Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?

[Nebula815]

Didn't someone have a thread going some time ago about how their philosophy teacher told them there is no gravity on the Moon? And I am supposed to look to such people for understanding of the universe

Okay jokes aside, I get what you are saying to some degree, although I don't know if I'd say that something like the electromagnetic field isn't something that "exists" in the conventional sense per se. I mean there has to be something that causes protons and electrons to pull towards one another for example.

On light, in the General Physics FAQ, it says photons are not "particles" in the normal sense, they are considered energy quanta, but have no matter and that in quantum mechanics, that theory can describe both light as a wave and light as a particle easily. So I would suppose then that, whatever light actually is, "photons" are as you say, just an abstraction to describe physical relations.

On matter, well I do want to know exactly what matter is made out of, it's like we keep finding tinier and tinier particles, but no smallest particle (and even then, what does this smallest particle consist of?).

On gravity, yes I know "space-time" isn't a physical thing that is physically "bent" per se by matter, it is more complex than that.

I think you should study some philosophy, try reading about Immanual Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", and try reading a little about linguistic philosophy

Coolbeans, will check them out.

 

[russ_watters]

...my imperfect analogy aside, I think people understood my point, but rebrewster, I don't think everyone agrees with it/belives it, so I don't think ZZ is beating a dead horse. So to be more specific, a scientific question is a question that can be answered via the scientific method. A question about a science topic that can't be answered with the scientific method is not a scientific question. The question "Why is the sky blue?" can be either, depending on if you are looking for an answer involving the scattering of light or if you are looking for where the word "blue" came from.

Some of the questions in the OP struck me as being more philosophical than scientific in nature or psuedophilosophy based on a misunderstanding of the science. Ie, the wave/particle duality of light is an apparent paradox to be argued philosophically...until one learns that there are more than just two options.

Questions about deeper meaning of how gravity or electromagnetism work will eventually reach a point where they are beyond the scope of science and thus are not scientific questions.

 

[russ_watters]

There was a book by a physicist named Julian Barbour called The End of Time that claims it is just a concept humans created and doesn't really exist, that was why I asked on that.

How come? Doesn't science wonder what the electromagnetic force and space-time actually are? (maybe I am misunderstanding the exact purpose of science)

It was called The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Capra. He is a theoretical physicist. Another book talking about the limitations in modern physics on understanding nature is called The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin.

I vaguely remember hearing about these guys and that their philosophical beef with science is not a mainstream/accepted view. Without getting more specific about them, I can't really assess their views, but I can say that the specific issue of whether time exists is not an open question to the scientific mainstream. As well, most scientists are not interested in philosophical dissatisfaction with the scope of science.

For me, personally, the "deeper" questions (as people like to call them) about the nature of gravity and magnitism are not just outside the scope of science, but uninteresting and unimportant.

 

[russ_watters]

Didn't someone have a thread going some time ago about how their philosophy teacher told them there is no gravity on the Moon? And I am supposed to look to such people for understanding of the universe

Okay jokes aside...

It's really not a joke (well...that philosophy teacher was a joke). It is exactly my perception of what virtually this entire issue is about: people who don't understand the science turn to philosophy and ask unscientific questions and/or wrong questions about issues already dealt with. At the same time, when an endless stream of "why" questions comes, (as any good 8 year old will throw at their parents), eventually the answer really is "that's just the way it is". Philosophically minded people are simply unable to accept such an answer and that's fine, but the question has left the domain of science - and that isn't a flaw in the scientific method.

 

[rewebster]

No, I have not made up my mind that these are "impossible questions" to answer, but I am wondering if they will ever be answerable from a qualitative standpoint.

For example, the theory of gravity. It sounds almost "obvious" now, the idea of gravity just being a "bend" in the curvature of "space-time," but Einstein didn't arrive at that conclusion through thinking, "I know, there must be this combo called 'space-time' and gravity isn't actually a force in the conventional sense, it is just a bend or curvature in this space-time 'fabric'," Einstein reached his conclusion through much complicated mathematics and calculations.

On things like wave-particle duality, I would imagine that perhaps through very sophisticated mathematics, one could reach an "understanding" of the subject, but I doubt it will ever be comprehensible in a qualitative sense (even the qualitative understanding of gravity one cannot understand in a 3D sense, only in a 2D sense).

Or the electromagnetic force? For example, fluidistic cites Wikipedia's definition: "In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles." Okay, but WHAT is the force exactly? It is too simplistic to say it is "just a force."

