Can we broaden the context of science?

[Prometheus]

I would like to pose a question. First, some background:

The Indo-European grammar of English guides its speakers to subdivide their awareness of nature. Speakers of English recognize two very different and seemingly completely incompatible models of nature, science and religion. The grammar of English therefore leads to a subdivided model of nature. 2,000 years ago, both religion and science were subdivided into 4 main forces of nature. Religion unified some 2,000 years ago into a unified force of nature, god, but science still recognizes the same 4 fundamental forces of nature that our ancestors recognized 2,000 years ago. Modern science now also recognizes 4 subdivided dimensions. At its most fundamental level, therefore, the grammar of English guides it speakers to a subdivided awareness of nature, such as science from religion and space from time.

In constrast, the Chinese language supports a single, unified model of nature, known as the Dao. China has of course borrowed numerous western religions as well as western science. However, the grammar of Chinese does not natively support either religion or science, in the western sense, but rather a single model of nature that correlates to both of these. The grammar of Chinese guides its speakers to recognize a unified model of nature, the Dao. The Dao at its most fundamental level recognizes a unity of nature. There is only the unity of the Dao. The Dao goes through a cycle of subdivision. This cycle recognizes 5 forces of nature, and 5 dimensions. The grammar of Chinese reflects a fundamental unity of space and time, as space-time, much like modern physics claims exists but which is so difficult to understand for speakers of English due to the recognized subdivisoin of space from time.

I wonder if people on this forum consider that all models of nature are basically identical at a fundamental level, such that there is no need to look beyond science; or that the various models of nature differ in quality, such that there is no need to investigate other, inferior models of nature such as the Dao; or if people consider it possible that investigating the various science-like models of nature that have evolved throughout the entirety of our species might create a greater context within which to understand and interpret our observations of nature.

My question is:

Do you consider that there might be any significant value to considering science within a greater context, such as that presented by the Chinese model of the Dao?

 

[balkan]

that would demand people to be quite atheistic, like chinese people are... religious people would probably oppose to this idea in great numbers, claiming it to be an attempt at secularizing both language and religion itself, and God would be mad and all that...
people in general want black and white... human vs. nature, good vs. evil, them vs. us, science vs mind and religion (good riddens, if someone some day found out that mind and conciousness is deep down just chemistry and neurological impulses, they would be stoned by the masses...)

 

[Pergatory]

You're kidding right? Science isn't even unified within itself, it is comparmentalized into so many different topics that the root forums of Physics Forum don't even have threads, but merely contain sub-forums which then contain threads along with even more sub-forums. Now you are asking us to unify science, religion, and nature as well?

I don't think this will ever happen. I believe religion is a fog, and science is a break in the fog. As we begin to understand things more clearly, religion recedes and covers less and less territory. Ultimately, I don't think science and religion can be unified. I think science is constantly challenging religion. The thing that is unique about the chinese Dao is that it is not a religion, more of an adapter between other ideas. It relates things together. This is something that science lacks right now, but it is not out of a lack of interest, but more out of a lack of understanding. The Dao makes clear relationships in nature and science which have been reinforced through thousands of years of experience, but science will not accept it until it has been proven correct and we have some understanding of why that relationship exists.

Well, those are my thoughts anyway. I actually didn't really understand most of what was being said in the original post. As usual, that doesn't stop me from replying!

 

[balkan]

Well, those are my thoughts anyway. I actually didn't really understand most of what was being said in the original post. As usual, that doesn't stop me from replying!

that is probably true for 70% of the posts in the philosophy forums, so knock yourself out

 

[wuliheron]

My question is:

Do you consider that there might be any significant value to considering science within a greater context, such as that presented by the Chinese model of the Dao?

What you have really pointed out is the inherent holistic philosophy or worldview of asian cultures in general. Science is merely a specific process (eg exercizing, cooking, painting, etc.) and should not be confused with the philosophies which support it, whether eastern or western.

As for whether there is significant value in considering science within a greater context, of course there is. Over the last century every branch of the sciences has adopted holistic theories, and a race has ensued to span all of the sciences within a single coherent holistic philosophy. Why has all this occured? Because by definition holistic theories describe more and are therefore more useful than reductionist ones.

