Arguments Against Superdeterminism

[ThomasT]

What is actually happening when the experimenter heats the gas and observes a change in the Q/T relation (entropy increases)? Under D the whole experiment is a predetermined scenario with the actions of the experimenter included. The experimenter didn't decide to heat the gas or even set up the experiment. The experimenter had no choice. She or he is an actor following the deterministic script. Everything is correlated with everything else with measure one. There really is no cause and effect. There is only a the predetermined succession of states. Therefore you're going to have to give up the usual (strong) form of causality where we can perform experimental interventions to test causality (if you want D).

Causality is not defined in mathematics or logic. It's usually defined operationally where, given A is the necessary, sufficient and sole cause of B, if you remove A, then B cannot occur. Well under D we cannot remove A unless it was predetermined that p(B)=0. At best, we can have a weak causality where we observe a succession of states that are inevitable.

The assumption of determinism and the application of probabilities are independent considerations.

I wouldn't separate causality into strong and weak types. We observe invariant relationships, or predictable event chains, or, as you say, "a succession of states that are inevitable". Cause and effect are evident at the macroscopic scale.

Determinism is the assumption that there are fundamental dynamical rules governing the evolution of any physical state or spatial configuration. We already agreed that it can't be disproven.

The distinguishing characteristic of ueit's proposal isn't that it's deterministic. What sets it apart is that it involves an infinite field of nondiminishing strength centered on polarizer or other filtration/detection devices and/or device combinations and propagating info at c to emission devices thereby determining the time and type of emission, etc., etc. So far, it doesn't make much sense to me.

We already have a way of looking at these experiments which allows for an implicit, if not explicit, local causal view.

Anyway, his main question about arguments against the assumption of determinism has been answered, and I thought we agreed on this -- there aren't any good ones.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Anyway, his main question about arguments against the assumption of determinism has been answered, and I thought we agreed on this -- there aren't any good ones.

Of course you can't disprove or really even argue against metaphysical assumptions (except with other metaphysical assumptions). Nature appears effectively deterministic at macro-scales if we disregard human intervention and human activity in general. At quantum scales, it remains to be proven that hidden variables exist. (Afaik, there is no real evidence for hidden variables).Therefore strict (as opposed to effective) determinism remains a matter of taste. In any case, to the extent that science uses probabilistic reasoning, science is not based de facto on strict determinism. Thermodynamics is based almost entirely on probabilistic reasoning. Quantum mechanics is deterministic only insofar as probabilities are determined and confirmed by experiment.

(Note: I'm using "effective determinism" in terms of what we actually observe within the limits of measurement, and "strict determinism" as a philosophical paradigm.)

 

[ThomasT]

At quantum scales, it remains to be proven that hidden variables exist. (Afaik, there is no real evidence for hidden variables).

I think everybody should believe that hidden variables exist, ie., that there are deeper levels of reality than our sensory faculties reveal to us. The evidence is electrical, magnetic, gravitational, etc., phenomena.

Whether local hidden variable mathematical formulations of certain experimental preparations are possible is another thing altogether. This was addressed by Bell.

Ueit is interested in lhv models. Bell says we're not going to have them for quantum entangled states, and so far nobody has found a way around his argument.

 

[WaveJumper]

Anyway, his main question about arguments against the assumption of determinism has been answered, and I thought we agreed on this -- there aren't any good ones.

That's right, but how is it different to the idea that we are living in the Matrix and if no good arguments can be put forward against it, is that a model of the universe that you think should even be considered by science?

 

[ThomasT]

That's right, but how is it different to the idea that we are living in the Matrix and if no good arguments can be put forward against it, is that a model of the universe that you think should even be considered by science?

One difference is that there are some good reasons to believe in determinism. It seems that our universe is evolving in a somewhat predictable way. There are many particular examples of deterministic evolution on various scales. This suggests some pervading fundamental dynamic(s). So, physics makes that assumption.

We might be in some sort of Matrix. But there's no particular reason to think that we are. The question is, does our shared, objective reality seem more deterministic the more we learn about it?

 

[kote]

The question is, does our shared, objective reality seem more deterministic the more we learn about it?

Well I think if you're looking at it that way the answer is very clearly "no" . QM had to go screw things up with the Copenhagen Interpretation giving up on deterministic objective reality completely. No one questioned it with Newton.

Since you mentioned it, it looks more and more like the world could be discrete, suggesting a structure with limits on its basic numerical accuracy - very Matrix-like.