I am sure there are very sophisticated mathematics that can give an answer to this question perhaps, in a quantitative sense, but in a qualitative respect, very difficult to grasp.

Now if people say, "Well we do not have enough understanding of the subject to answer the question the way you want it answered," well okay, but is this lack of understanding due to a true lack of knowledge on our part or are our brains too limited to ever really understand this concept right now?

For example, are we, in trying to understand such questions, like a group of chimpanzees trying to understand calculus? Yes, chimps "lack the requisite knowledge" to understand calculus but their brains are incapable of learning even the pre-requisites, let alone calculus. But calculus makes sense to us. Maybe our brains are lacking in capability for the more advanced topics of the nature of the universe?

Evolution-wise, we are a fairly new animal still.



Will check the FAQ, but I am guessing we can't understand it right now, or we would not give it the name "wave-particle duality," as that is a paradox. The very name suggests lack of understanding of what light really is (and electricity).

I look at the 'sciences' and the divisions/interests sort of like Darwin's evolutionary tree overlaid with fractal. Some sciences are closer branches than others, and some have more limbs; and, the divisions/interests may have to be blown up/enlarged quite a bit to see them better. Some branches/interests are newly evolved from theories, like the area of condensates, or even fairly newly discovered, like pulsars,- and coelacanths, as their branch at times was thought dead end.

The nice thing about it is that each of us has their own interests, and those that have more closely aligned interests are closer on their own branch.

I think, whether you worded your questions correctly or not, doesn't matter, as least to me. And, I think a lot of people get interested and develop more defined interests starting out with questions like you presented. There's all kinds of paths to take and questions like your's are a good start.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I was wondering what people think of the role of metaphysics? From what I understand, metaphysics was more studied back in the 19th century, but nowadays, no serious physicist, even if they consider the subject, will say so publicly for fear of damaging their career.

But because of the limitations physicists run into in trying to understand the world through logic, wouldn't metaphysical principles apply? Metaphysics wouldn't be promoting magic or anything, just the idea that there are aspects of the world that cannot be understood by the rational, logical human mind, and that one must go to a "higher plane" or whatnot to be able to comprehend the makings of the universe at that level.

From what I understand, this was the idea of many of the paradoxes of the ancient Eastern religions, that since so much of the universe and nature is not understandable with logic, the only thing to do is understand it via paradoxes and then the idea was to meditate on the paradoxes and try to reach that "higher plane" of mind and thus understanding ("Enlightenment").

It was called The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Capra.

From the Wikipedia article, Quantum Mysticism:

Beginning in the 1970s, New Age authors and practitioners began to impute metaphysical ideas into the physics, which eventually lead to associated practices and beliefs, many of which can only be subjectively experienced and are unfalsifiable. As a result of this, many of the metaphysical claims and related practices of quantum mysticism have been criticized as being either misinterpretations of quantum mechanics or as pseudoscience...

...Beginning in the 1970s, quantum mysticism began to take its own path with Fritjof Capra's book, The Tao of Physics, which explored the parallels between quantum physics and principles in Eastern mystical teachings. Following in the 1980s was the book, Quantum Healing, by Deepak Chopra, which explained his theory of mind and body healing using quantum concepts. In 1990, Robert Anton Wilson wrote a book called Quantum Psychology which explains Timothy Leary’s Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness in terms of quantum mysticism.[15] Then, in 1993, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, by Deepak Chopra, was published and went on to become a New York Times Bestseller. The book discussed specific claims of healing, reversing aging, and immortality by adopting a quantum worldview and prescribed specific practices. It sold over two million copies worldwide.
[edit] Controversy

In 1998 Deepak Chopra was awarded the parody Ig Nobel Prize, in the physics category, for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness", referring to his writing on quantum mysticism at the time.[16] The 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!? made controversial use of some aspects of quantum mechanics—including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observer effect—as well as biology and medicine.[17] The film was largely dismissed by critics as pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

 

[rewebster]

After reading zooby's post, I remember reading some quantum physicist's article somewhere that it was possible, although a very,very small probability, that someone could, when leaning against a wall, fall through the wall. Or that a large drop of water could rise out of a pool of water.

I don't know if this has be recorded to have happened someplace yet, but it sure has jumped into the world of science fiction stories.

And there's always that group of people, including some scientists trying to invent the technologies of Star Trek.


edit/added:

and as far as the title of your thread:

"Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?"

I wouldn't doubt that could have been the prevailing thought about a lot of things just before Newton published his different works.