 

[pocebokli]

true, but divided reductionist sciences allow for more focus, thus quicker physical progress and RESULTS. And perhaps this has to be the foundation of what you call a single coherent holistic philosophy.

 

[pocebokli]

i'm not sure if we can broaden the context of science though, as scientific method cannot be applied to absolutely everything, not as yet.

 

[wuliheron]

true, but divided reductionist sciences allow for more focus, thus quicker physical progress and RESULTS. And perhaps this has to be the foundation of what you call a single coherent holistic philosophy.

By definition, Reductionism can be derived from holism. Reductionism is what I call the brute force engineering approach to problem solving. However, it can only take one so far. In surveys of the 100,000 of the world's leading scientists they estimated that the rapid growth of the sciences will slow to a crawl sometime in the next four to six hundred years.

This has already occurred in many branches of engineering and the sciences. For example, steam engines were pretty much perfected before physicists ever invented the laws of thermodynamics. However, the good 'ol days of backyard tinker's making major innovations in engines are over. For that matter, so are the days of a single scientist making major discoveries. Today's average significant physics paper has over a hundred contributors.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Today's average significant physics paper has over a hundred contributors.

Not true. Go look at the arxiv new papers in hep-th, hep-ph, and even all physics papers. Three or four contributers. Maybe you are thinking of experimental results on the big colliders. An "experiment" in one of those is the size of an airplane hangar crammed full of hand built instruments. It takes a large team to construct and run all that, so a lot of contributers get credited. But that is not an "average' situation in modern physics.

 

[Prometheus]

What you have really pointed out is the inherent holistic philosophy or worldview of asian cultures in general. Science is merely a specific process (eg exercizing, cooking, painting, etc.) and should not be confused with the philosophies which support it, whether eastern or western.

As for whether there is significant value in considering science within a greater context, of course there is. Over the last century every branch of the sciences has adopted holistic theories, and a race has ensued to span all of the sciences within a single coherent holistic philosophy. Why has all this occured? Because by definition holistic theories describe more and are therefore more useful than reductionist ones.

I basically agree with what you say.

I think that science is an Indo-European invention, which is modeled on the Indo-European grammar of our language. I also think that an anthropological/linguistic widening of the scope of science to develop a more holistic context to analyzing the models of nature that have been developed by our species has the potential to help us understand why the unity of the Dao evolved into the subdivision of religion from science. When seen within a greater context, perhaps the seeming complete incompatibility of science with religion can be recognized to be subdivisions of the same unity, in much the same way as Yin and Yang are completely symmetrical subdivisions of the Dao.

 

[loseyourname]

Unifying sciences is one thing. The best attempt I've ever seen is Consilience by E.O. Wilson. Unifying science with religion is a whole other matter. The epistemology of each is too different. Science is purely an empirical endeavor, whereas religion is mostly revealed. Perhaps what you want is for the two to eventually reach the same conclusions.

 

[Iacchus32]

Unifying sciences is one thing. The best attempt I've ever seen is Consilience by E.O. Wilson. Unifying science with religion is a whole other matter. The epistemology of each is too different. Science is purely an empirical endeavor, whereas religion is mostly revealed. Perhaps what you want is for the two to eventually reach the same conclusions.

The two are of the same conclusion, the fact that we're here.

 

[Prometheus]

Unifying science with religion is a whole other matter. The epistemology of each is too different.

My point precisely. Modern speakers of English have an extremely narrow perspective on religion and science, the perspective that is provided by the grammar of our Indo-European language in isolation. From this perspective, there are two options available, religion and science, which are completely incompatible. Religion and science are not only very different, they are complete polarities in all respects.

Billions of people throughout history have believed very devoutly in the truth of religion. Billions of people throughout history have believed very devoutly in the truth of science. While it is easy for members of each group to sluff off members of the other group as deluded, misguided fools, it is clear that something in nature is causing such beliefs to be perpetuated in a large number of people in each generation.

I contend that were we to broaden our context of consideration, wherein religion and science could be considered from a more encompassing perspective, it might then be possible to find an underlying model of nature which subdivided to give rise to the dichotomy of religion and science.

