operations to get results about things that are measurable - as we do with \Phi.

Agreed. (Though, imaginary truly is a terrible term for imaginary numbers).

I don't think this conflicts with my point though. We start with observables in physical modeling... and end with them.

[SixNein]

Agreed. (Though, imaginary truly is a terrible term for imaginary numbers).

I don't think this conflicts with my point though. We start with observables in physical modeling... and end with them.

I prefer complex instead of imaginary. Imaginary should have never been adopted as the name.

Like string theory? Anyway, I'll retract.