Exploring the Position of Physicists and Philosophers on Reality

In summary, the position stated by Sir James Jeans in this passage, that there can be no pictorial representation of the workings of nature that is fully intelligible to our limited minds, is not widely accepted by modern philosophers and scientists. They acknowledge that our understanding is limited and that our representations may not be completely accurate, but they do not believe that this means we can never understand the deepest level of reality. They also do not agree with the notion that all concrete details of scientific theories are mere parables or clothing draped over mathematical symbols. While they may not have all the answers, they do not see this as a barrier to further understanding and discovery.
  • #36
My contention is that if science can't answer why then can you really ask the question? To me, one should only ask why if one knows what one would need to know to know why. For instance, I don't think one should ask if Christianity is true if one has no conception of what it would mean for Christianity to be true.

For Christianity to be true (but still unknowable) God would need to exist, so in this case the unknowability of God's existence provides the unknowability of Christianity's truth.

But if you can't go this far to conceive of what the truth of Christianity would require then I don't think you can ask the question.

If i am getting you. What you are saying is that:

1) Every "why" question need a purpose.

2) If A s existence IFF depend B s existence, then the unknowability of B implies the unknowability of A.




My replies

*) i don t understand what you mean by "the truth of christianity"? What is that mean? In fact, i don't really know what you mean by "a conception" for something to be ture. I have a conception of the dinner i ate? can you tell me the frame of mind i need to have a "conception" that something is "ture"?

1) Not every why need a purpose. Some might be just an emotional impulse. I don t see why we should stop asking. In fact, it is a bit sad you think this way. You are thinking yourself into a box.

2) I don t really see your point. I think it sort of prove my point.


If it is true that science doesn't answer why then perhaps the word 'why' should be done away with, or limited to being used only in reference to reasons that people give for their own actions, or the answers that scientific theories provide.

If so, then you are really limited yourself. It makes no sense to me. Science can only provide genealizations of natural phenonmen, and summerized into a couple of "laws of nature". Perhaps one day, scienctists might come up with one or two equations that sort of describe everything important in our universe. What brings those equations to life? Why the hell would there be a universe for the equations to describe? Why our universe? I don t understand you at all. Your rational is : People should stop asking this question, because it has no answer.


Or if you disagree then come up with a rationalisation about when we may ask why because I don't see that we may ask why without knowing any more about the question including what its truth would require. I surely can agree to this rationalisation: "why questions can only be asked if what is required falls within the domain of science".

We can ask "why" if and only if( the truth it require) science fail to provide a reason.
Science fail to provide reason for 1) existence 2) the laws of nature, 3) cannot explain why the laws have the form that they do. Therefore, the question of "why" can be asked.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Science fails to provide reason for 1) existence 2) the laws of nature, 3) cannot explain why the laws have the form that they do. Therefore, the question of "why" can be asked.

I read that as "we may ask the question because science can't explain it". I assume you would contend that we can't know the answer to questions that science can't answer. So are you saying that we may ask questions that we can't know the answer to? That seems odd to me. What answer do you expect to those questions? Am I really so limiting by saying one shouldn't ask unless one expects an answer?

To me, asking a question presupposes the possibility of it being answered. Asking why natural law is the way it is presupposes that one can know why it is the way it is, but that is exactly what you said from the start is unknowable. A question that can't be answered is a question that probably shouldn't be asked.

Pragmatically we do ask those questions for the sake of coming up with more coherent theories but that has nothing to do with truth and so doesn't actually concern 'why' as such. 'Why' to me is asking for the truth of the matter, not what is pragmatically justifiable but totally independent from the truth which is unknowable.

Or perhaps you want to adopt the colloquial use of "we think this is why" but I think that is a lie because if it's true that gravity doesn't explain why objects fall then it is incorrect to say that we think objects fall because of gravity. We don't, we think gravity explains the phenomenon but that it (gravity) is independent of the truth, it is of a different category, not something that can be true of false but something that can be justified or unjustified.

So if you mean that one is asking for justified theory when asking such why questions as "why is natural law the way it is" then I'm afraid you're speaking a different language which is not the language typically spoken, because when people ask why they typically want the true cause, not a justified theoretical cause independent from the unknowable truth.

But these semantic battles are really not worth fighting. I will hold to the contention that people shouldn't ask why if they can't expect it to be answered, and I mean by that that they shouldn't ask for true answers about such matters because no knowingly true answers are possible. I do think people can ask 'why' meaning that they want a justified theoretical answer, but perhaps we should invent a new word for that because I don't think that is the language typically spoken.
 
  • #38
Hmm, I see that was I said is not exactly correct because why questions always concern causes and all causal theory is of the justified/unjustified category. So really why questions should be understood as being necessarily independent of the truth. The only truth that one knows is what one perceives, like that snow is white. We should not suffer the fantasy that language is a means to the truth.
 
  • #39
I read that as "we may ask the question because science can't explain it". I assume you would contend that we can't know the answer to questions that science can't answer. So are you saying that we may ask questions that we can't know the answer to? That seems odd to me. What answer do you expect to those questions? Am I really so limiting by saying one shouldn't ask unless one expects an answer?

You are now being ridiculous. You are taking about the motivation of a person that ask such a question. I can argue with you on that. I think hawking asking that question at the back of his book


To me, asking a question presupposes the possibility of it being answered. Asking why natural law is the way it is presupposes that one can know why it is the way it is, but that is exactly what you said from the start is unknowable. A question that can't be answered is a question that probably shouldn't be asked.

You are coming from the point of view of motivation. I can t argue what you want to think. For me, I don t think people should limit their questions just because of something blah blah...