The completely polarized symmetry between science and religion is perhaps more than coincidence. Only by stepping outside of the grammar of English, which provides us with insights only to these two polarities of nature, to gain a greater context on their relationship can we come to understand better the nature of either and their relationship to each other.

It turns out that the Dao of Chinese provides an interesting parallel to religion and science, and provides a possible source for understanding the origin of the dichotomy of religion and science.

My point here is not to convince you that you should accept what I have to say as the truth, but to ask you to consider whether there is any potential for value in considering our models of nature, religion and science, from within the greater perspective provided by our entire species.

 

[wuliheron]

Unifying sciences is one thing. The best attempt I've ever seen is Consilience by E.O. Wilson. Unifying science with religion is a whole other matter. The epistemology of each is too different. Science is purely an empirical endeavor, whereas religion is mostly revealed. Perhaps what you want is for the two to eventually reach the same conclusions.

Religious people worship, scientists observe. These are not incompatable practices. For example, Pantheists worship the totality of the universe. For many of them, scientific observation is one of the best ways to better understand what it is they worship. Hence, science "reveals" their religion, or at least a part of it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Reality is The One.

 

[Prometheus]

Reality is The One.

Different languages guide people to different ways to relate to and interact with reality.

 

[Egmont]

I wonder if people on this forum consider that all models of nature are basically identical at a fundamental level, such that there is no need to look beyond science; or that the various models of nature differ in quality, such that there is no need to investigate other, inferior models of nature such as the Dao; or if people consider it possible that investigating the various science-like models of nature that have evolved throughout the entirety of our species might create a greater context within which to understand and interpret our observations of nature.

I hadn't seen this before; it's a very interesting post.

I think all models of nature are identical at a fundamental level, because to the best of my knowledge all human languages share the same foundation. No matter which language you speak, you can always express your ideas as causal relationships (verbs) between subject and object. For this reason, any true statement can be translated to any language without loss of information.

Do you consider that there might be any significant value to considering science within a greater context, such as that presented by the Chinese model of the Dao?

I think (and I'm trying hard not to be biased) the European model is superior to the Chinese one, in the sense that it expresses more truths about nature. I say that not as a result of personal judgement, but simply due to the fact that the European model is far more popular in China than the Chinese model is popular in countries of European culture. For instance, while Chinese medicine sometimes succeeds where European medicine fails, the opposite is far more often the case. To me that means the European model of nature, when applied to the human body, reveals more truths than the Chinese one.

So I don't think the best approach to improve the European model is to develop it further by acknowledging more facts about the world, facts that are known to anyone on any culture. The major flaw with the European model, in my judgement, is its stubborn, prejudiced attitude toward facts. More than explaining the world, our scientific model is used to explain it away - to discard all data it cannot accommodate as being false or irrelevant, and ostracizing anyone who dares challenge the mainstream.

In my opinion, this all happens because science is perceived to lack a solid foundation. Most people think science is founded upon logic applied to perceptions, and while everyone trusts logic, few people trust human perception. The day everyone understands that science is actually founded upon language, then a door is opened to explore any true statement as being a statement about the world, as being a scientific subject.

 

[Prometheus]

I think all models of nature are identical at a fundamental level, because to the best of my knowledge all human languages share the same foundation.

I think (and I'm trying hard not to be biased) the European model is superior to the Chinese one, in the sense that it expresses more truths about nature.

Aren't these statements contradictory? You believe that they are identical, yet you think that one is superior.

No matter which language you speak, you can always express your ideas as causal relationships (verbs) between subject and object. For this reason, any true statement can be translated to any language without loss of information.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I will not tell you that you are wrong to have it, but I disagree completely.
I have read the Old Testament in both English and Hebrew, and I found tremendous examples of the loss of extremely large and significant amounts of information in the translation. In my opinion, this is to be expected, rather than surprising.