I think all will answered, sooner or later--even Hawking make a guess/prediction that it would happen soon (within twenty years I believe he said, a few years back)

 

[BobG]

"Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?"

I wouldn't doubt that could have been the prevailing thought about a lot of things just before Newton published his different works.

I think all will answered, sooner or later--even Hawking make a guess/prediction that it would happen soon (within twenty years I believe he said, a few years back)

He was wrong. They were all answered last week. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/worlds_physicists_complete

 

[Nebula815]

I vaguely remember hearing about these guys and that their philosophical beef with science is not a mainstream/accepted view. Without getting more specific about them, I can't really assess their views, but I can say that the specific issue of whether time exists is not an open question to the scientific mainstream. As well, most scientists are not interested in philosophical dissatisfaction with the scope of science.

For me, personally, the "deeper" questions (as people like to call them) about the nature of gravity and magnitism are not just outside the scope of science, but uninteresting and unimportant.

I think they are very interesting, but unanswerable right now, and not important to the strictly practical. For example you don't need to know much more than the existence of protons, electrons, and neutrons for chemistry, but we still have scientists who delve deeply into the nature of matter.

I was actually unaware that the "deeper" questions are philosophical questions though. Even if a question is currently outside the scope of science's capabilities, cannot it still be a scientific question?

For example, what is the true nature of light? That question I would think would be a scientific question, just one that is beyond science's ability to answer right now.

Or the electromagnetic force. We know it exists and how it behaves, but we don't know, per se, what exactly it is. I wouldn't say that's a philosophical question, just one that is beyond the scope of science to answer right now.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they are very interesting, but unanswerable right now, and not important to the strictly practical. For example you don't need to know much more than the existence of protons, electrons, and neutrons for chemistry, but we still have scientists who delve deeply into the nature of matter.

I was actually unaware that the "deeper" questions are philosophical questions though. Even if a question is currently outside the scope of science's capabilities, cannot it still be a scientific question?

For example, what is the true nature of light? That question I would think would be a scientific question, just one that is beyond science's ability to answer right now.

Or the electromagnetic force. We know it exists and how it behaves, but we don't know, per se, what exactly it is. I wouldn't say that's a philosophical question, just one that is beyond the scope of science to answer right now.

I typed up a quite lengthy response to russ's post about the same thing. I dived more into the philosophy of science in the very beginning. Russ is sort of coming across as the type of person who kicks philosophy to th curb and raises science up on his shoulders proudly. It's interesting however to study where science came from and what molded this science to what it currently is... anyhow the website went down while i was posting and I couldn't go back and save what I had typed up.

Back to the problem at hand.

The question: what is the true nature of light is in my opinion more of a philosophical question. It of course depends on what you mean by the words 'true' and 'nature' the way I read it it is more like a philosophy question.

I do not see however how russ can dismiss a question simply because it's traveled beyond the scope of science. Say a couple thousand years ago I asked "what is water made of"? Would you say that it is not scientific? It's philosophical merely on the grounds that you can't answer it and can't think of a way to go about answering it? No.

A philosophical question about science would be: Is the scientific method still useful as it is? or can it be adjusted...? Is it 'ok' for me to ask that question and seek out a scientific answer? Is it ok to clone that sheep or create those heart cells? These are philosophical question about science.

The questions: What exactly is the electromagnetic force? or What is the electromagnetic force made of? are scientific.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, guys it is not a matter of if science can answer a question RIGHT NOW (implying maybe it can later), but whether the scientific method applies to the question at all.

Also, I rather suspect my own contempt for what I see as pseudophilosophical nonsense pales in comparison to the open hostility we see toward science for not dealing with such questions. When someone asks a question they consider important and gets a shrug or a yawn in response, it tends to piss them off. Often though it is just a dissatisfaction with the point of science. Saying we know how the magnetic force behaves but not what it IS is a perfect example: how it behaves IS what it is and is all science cares about.

 

[EnumaElish]

First of all, I think the thread title is circular, because it relies on our current understanding of the limits of our mental powers, which itself is a scientific (and physical) question.

Putting that aside, isn't it our current understanding that our powers of observation and measurement are limited (by the Planck length, by our event horizon, by the big bang), implying that questions that fall beyond these limits cannot be empirically answered?

 

[cronxeh]

Again, guys it is not a matter of if science can answer a question RIGHT NOW (implying maybe it can later), but whether the scientific method applies to the question at all.