I don't think science can tell us anything about the issue though. Hume covered that pretty well in my opinion. I do think the assumption of determinism is a rational extension of logic that needs to be made for the world to be intelligible for us.

 

[ThomasT]

Well I think if you're looking at it that way the answer is very clearly "no" . QM had to go screw things up with the Copenhagen Interpretation giving up on deterministic objective reality completely.

The CI tells us that the quantum of action and the requirements for objective communication place limits on what we can say about Nature. This has nothing to do with the assumption of determinism, which is a rational extension of what we do observe wrt the evolution of systems on various scales.

Since you mentioned it, it looks more and more like the world could be discrete, suggesting a structure with limits on its basic numerical accuracy - very Matrix-like.

The more I learn, the more it seems to me that the world is a fundamentally seamless complex of interacting waveforms in a hierarchy of media. The metaphysical extension of quantization isn't discreteness per se, but rather resonances, harmonics, etc.

But maybe I don't understand what you're getting at here.

I don't think science can tell us anything about the issue though. Hume covered that pretty well in my opinion. I do think the assumption of determinism is a rational extension of logic that needs to be made for the world to be intelligible for us.

Science is how we most objectively observe the world and least ambiguously communicate those observations. It wouldn't make much sense for us to talk about the world in any way other than how it seems to us to be evolving -- which is deterministically.

 

[ThomasT]

1. At source location, the field is a function of the detectors' state. Because the model is local this information is "old". If the detectors are at 1 ly away, then the source "knows" the detectors' state as it was 1 year in the past.

Ok, let's say the setup is A <1ly> E <1ly> B. The emission part of a series of runs begins and ends before the filters/detectors at A and B are even built. After all of the emissions that might possibly be detected in the experiment have been in transit for, say, 10 months, then the experimenters at A and B build their ends and put the stuff in place.

If they've set things up correctly, then when the data sets at A and B are properly paired and correlated with the appropriate angular differences, then you'll see something closely approximating a cos^2 Theta dependency (Malus Law).

But the filters'/detectors' state couldn't have had anything to do with the emission values because the filters/detectors didn't even exist until all of the emissions were already more than 3/4 of the way to the filters/detectors.

2. From this available information and the deterministic evolution law the source "computes" the future state of the detectors when the particles arrive there.

But, in the above scenario, the source couldn't have the necessary information, even nonlocally, because there were no filters/detectors to generate a field until long after all of the emissions originated.

Yet the joint results would approximate a Malus Law dependency between angular difference and rate of coincidental detection.

 

[ueit]

Ok, let's say the setup is A <1ly> E <1ly> B. The emission part of a series of runs begins and ends before the filters/detectors at A and B are even built. After all of the emissions that might possibly be detected in the experiment have been in transit for, say, 10 months, then the experimenters at A and B build their ends and put the stuff in place.

If they've set things up correctly, then when the data sets at A and B are properly paired and correlated with the appropriate angular differences, then you'll see something closely approximating a cos^2 Theta dependency (Malus Law).

But the filters'/detectors' state couldn't have had anything to do with the emission values because the filters/detectors didn't even exist until all of the emissions were already more than 3/4 of the way to the filters/detectors.

The particles that the detectors are made of existed in one form or another since the big-bang as energy conservation precludes one to bring "new" matter into existence. The field that carries the information about the detectors is centered around each particle of the detector, and also exists since big-bang. This information transfer takes place at the level of fundamental particles not only when an object takes the macroscopic form of a detector.

But, in the above scenario, the source couldn't have the necessary information, even nonlocally, because there were no filters/detectors to generate a field until long after all of the emissions originated.

Yet the joint results would approximate a Malus Law dependency between angular difference and rate of coincidental detection.

See above.

 

[junglebeast]

I pointed out that a) contradicts your hypothesis. So clearly SD is outside of what we know. That makes it 100% as speculative as the existence of God, so where is the science in any of this?

All our macroscopic evidence provides us an apparently deterministic view of the world. Current theory asks us to consider this as a mere coincidence that is not always true...but SD is an alternative that reconciles both the quantum experiments as well as our notion that the world is apparently deterministic. Therefore it has more evidence imo (albeit an inconclusive amount)..

 

[ThomasT]

The particles that the detectors are made of existed in one form or another since the big-bang as energy conservation precludes one to bring "new" matter into existence. The field that carries the information about the detectors is centered around each particle of the detector, and also exists since big-bang. This information transfer takes place at the level of fundamental particles not only when an object takes the macroscopic form of a detector.