You speak of causal relationships between subject and verb. Subject are in the form of nouns, are they not? Are you aware that in many languages, the concept of a noun is very different than in English. For example, ask a friend or acquaintance how to translate the sentence "This is my brother" into natural Chinese or Japanese. This is not possible to do, except when stilted language is used. Furthermore, ask this person to translate into natural Japanese the sentence that might be asked a a restaurant, "Please put some more water into my cup." This again is not possible. Neither of these translations is possible, because in these examples there are multiple nouns that are possbile, and so more information is required for a translation. If a Chinese speaker or Japanese speaker were to translate the Chinese or Japanese word for brother into English, using the word brother, there would be a loss of information, as the Chinese and Japanese words contain more information.
Verbs are also extremely different among languages, and convey different causal relationships among their nounds.

I say that not as a result of personal judgement, but simply due to the fact that the European model is far more popular in China than the Chinese model is popular in countries of European culture.

This is a valid observation, but I believe that your conclusion is not completely correct.

So I don't think the best approach to improve the European model is to develop it further by acknowledging more facts about the world, facts that are known to anyone on any culture.

You think that the European model is superior in every way, rather than perhaps that together they provide more insight to truths than separately?

The major flaw with the European model, in my judgement, is its stubborn, prejudiced attitude toward facts. More than explaining the world, our scientific model is used to explain it away - to discard all data it cannot accommodate as being false or irrelevant, and ostracizing anyone who dares challenge the mainstream.

If you cite this as a flaw of the European model, does this mean that it not be a flaw of other models, such that we might learn to do without this from other models?

The day everyone understands that science is actually founded upon language, then a door is opened to explore any true statement as being a statement about the world, as being a scientific subject.

I agree with you that science is founded upon language, but I consider that science is founded upon the language of the Indo-Europeans, and that other language grammars lead to other models of nature.

 

[Iacchus32]

Different languages guide people to different ways to relate to and interact with reality.

Reality is fundamentally the same though, right? And even if we discover and/or create something which is new, it's merely that which has always existed, potentially.

 

[vanesch]

The grammar of English therefore leads to a subdivided model of nature. 2,000 years ago, both religion and science were subdivided into 4 main forces of nature. Religion unified some 2,000 years ago into a unified force of nature, god, but science still recognizes the same 4 fundamental forces of nature that our ancestors recognized 2,000 years ago.

Ah, post-modern gobbledegook
Do you really think that the Romans knew a lot about beta-decay (the weak force) or about the strong nuclear force ?
This is a typical pattern of "reasoning" in postmodernism: I guess you're talking about the 4 elements of Aristoteles, and the 4 forces (gravity, strong interaction, and electroweak interaction ; eh, only 3 ?? :shy: ok, before, it was, weak interaction and electromagnetism) in modern physics. The only thing they have in common is the number 4, so we say that it is the same thing. Like a hand has always communist tendencies.

Also, in christian religion, the unified god is actually 3. Like the 3 little pigs. Or the 3 forces of nature.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Egmont]

Aren't these statements contradictory? You believe that they are identical, yet you think that one is superior.

It's good to be talking to someone who's familiar with the limitations of language; I hope I can explain what I meant and why I don't see it as a contradiction.

Think of a Chevrolet and a BMW. On a certain level, both are identical - they have combustion engines, four wheels, seats, and so on. Also, a Chevrolet takes you anywhere a BMW does. So what makes the BMW "superior" to the Chevrolet? Well, "superior" is not a good word. If, for instance, you can't afford the high maintenance cost of a BMW, then the Chevrolet is a much better vehicle for you.

I think the European model of reality is "superior" in the sense that, like luxury cars, there is more attention to detail, more concern about exact definitions and correct logical relationships between concepts. That makes it easier to communicate, as it relies less on introspection and subjectivity. I don't think that makes it preferrable, but it does make it more popular.

I have read the Old Testament in both English and Hebrew, and I found tremendous examples of the loss of extremely large and significant amounts of information in the translation. In my opinion, this is to be expected, rather than surprising.

I completely agree that information is often lost in translations, but that has nothing to do with a language's ability to express a concept. More below:

For example, ask a friend or acquaintance how to translate the sentence "This is my brother" into natural Chinese or Japanese. This is not possible to do, except when stilted language is used.

OK, I can handle the Japanese thing. If my memory serves me, you have to say something like "kono hito wa onisan desu" or "kono hito wa otosan desu", depending on whether your brother is older or younger than you. Point taken, the word "brother" does not exist in traditional Japanese, but still there is no loss of information when you translate the English sentence into Japanese.