Also, I rather suspect my own contempt for what I see as pseudophilosophical nonsense pales in comparison to the open hostility we see toward science for not dealing with such questions. When someone asks a question they consider important and gets a shrug or a yawn in response, it tends to piss them off. Often though it is just a dissatisfaction with the point of science. Saying we know how the magnetic force behaves but not what it IS is a perfect example: how it behaves IS what it is and is all science cares about.

First of all, I think the thread title is circular, because it relies on our current understanding of the limits of our mental powers, which itself is a scientific (and physical) question.

Putting that aside, isn't it our current understanding that our powers of observation and measurement are limited (by the Planck length, by our event horizon, by the big bang), implying that questions that fall beyond these limits cannot be empirically answered?

You implying that Planck anything, the Big Bang, etc can even be scientifically proven? Herein lies the destinction between philosophy and science. Those things are a philosophy of science, whereas structure of DNA is science.

 

[Nebula815]

Saying we know how the magnetic force behaves but not what it IS is a perfect example: how it behaves IS what it is and is all science cares about.

Not necessarily. The electromagnetic force we may understand its behavior, but that does not mean that how it behaves is what it literally is. We know how gravity behaves, but that doesn't mean how it behaves is what it literally is.

It is kind of like saying, "What is heat?" Back in the 19th century, it was thought heat was a moist-type of thing, now they know it is just a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles. But science wondered what precisely it was at first, until they realized it was just faster-moving particles.

Physics inquires into the nature of the universe. Some people seem to want to just shrug off questions that physics can't answer as not being science, but I don't know if that's the case. I think it is just the limits of the science and of the human brain right now.

If we humans "evolve" over the next 500,000 years into super-intelligent beings, and can look back at the work on physics done by the more primitive form of human, they might easily be able to grasp exactly what say the electromagnetic force is, and it would be very much a scientific question to them.

But they would probably reason, "Homo-sapiens in the 20th and 21st century trying to figure this stuff out is like chimpanzees trying to understand calculus, their brains just were not developed enough."

 

[JDStupi]

Several things I have to say again. First, the "heat" analogy to the electromagnetic force is an improper analogy in my mind because we thought heat was something that flowed and it turned out it was kinetic energy, true, and so the scientific verdict on heat was that it is a measure of a systems kinetic energy, which is an abstract concept. The electromagnetic force is scientifically known, and asking what it truly "is" is like asking what kinetic energy manifesting itself as particle motion actually "is" and these are valid phiosophical questions I suppose, but getting to what it actually "is" gets to the "thing-in-itself" which we can never know because we are only experiencing things as they appear to us through our sensory perception. The qualitative "what it truly is" I believe will be had more by a philosophical framework that works effectively within an accordance of scientific facts, and definatley think about the limits of language. One more thing you keep making evolutionary references as if evolutions purpose was toward something more intelligent or greater, that isn't what evolution is saying, this isn't a teleological evolutionary universe progressing towards a super-intelligent end, it is simply the genetic mutations that happen to be most adaptible to a given set of circumstances (environment), this makes the fact that intelligent life did evolve incredible, but don't be so sure we are progressing towards more intelligence, especially considering now we seem to manipulate our environments to suite us which may interfere with evollutionary processes. I know you may be thinking that the physics based people on this board are too pragmatically minded and thus not grasping the scope of your question, but the reason why russ keeps saying that it isn't a scientific question is because what would be the criterion or experiment used to determine what an electromagnetic force "actually is". Finding out what the force "actually is" is asking for an abstraction of an abstraction. These are mathematical concepts, formulated mathematically, understood mathematically and no language structure will accuratley support something so far removed from experience. Here is a quick example of a language limit in Physics, tied with an "Actually is" question: An atom, you have probably heard about Democritus postulating these tiny indivisible building blocks of matter, well due to everyday experience this somewhat paints the picture of a small billiard ball, rock like thing that is tiny and froms together to make everything, and some would say Democritus was right. Now, the modern picture of atoms is so incredibally different and is so differently defined that, linguistically, is the "atom" os Democritus the same "atom" of the modern era? Surely, he was onto something, that is something small that builds to bigger things, but was he correct? An atom consists of "fields" that create a strong "force" holding the nucleus together (What "really is" the chromodynamic force) And those interact with "electrons" or small quanta/ ripples in an electromagnetic field (What "actually is" the electromagnetic field) So now these two composite "actually is" questions lead to what "Actually is" an atom? And if we follow the atomic picture which leads to molecules and macroscopic things, what "actually is" anything? You see how this is philosophy and not science? I'm not knocking these questions, I believe philsophy of science questions are valuable and many other physicists have thought so throughout history (Physics used to be "Natural Philosophy"), but you must make the distinction.