This isn't testable. It amounts to saying that god did it. We agreed that superdeterminism is synonymous with determinism, and that there's good reason to assume that Nature is fundamentally deterministic and that it obeys the principle of locality. But this doesn't inform us about the specific mechanisms wrt which processes evolve.

It's been shown that lhv formulations are incompatible with quantum entangled states, and that this doesn't imply that nonlocality is a fact of nature -- but only that the formal requirements rule out an explicitly local realistic account.

 

[Count Iblis]

See also here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408

 

[ueit]

This isn't testable. It amounts to saying that god did it.

Once a mathematical formulation for such a field is found (if it exists) we can say if the theory is testable or not. On the other hand this is no different from classical fields. They have existed since the big-bang. If not, please tell me when a certain object acquired mass and started to feel the gravitational field?

It's been shown that lhv formulations are incompatible with quantum entangled states

Where?

 

[ThomasT]

Once a mathematical formulation for such a field is found (if it exists) we can say if the theory is testable or not. On the other hand this is no different from classical fields. They have existed since the big-bang. If not, please tell me when a certain object acquired mass and started to feel the gravitational field?

What field? What theory? You say that emission is a function of filter/detector settings. But it obviously isn't, so then you say that this ability of the filter/detector to precipitate emission exists in the ethereal field or the particles that will eventually become the filter/detector. So, I ask you, what's wrong with this?

You're talking about a field that doesn't exist, surrounding objects that don't exist, affecting a process from which they're spacelike separated vis local transmissions/interactions. This isn't good spitballing.

We've already discussed that there are reasons to believe that quantum entanglement is due, exclusively, to local transmissions/interactions. This is what I believe.

However, the problem, if one absolutely must have an explicitly local realist description of entanglement, is in finding a way to express locality in a way that's formally compatible with the required nonseparability (nonfactorability) -- which is due to the required statistical dependence between the separately accumulated data sets, produced by the data pairing process -- of entangled states

 

[ueit]

What field? What theory? You say that emission is a function of filter/detector settings. But it obviously isn't, so then you say that this ability of the filter/detector to precipitate emission exists in the ethereal field or the particles that will eventually become the filter/detector. So, I ask you, what's wrong with this?

You're talking about a field that doesn't exist, surrounding objects that don't exist, affecting a process from which they're spacelike separated vis local transmissions/interactions. This isn't good spitballing.

Let's just assume that the field is the classical EM field. We have a electron source and two detectors. From now on, forget their macroscopic appearance, think of them as large groups of quarks and electrons, quark-electron "galaxies", if you want. Now calculate the resultant field (coming from each particle in the three "galaxies") around the location of the source. At certain times the force acting on an electron becomes large enough that the electron starts to move. You select then only those electrons that will be "captured" by the detector-galaxies. This is the type of theory I propose. Tell me what do you think it is wrong about it.

 

[ThomasT]

Let's just assume that the field is the classical EM field. We have a electron source and two detectors. From now on, forget their macroscopic appearance, think of them as large groups of quarks and electrons, quark-electron "galaxies", if you want. Now calculate the resultant field (coming from each particle in the three "galaxies") around the location of the source. At certain times the force acting on an electron becomes large enough that the electron starts to move. You select then only those electrons that will be "captured" by the detector-galaxies. This is the type of theory I propose. Tell me what do you think it is wrong about it.

In our latest example, there was only one "galaxy", the emitter, wrt which some sort of emission producing field effect could be associated. There could be no no "quark-electron galaxies" associated with filters/detectors at the time of emission, because there were no filters/detectors at the time of emission.

I can almost envision what you're saying. But it's much to vague to be of any use. And anyway, imho, Nature doesn't work that way.

I think the evidence is pretty compelling that the assumption of parameter independence is a good one. The inequalities are being violated because the assumption of outcome independence is necessarily contradicted by the design and execution of Bell tests. So, what you need if you want a viable realistic description that is explicitly local, is a formal locality condition that doesn't include outcome independence.

 

[WaveJumper]

So if we roll back the universe 13.7 billion years, does everyone believe that if we have the same 'configuration' of energy states in the singularity, 13.7 billion years later we'd have the absolutely same universe where i would again be typing this post?

 

[Blenton]

I do.

 

[WaveJumper]

I do.