What you mentioned about the bible losing information, happens because translators have to worry about aesthetics as much as correctness. If someone translates a Japanese book and replaces every instance of "otosan" with "my older brother", it would be ugly and boring. But it is the translator who introduces information loss, not the translation process itself.

If a Chinese speaker or Japanese speaker were to translate the Chinese or Japanese word for brother into English, using the word brother, there would be a loss of information, as the Chinese and Japanese words contain more information.

That is because you think the proper translation of a word such as "onisan" is "brother", when it in fact is "a person's older brother". The Japanese word does contain more information, but that information can be just as well expressed in English, or any other language for that matter. Depending on how primitive the language is it may be tedious, but you can always do it.

You think that the European model is superior in every way, rather than perhaps that together they provide more insight to truths than separately?

Did I say "every way"? I don't recall, but if I did please apologize. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about science, and I'm quite fond of the various alternative philosophies. I'm not too familiar with Chinese culture, but I do like the little I know. However, I'm trying not to allow my somewhat disdainful attitude towards materialistic science get in the way of an objective assessment, and what I do observe is that what you call the Indo-European way of thinking is, regretably I might add, quite popular around the world. I take it that when most Chinese doctors reject traditional Chinese medicine in favor of European approaches, that they know what they are doing. Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about our medicine, in fact I'm quite skeptical of it to the point of cynicism.

If you cite this as a flaw of the European model, does this mean that it not be a flaw of other models, such that we might learn to do without this from other models?

It may be a flaw with other models or not, I'm not entirely familiar with them to say anything of significance. I suspect the Chinese people are open to things they cannot understand, while the modern Western-European mind is quite closed to anything it can't properly understand. But I may be wrong about the Chinese.

I agree with you that science is founded upon language, but I consider that science is founded upon the language of the Indo-Europeans, and that other language grammars lead to other models of nature.

Well, my reasoning comes from the fact that physical reality doesn't change depending on how you describe it. What does change is the metaphysics, the interpretation of what is implied by our observations of the world. I would agree with you that other languages can tremendously help in the development of a more solid, more consistent metaphysics. For instance, it seems to me the Chinese concepts of ying and yang seem far more sophisticated than the primitive Western notions of duality, so there's definitely something to be learned. I'm just not sure what you mean by "models of nature", whether you think they should incorporate metaphysics or not.

 

[Iacchus32]

If in fact reality is Unity, we do we strive for change? When maybe we should try and maintain that which is essential and primeval?

 

[vanesch]

I agree with you that science is founded upon language, but I consider that science is founded upon the language of the Indo-Europeans, and that other language grammars lead to other models of nature.

I think that this is completely wrong. Science is based on logic (with as a corrolary mathematics) and experiment. Japanese scientists are just as good at "indo-european" physics as are British scientists, just to take an example.
BTW, it is almost impossible to write down current "models of nature" using written language alone, you need a lot of mathematics too. You can easily translate technical descriptions of these models from English to Chinese and vice versa. No information gets lost if the translation is done correctly. The value of a (scientific) model of nature is only measured by its ability to predict outcomes of experiments, and you should agree with me that nor the calculation, nor the experiment is dependent on the linguistic origin of the person doing it (only its competence to do so can be a - trivial - issue).

When you talk about _literary_ works, such as the hebrew bible, then of course a lot gets lost under translation, because the very nature of a literary work is to play with all the ambiguities of a particular language to convey messages at different levels (or just to give a good time to the reader, appreciating the intellectual exercise). Because these relations change when translating (and they change more when the two languages are more remote), you screw up the essential part of the work. Good translations are in fact not translations, but new literary creations in the target language, by the translator, strongly inspired by the work in the source language. It then depends on the artistic abilities of the translator if the new work is on the same level as the old one ; probably that's why it is much harder to translate great works (the bible, the Illiad...) than third rank railway station stories.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[balkan]

one way of solving language problems, is to do like the germans... they constantly update their language to make it more "efficient" (typical german )...
this is cool in a way, but think about how annoying it must be to constantly have to learn new grammar and spelling?
furthermore, according to "experts", the german language is actually the most precise language for scientific purposes (it's just not very popular for obvious *coughly!* reasons)...
howabout we used german as the scientific language and then people could freely choose the everyday chatting language?