 

[Nebula815]

WOW whopper of a post! Alright, well then if those questions are not science, I would say that since scientists are usually people seeking to understand the nature of the universe, wouldn't philosophy be just as important as science regarding this stuff?

Also, wouldn't things like the theories about parallel universes and multiple dimensions also be philosophy? Because there is no way to empirically experiment to test for these things.

Going strictly by physics as a science seems to be a bit limiting in understanding the nature of things.

Regarding what would be the criterion or experiment for figuring out what the electromagnetic force actually is, well I don't know, but how do we know for sure that equipment just does not yet exist to be able to experiment in this sense? Or that our minds are just not developed enough.

To say it (electromagnetic force) is just a mathematical abstraction just seems too limiting to me. There has to be something there. Positively-charged objects do not just magically pull towards negatively-charged objects (whatever a "charge" even actually is). And similarly-charged objects/particles cannot just magically repel one another. It may be understood strictly via mathematics, and is beyond the scope of our senses and capabilities to be understood any other way, but that doesn't mean it is solely an abstraction.

Ultimately to us humans, these questions do not matter in terms of engineering and practical everyday life, but in terms of pure truth-seeking, saying they do not matter to me would be like being back in ancient Greece and pondering, "What is everything ultimately made of?" and someone saying, "WHO CARES, none of that means a bit of difference to our lifestyle."

 

[zoobyshoe]

"What is everything ultimately made of?"

Picture that you are a novice in zen buddhist monastery. You line up with your fellow novices and wait while one by one you go into sit in front of the roshi (the zen master). Once you get in there, he fixes you with a hard, penetrating stare, and these words come out of his mouth:

"what is the sound of one hand clapping"

He waits for a reaction. If you have none, or it's the wrong one, he dismisses you.

but in terms of pure truth-seeking, saying they do not matter to me would be like being back in ancient Greece and pondering, "What is everything ultimately made of?" and someone saying, "WHO CARES, none of that means a bit of difference to our lifestyle."

What you and your Tao of Physics author don't seem to realize is that the roshi's words do, in fact, amount to a sort of "WHO CARES?" damnation of your "pure truth seeking". The famous zen koan is a completely different animal than wave/particle duality or superposition of states.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Several things I have to say again...

...questions are valuable and many other physicists have thought so throughout history (Physics used to be "Natural Philosophy"), but you must make the distinction.

Really nice post!

 

[ZapperZ]

WOW whopper of a post! Alright, well then if those questions are not science, I would say that since scientists are usually people seeking to understand the nature of the universe, wouldn't philosophy be just as important as science regarding this stuff?

As Richard Feynman was famous in saying "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

Zz.

 

[zomgwtf]

As Richard Feynman was famous in saying "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

Zz.

Really? I guess science and how it works etc. just popped out of the ground one day along with those cabbage patch kids. Learn the philosophy before you knock it.

 

[rewebster]

Really? I guess science and how it works etc. just popped out of the ground one day along with those cabbage patch kids. Learn the philosophy before you knock it.

I thought Feynman was being a little sarcastic or ironic when he said that; in that the statement itself was on the 'philosophy of science', and that 'philosophy of science' could be that far beyond the reach of scientists as birds trying to understand ornithology; but, the key word is 'useful'.

WOW whopper of a post! Alright, well then if those questions are not science, I would say that since scientists are usually people seeking to understand the nature of the universe, wouldn't philosophy be just as important as science regarding this stuff?

Also, wouldn't things like the theories about parallel universes and multiple dimensions also be philosophy? Because there is no way to empirically experiment to test for these things.

Going strictly by physics as a science seems to be a bit limiting in understanding the nature of things.

Regarding what would be the criterion or experiment for figuring out what the electromagnetic force actually is, well I don't know, but how do we know for sure that equipment just does not yet exist to be able to experiment in this sense? Or that our minds are just not developed enough.

To say it (electromagnetic force) is just a mathematical abstraction just seems too limiting to me. There has to be something there. Positively-charged objects do not just magically pull towards negatively-charged objects (whatever a "charge" even actually is). And similarly-charged objects/particles cannot just magically repel one another. It may be understood strictly via mathematics, and is beyond the scope of our senses and capabilities to be understood any other way, but that doesn't mean it is solely an abstraction.