One weird consequence of such a belief is that the single source of all deterministic reality obviously wants to fool us about its true nature, by implanting in the deterministic sequence of events conflicting concepts of false gods - Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., the 6-day creation, the 6000 year old Earth, etc. Essentially, according to the deterministic model of the universe, god is not very different from a Nigerian scammer(the fraudulent emails being manifested by holy books).

 

[Descartz2000]

One weird consequence of such a belief is that the single source of all deterministic reality obviously wants to fool us about its true nature, by implanting in the deterministic sequence of events conflicting concepts of false gods - Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., the 6-day creation, the 6000 year old Earth, etc. Essentially, according to the deterministic model of the universe, god is not very different from a Nigerian scammer(the fraudulent emails being manifested by holy books).

I think if there is any kind of consistent logic in the Universe, then 'yes' I believe if re-run and the conditions and configurations were identical, the Universe would lead me to this very spot, sitting here typing. If not, then it seems obvious we live in a world without consistency and the various configurations in the Universe throughout time and their relationships and interactions with each other do not correlate to macro scale phenomena. If the outcome could be different, and let's say I did not exist as a result, or I was washing my car instead of typing at this moment, all of this points to a world where conditions, variables, configurations, and relationships do not consistently correlate with macro scale outcomes.

 

[Blenton]

One weird consequence of such a belief is that the single source of all deterministic reality obviously wants to fool us about its true nature, by implanting in the deterministic sequence of events conflicting concepts of false gods - Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., the 6-day creation, the 6000 year old Earth, etc. Essentially, according to the deterministic model of the universe, god is not very different from a Nigerian scammer(the fraudulent emails being manifested by holy books).

Yes it is strange how the laws of physics come together to form us, and me typing the post now. It could be stranger.

 

[Portiaja]

I first encountered the term "Superdeterminism" when physicist John S. Bell used it twice (?) during a BBC radio interview with Paul Davies in 1985:

"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and it's outcome, will be." - John S. Bell

And...

"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." - John S. Bell

I realize this thread is a year old, but I just discovered it a few days ago and thought these quotes would be essential additions. Perhaps they will even serve to resurrect the thread itself.

 

[skippy1729]

The following video lecture from Perimeter Institute seems relevant to this thread:

What are the costs of dealing with "states of reality" in quantum theory?
Speaker(s): Caslav Brukner
Abstract: Bell and experimental tests of his inequality showed that it is impossible to explain all of the predictions of quantum mechanics using a theory which satisfies the basic concepts of locality and realism, but which (if not both) is violated is still an open question. As it seems impossible to resolve this question experimentally, one can ask how plausible realism -- the idea that external properties of systems exist prior to and independent of observations -- is, by considering the amount of resources consumed by itself and its non-local features. I will construct an explicit realistic model in which the number of hidden-variable states scales polynomially with the number of possible quantum measurements. In the limit of a large number of measurements, the model recovers the result of Montina, that no hidden-variable theory that agrees with quantum predictions could use less hidden-variable states than the straightforward model in which every quantum state is associated with one such hidden state. Thus, for any given system size, realistic theories cannot describe nature more effic
Date: 28/09/2009 - 11:00 am

http://pirsa.org/09090084

 

[Boy@n]

Cannot quantum entanglement be explained with considering cause/effect at some other dimension rather within the 'popular' four with the 'need' of SD?

When we separate entangled particles to great distances could it be possible that at certain dimension a certain property (one which affects the spin) of two particles still stays close together, so, when changing spin of the one particle simultaneously changes spin of the other particle, regardless of the particles distance in four dimensions?

 

[Boy@n]

So, if determinism is true in nature, for all scales and dimensions (as most people here seem to believe), then this means that if I had to choose, say, 10 numbers out of 1000 (no rules imposed), my picks are determined and not free choices at all?

Moreover, if Big Bang happens again with same initial conditions, I’d choose same 10 numbers again?

I know what I’ll say now is not science, but this just doesn’t feel right. If you refer just to your feelings and forget what you know, what you feel/see?

Given eternity, same conditions which created our Universe must happen infinite times, that is, if determinism is true! God (if existing) might choose the same, or not, we cannot know that, but if we say determinism is true then same must happen infinite times. So, you are reading this now infinite times. And even ALL the time, since who says there is just one Universe. If space-time with quantum fluctuatins is infinite then there must be infinite number of Universes, and among those there must be a subset of still ininite number of those with same initial conditions, thus, exactly the same YOU is reading this infinite times all the time.

