Are Philosophical Discussions on the Nature of Universe in Line with Physics?

[omagdon7]

I read this thread and it looked like a bunch of people who are interested in philosophy just making stuff up about the nature of the universe. Are they just making assertions or does what they say agree with physics?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103874"

Thanks in advance

 

[Renge Ishyo]

Philosophers are free to discuss science in the same way that they are free to discuss any idea or possibility really. If your question is, "is this philosophy or is it science?" then I think you already know the answer. It is philosophy.

There is no experimental evidence to support this "twoness" idea. That doesn't mean that it isn't true necessarily, it means that at present we cannot test the idea to see *for ourselves* whether or not it is true (and no method is provided for us to test the idea from the theorist).

As an example of what I mean, I can say that the gravitational field on the Earth is created by a spinning turtle located at the core of the earth. I can talk about gravity in my explanation of the "turtle field" theory and use all the correct measurements and descriptions from the body of Physics, but that does not mean that I have proof that gravity is *caused* directly by a turtle shell. While I am apparently basing my ideas on scientific fact, in reality I am merely using scientific fact to extrapolate a cause that cannot be sufficiently deduced by simply observing the facts alone.

At the same time, physicists can't explain the origin of gravity either. So my "spinning turtle" hypothesis cannot be proven wrong at the same time that I cannot be proven right. So it is just an idea.

In that same way, many actual scientific ideas are used in the explanation for twoness in the linked post above, but there is no evidence directly linking these scientific ideas to the idea of twoness. I am not saying it is wrong, just that there are many things you can question about it. For example, what is meant by symmetry and polarity? There are molecules with many VARYING degrees of polarity based on their electronegativities relative to one another. The polarity of water is not the same as the polarity of Hydrochloric acid which is not the same as the polarity for methane (which is so slightly polar it is practically non-polar). So how does this lend itself into a conclusion that everything conforms to twoness? Aren't non-polar molecules closer to "oneness" and what about the atom itself which taken as a whole is neutral even though it contains the ability to be polarized when it bonds with another? If you go beyond the simple positive and negative desriptions of atomic charges into particles like quarks, are these considered part of "oneness" even though they are an even further subdivision?

These are questions for philosophers, not scientists (who will save their minds from considering things like "twoness" or "spinning turtle shells" until some evidence arrives that forces them to consider it).