Ultimately to us humans, these questions do not matter in terms of engineering and practical everyday life, but in terms of pure truth-seeking, saying they do not matter to me would be like being back in ancient Greece and pondering, "What is everything ultimately made of?" and someone saying, "WHO CARES, none of that means a bit of difference to our lifestyle."

yes, but how many of the 'things' that you're talking about are 'known' and how many are just 'accepted'? Earth was the accepted center of the universe at one time.

What I'm saying is that scientists often present what they 'know' as the 'truth' when is really just the 'accepted knowledge of the day'.

 

[zomgwtf]

I thought Feynman was being a little sarcastic or ironic when he said that; it that the statement itself was on the 'philosophy of science', and that 'philosophy of science' could be that far beyond the reach of scientists as birds trying to understand ornithology; but, the key word is 'useful'.

Which is why my statement was directed at Zapper and his use of the quote, and not directed at Feynman.

 

[rewebster]

'Some scientists' , when they see a question with a "why does...?" or "why is...?" seem to go somewhere in their heads, and say "why is a question for philosophers"; and its bothersome to me.

Is it coming from a fear of being called or thought of as a 'philosopher' by their peers if they do answer, or has the question(s) got to a point where they know that there is no really good answer, and they pull this old saying out of the bag so they don't have to say that?

 

[EnumaElish]

You implying that Planck anything, the Big Bang, etc can even be scientifically proven?

No, of course not, they are defined as our (current) limits of observation and measurement. They can be "hypothesized" as unobservable parameters of a mathematical model. My point is that (the current values of) these limits envelop all (currently) possible observation and measurement. In this sense, they are "proven" by our inability to see beyond them.

 

[JDStupi]

Good, good, your starting to get it more now. Yes, it does seem limiting to regard Physics as the be-all-end-all of universal knowledge, and thus why I have an interest in philosophy/philosophy of Science. Now, I don't claim to know all of this, or the answers, I'm just trying to clarify some thought so you can think about these things in other ways that may or may not turn out to be more fruitful. Regarding the charges repel and what not, I agree, I think there has to be some reason why they do that, and their are several ways to look at that, one being that Physically there is something out there causing these charges to attract/repel one another and we are defining it tautologically with the electromagnetic force, and there is something that it "really is" causing this to happen, and that comes more naturally I believe. The other way to thing about it (Among many more) is by examining perception and noticing how many concepts and ideas are simply a facet of sensations passing through our human minds and being categorized and defined relative to other sensations, and thus you get to one of the kind of conflicts of modern science, the reductionism vs holism and how to interpret these things idea. Meaning, is this just the way the universe as a whole functions and the charges are two sides of the same coin (one hand clapping?) and our human minds are categorizing them as different things when as a process that is simply how the universe functions. At which point you could say that this holistic argument could have been used all along and are reductionism/isolation of "individual" objects has worked very well, and that is true, though as science goes on we can't define things without reference to their interactions, system and environ.

Finally, I do not want to project the "Who cares" attitude because I do care about these issues, and I think they are interesting/important and most wouldn't consider me particularly pragmatically minded, maybe what I'm trying to say is that when you understand it more it is like asking the question of "What does God look like?" In that it is a real question, but (assuming you believe in any type of God) once you gain a better understanding regarding the nature of God,spirituality and religous experience you see that asking "What God looks like" is kind of the wrong question to ask.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Really? I guess science and how it works etc. just popped out of the ground one day along with those cabbage patch kids. Learn the philosophy before you knock it.

Back when science and philosophy were the same thing practiced by the same people it was determined that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

 

[rewebster]

He was wrong. They were all answered last week. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/worlds_physicists_complete

good link----

I like the way that some scientists say--"if we (YOU) fund this (give me money to fund MY idea), it WILL answer questions that we (I) have been wondering about for years, and help solve the (insert a 'need'/problem) crisis."

 

[zomgwtf]

Back when science and philosophy were the same thing practiced by the same people it was determined that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

Great post.

 

[rewebster]

Back when science and philosophy were the same thing practiced by the same people it was determined that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

I bet 95% of the people would still agree

 

[Nebula815]

Well I certainly do not take a "who cares" attitude either to these questions. I still am not sure if I'd consider these questions philosophical questions per se though. Philosophy, to me, is stuff like what is good and evil? Do good and evil really exist or are they just constructs invented by humans? Saying, "What is the electromagnetic force?" well modern physics may be unable to answer that for all intents and purposes right now, except mathematically, but I do not see it as philosophy. The electromagnetic force is something real and tangible, just not in the normal physical sense in how we humans understand things. Same with light. But it's there.