Via science we might never be absolutely sure if determinism is true or not, until we do, I choose to believe in free-will.

Existence as this one is without free-will just pointless for a conscious being.

The mere ability to ask if free-will is possible tells me, it is.

 

[nismaratwork]

So, if determinism is true in nature, for all scales and dimensions (as most people here seem to believe), then this means that if I had to choose, say, 10 numbers out of 1000 (no rules imposed), my picks are determined and not free choices at all?

Moreover, if Big Bang happens again with same initial conditions, I’d choose same 10 numbers again?

I know what I’ll say now is not science, but this just doesn’t feel right. If you refer just to your feelings and forget what you know, what you feel/see?

Given eternity, same conditions which created our Universe must happen infinite times, that is, if determinism is true! God (if existing) might choose the same, or not, we cannot know that, but if we say determinism is true then same must happen infinite times. So, you are reading this now infinite times. And even ALL the time, since who says there is just one Universe. If space-time with quantum fluctuatins is infinite then there must be infinite number of Universes, and among those there must be a subset of still ininite number of those with same initial conditions, thus, exactly the same YOU is reading this infinite times all the time.

Via science we might never be absolutely sure if determinism is true or not, until we do, I choose to believe in free-will.

Existence as this one is without free-will just pointless for a conscious being.

The mere ability to ask if free-will is possible tells me, it is.

I don't believe in determinism, but as conscious beings who are unlikely to ever be able to grasp initial conditions and variables to the point of making accurate predictions, it probably doesn't matter in terms of our free-will or lack thereof.

 

[wuliheron]

Assuming you can test it is there any conceivable use for such a theory? Likewise, assuming you could find out the initial conditions how could you possibly calculate anything useful? It seems little better than assuming the entire universe is stochastic and nonlocal effects are merely coincidence. Certainly if it can be tested it might be interesting to see the results, but without any possible constructive use I would personally doubt there validity.

 

[ThomasT]

So, if determinism is true in nature, for all scales and dimensions (as most people here seem to believe), then this means that if I had to choose, say, 10 numbers out of 1000 (no rules imposed), my picks are determined and not free choices at all?

Yes, according to determinism.

The mere ability to ask if free-will is possible tells me, it is.

If our universe is evolving deterministically, then we might have the illusion of free will without actually having free will.

But don't worry, there's absolutely no way to 'prove' that our universe is evolving deterministically. At least not afaik.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, according to determinism.

If our universe is evolving deterministically, then we might have the illusion of free will without actually having free will.

But don't worry, there's absolutely no way to 'prove' that our universe is evolving deterministically. At least not afaik.

Nor AFAIK either... and we still enjoy life so... does it matter? If the universe is deterministic then we still enjoy a particular illusion that has such fidelity that we can never expose it. Not bad, all things considered.

 

[Boy@n]

Nor AFAIK either... and we still enjoy life so... does it matter? If the universe is deterministic then we still enjoy a particular illusion that has such fidelity that we can never expose it. Not bad, all things considered.

ThomasT and nismaratwork thanks for calming me down, ops sorry, I should thank Universe for making you two to say those words. ;)

But really, the more I am thinking about it (in pleasure not worrying sense) the more it seems to me that even though physical world 'must' be deterministic (so it's consistent and natural laws valid and universal) I see no logical reason for self-consciousness to be the same way, even though consciousness may well energe via physical existence alone.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

it seems to me that enven though physical world 'must' be deterministic (so it's consistent and natural laws valid and universal).

As an early participant in this thread, I resisted getting involved again. However I feel compelled to say there is no "must'. The world is probabilistic at the quantum level. This is the science. Whether there is a deeper deterministic substratum is a matter of speculation.

Moreover, there is no known way to predict when a given atom will decay. It appears completely random although the half-life of any isotope is well defined from large ensembles of atoms. The 'need' for a completely determined universe is not founded in science, but in a belief that every event must have a cause and in principle that cause can be known. That's called philosophy.

 

[Boy@n]

As an early participant in this thread, I resisted getting involved again. However I feel compelled to say there is no "must'. The world is probabilistic at the quantum level. This is the science. Whether there is a deeper deterministic substratum is a matter of speculation.

Moreover, there is no known way to predict when a given atom will decay. It appears completely random although the half-life of any isotope is well defined from large ensembles of atoms. The 'need' for a completely determined universe is not founded in science, but in a belief that every event must have a cause and in principle that cause can be known. That's called philosophy.