Pragmatically we do ask those questions for the sake of coming up with more coherent theories but that has nothing to do with truth and so doesn't actually concern 'why' as such. 'Why' to me is asking for the truth of the matter, not what is pragmatically justifiable but totally independent from the truth which is unknowable.


If a person does want to know the "complete truth", then i don t see how that question can be avoided. In anycase, what do you mean by truth. Truth can be weak like:" atoms exist", to deep truth like: "why there is something rather than nothing"?


Or perhaps you want to adopt the colloquial use of "we think this is why" but I think that is a lie because if it's true that gravity doesn't explain why objects fall then it is incorrect to say that we think objects fall because of gravity. We don't, we think gravity explains the phenomenon but that it (gravity) is independent of the truth, it is of a different category, not something that can be true of false but something that can be justified or unjustified.

I don t understand your statement. Can you summerize it with your objective in one sentence, and the reason in another sentence.

So if you mean that one is asking for justified theory when asking such why questions as "why is natural law the way it is" then I'm afraid you're speaking a different language which is not the language typically spoken, because when people ask why they typically want the true cause, not a justified theoretical cause independent from the unknowable truth.

Can you define "truth" for me? I agree with pretty much what you said. I don t think the "why" question is science at all, because it is by definition unanswerable. There is nothing one can do answer it. If you choice to define what your questions are by if it can be answered, then that is your choice.


But these semantic battles are really not worth fighting. I will hold to the contention that people shouldn't ask why if they can't expect it to be answered, and I mean by that that they shouldn't ask for true answers about such matters because no knowingly true answers are possible. I do think people can ask 'why' meaning that they want a justified theoretical answer, but perhaps we should invent a new word for that because I don't think that is the language typically spoken.

When a scienctist say "why", it is only in the sea of interrelated details connected facts that gives the impression that they know why. They don t know why.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
verty said:
Hmm, I see that was I said is not exactly correct because why questions always concern causes and all causal theory is of the justified/unjustified category. So really why questions should be understood as being necessarily independent of the truth. The only truth that one knows is what one perceives, like that snow is white. We should not suffer the fantasy that language is a means to the truth.

Well, i am working with the assumptions that what you see infront of you do reveal some thing about the real world, the real world do existence, and science tell us something about this real world. The "Why" question can only jump from that background. If you doubt like descart, then you eventually even doubt yourself. I think it is meaningless
 
<h2>1. What is the difference between the views of physicists and philosophers on reality?</h2><p>Physicists and philosophers have different approaches to understanding reality. Physicists use scientific methods and theories to explain the physical world, while philosophers use logic and reasoning to explore the nature of reality. Physicists focus on empirical evidence and mathematical models, while philosophers consider metaphysical and ethical implications.</p><h2>2. How do physicists and philosophers define reality?</h2><p>Physicists define reality as the physical world that can be observed and measured through scientific methods. Philosophers define reality as the underlying nature of existence and the fundamental principles that govern it. Both perspectives acknowledge that reality is complex and can be perceived differently by individuals.</p><h2>3. Do physicists and philosophers have conflicting views on reality?</h2><p>While physicists and philosophers may have different perspectives on reality, their views are not necessarily conflicting. They both contribute to our understanding of the world and can complement each other's ideas. However, there may be debates and disagreements between the two disciplines on certain aspects of reality.</p><h2>4. How do physicists and philosophers approach the concept of time?</h2><p>Physicists view time as a fundamental dimension of the universe that can be measured and affected by physical forces. They use theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics to understand the nature of time. Philosophers, on the other hand, explore the concept of time through metaphysical and ethical lenses, discussing its subjective experience and implications for free will and determinism.</p><h2>5. Can the views of physicists and philosophers on reality be reconciled?</h2><p>While there may be differences in their approaches and perspectives, the views of physicists and philosophers on reality can be complementary and even integrated. For example, some physicists have turned to philosophical concepts such as causality and determinism to inform their theories. Similarly, philosophers can benefit from scientific discoveries and theories to inform their discussions on the nature of reality.</p>

1. What is the difference between the views of physicists and philosophers on reality?

Physicists and philosophers have different approaches to understanding reality. Physicists use scientific methods and theories to explain the physical world, while philosophers use logic and reasoning to explore the nature of reality. Physicists focus on empirical evidence and mathematical models, while philosophers consider metaphysical and ethical implications.

2. How do physicists and philosophers define reality?

Physicists define reality as the physical world that can be observed and measured through scientific methods. Philosophers define reality as the underlying nature of existence and the fundamental principles that govern it. Both perspectives acknowledge that reality is complex and can be perceived differently by individuals.

3. Do physicists and philosophers have conflicting views on reality?

While physicists and philosophers may have different perspectives on reality, their views are not necessarily conflicting. They both contribute to our understanding of the world and can complement each other's ideas. However, there may be debates and disagreements between the two disciplines on certain aspects of reality.

4. How do physicists and philosophers approach the concept of time?

Physicists view time as a fundamental dimension of the universe that can be measured and affected by physical forces. They use theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics to understand the nature of time. Philosophers, on the other hand, explore the concept of time through metaphysical and ethical lenses, discussing its subjective experience and implications for free will and determinism.

5. Can the views of physicists and philosophers on reality be reconciled?

While there may be differences in their approaches and perspectives, the views of physicists and philosophers on reality can be complementary and even integrated. For example, some physicists have turned to philosophical concepts such as causality and determinism to inform their theories. Similarly, philosophers can benefit from scientific discoveries and theories to inform their discussions on the nature of reality.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
503
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
658
Replies
4
Views
590
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
729
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top