I appreciate your response and clarification, I even agree with it.

I'd like to clarify myself too. I was not referring to quantum world though, but to classical. I see classical emerging out of quantum in alike manner I see consciousness emerging out of both (brains being a manifestation of both quantum fluctuations in brains which we can observe, when we silence our mind, like noise, or say particles of that which may through our will form into thoughts, images, words etc. and classical construct of physical brains in sense of organized molecules).

Thus, I agree that on quantum scale all happens pretty random, while on classical physical scale, as we experience it, all is consistent, natural laws being universaly valid, so, we could say physical reality of 'our' scale would be developing in a deterministic way if let to itself. But since consciousness and more so self-consciousness can and does interfere with it (not in sense that free-will can violate natural laws, but it sense that when multiple choices arise free-will enables us to choose one specific to our consciousness interpretation, which models own rules and values - not being universal at all, but specific to individual's consciousness). So, our Universe is not evolving in deterministic way, but in a mixed way of determinism and non-determinism.

 

[SprocketPower]

SW VandeCarr,

Philosophy, like math, is a theoretical science, and is included under cognitive science.

 

[nismaratwork]

SW VandeCarr,

Philosophy, like math, is a theoretical science, and is included under cognitive science.

In no way is philosophy a science in the sense of the word that renders it meaningful... it is an art... only the study of philosophers under an fMRI or MEG is real science relating to it.

 

[SprocketPower]

There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.

Quid est in mundus? Back when philosophy was generally accepted as a science, educated people anywhere could read my first sentence as easily as if it were in their native language. It's still pretty simple Latin, I suppose, meaning "What is in the world?". That's the basic ontological question that natural philosophy was supposed to answer. However, experimentally based sciences and "special sciences' based on careful observation and analysis have since de facto displaced pure philosophy in answering these questions. I don't know if any university philosophy department in the modern world has a budget for experimentally based research, but if you know of one, please inform us.

To the extent that you can consider subjects like mathematics, logic and linguistics as sciences within philosophy, then modern philosophy does have a scientific aspect. You might ask how many university mathematics departments want to be part of the philosophy department. If you Google "Philosophy of Science", you get a lot of results. However, if you Google "Philosophy as Science" you don't get much. Here's one result:

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContSten.htm

 

[nismaratwork]

There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.

In what way does philosophy even CLAIM to follow the scientific method? SW VandeCarr has made a fine point, now it's time for you to do the same if you can. The scientific method is a clear method which philosophy doesn't want or attempt to emulate, and is in fact, an art.

 

[SprocketPower]

SW VandeCarr,

The article is inrteresting. Philosophy is a general and theoretical science and a basic one. Descartes classified it as the root with 2 branches leading from it including all the other sciences. But your claim that the experimental sciences have displaced philosophy is not at all true because philosophy has always dealt with different questions. And your not goingto find it in anexperimental framework because it is theoretical. And here is what 1 of my classmates said in our on-line metaphysics course:

"Here, Here !

Philosophy is not just a science. It's the science of sciences. It's the source and the core of every science. This can be easily viewed especially in ancient philosophy texts and especially Plato. It is with philosophy that human intellect tried to answer basic and more complex questions about the natural world: reality, being, and existence. It is the effort to answer the primary "why" behind everything."

nismaratwork,

SW VandeCarr did not make a fine point at all and I did. And I didn't say philosophy follows the standard scientific method. It is theoretical, not experimental. If you say that philosophy isn't a science you would have to say the same thing about math and theoretical physics, too.

 

[SprocketPower]

Bell says that SD would get rid of superposition. How would it do this?

 

[Maui]

In what way does philosophy even CLAIM to follow the scientific method? SW VandeCarr has made a fine point, now it's time for you to do the same if you can. The scientific method is a clear method which philosophy doesn't want or attempt to emulate, and is in fact, an art.

Philosophy is an inseparable part of the interpretation of the experiemental facts of science and deeply rooted in its assumptions, so science is a form of art?

 

[SprocketPower]

ThomasT and kote,

Why would someone simulate reality? And if we are living in a Matrix, then the reality out there would be the same as in here so it doesn't have much meaning whether we are or not. But there is something that seems rather strange to me and that's the supercluster shaped like a human figure-- a clue hidden in plain sight? Sometimes I wonder.

 

[nismaratwork]

You resurrected a thread to argue a point that is absurd... I'm gone.

 

[Evo]

Time to say goodbye.