 

[vanesch]

howabout we used german as the scientific language and then people could freely choose the everyday chatting language?

In the beginning of the 20th century, German was well on its way to be the preferred scientific language, at least in physics. Probably this was because also because many of the leading physicists of that period spoke German (Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Born, Bethe, Sommerfeld, ...). One of the leading journals was Zeitschrift fuer Physik.
What has been said before, about the extensibility of German, all Germanic languages share this (such as Dutch, my mothertongue), but of course you're not adding grammar and spelling ! It is just that you are free to compose words with smaller words, like eine Physikerburostuhlschraubenlochbohrmachine, which means: "drill for making holes to fit screws in the chair of the desk of a physicist". That, and the complicated grammar, inherited from Latin (but still a bit simplified), using nominatif, accusatif, datif, and genitif to indicate the grammatical function of a part of the phrase, make the language not only very compact, but also without ambiguity (which means it is hard to tell jokes in German :)

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Egmont]

I think that this is completely wrong. Science is based on logic (with as a corrolary mathematics) and experiment. Japanese scientists are just as good at "indo-european" physics as are British scientists, just to take an example.

Just as a teaser, can you give a list of famous Japanese scientists? How about a list of famous British ones?

It's just not true that Japanese scientists are as good at physics as Europeans are. Whether it has to do with language, culture, history, or anything else, that is another matter.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yukawa, Tomonaga, Nambu, for starters. All top of the line, the first two won the Nobel Prize and the third one should have. Current Japanese physicists are very active and I would judge their productivity to be equal to the British ones. You can't get away with counting Newton and Maxwell back before Japan had internalized the Copernican revolution.

 

[Egmont]

Yukawa, Tomonaga, Nambu, for starters. All top of the line, the first two won the Nobel Prize and the third one should have. Current Japanese physicists are very active and I would judge their productivity to be equal to the British ones.

Well, if you want to go that route, I can easily demonstrate how the British are just as good carmakers as the Japanese. Jaguar, Rover, Bentley, for starters. All top of the line. :surprise:

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well sure. Conceded. And how does that support your original contention that Japanese can't do physics as well as British? Was the Spitfire a better or a worse plane than the Zero? Dumb question if you ask me.

 

[vanesch]

the British are just as good carmakers as the Japanese. Jaguar, Rover, Bentley, for starters. All top of the line. :surprise:

British ARE just as good carmakers! They are worse car _salesmen_ but if I can trade in my Toyota for a Jaguar, I don't mind

cheers,
patrick.

 

[balkan]

Well, if you want to go that route, I can easily demonstrate how the British are just as good carmakers as the Japanese. Jaguar, Rover, Bentley, for starters. All top of the line. :surprise:

rover: bmw
bentley: vw...
rolls royce: vw
mini: bmw

yes, the germans make top of the line cars :D

i'm not quite sure if you are aware how much japanese science is ahead of european and american science... it's quite alot.

 

[Egmont]

rover: bmw
bentley: vw...
rolls royce: vw
mini: bmw

yes, the germans make top of the line cars :D

i'm not quite sure if you are aware how much japanese science is ahead of european and american science... it's quite alot.

Come on guys, you can't possibly be taking this seriously!

I don't know if the Japanese are better scientists than everyone else. They might, they might not. It's all beside the point anyway.

The point was that Prometheus said language is what makes science possible, and I think he's right about that. If the Japanese can do science European-style, that is because they incorporated European words into their vocabulary. I seriously doubt they had words like "field", "momentum", "gradient", before they got in touch with European tradesmen during the Meiji restoration (early 19th century). No one can possibly make discoveries on quantum electrodynamics if they don't know what "quantum", and "electrodynamics" mean. They may come up with the math, but they would never find any use for it.

 

[balkan]

that's just ridiculous...
1st of all. european scientists are probably just as good as japanese ones, but japanese science is a year or two ahead of european and us science, probably due to more research and ambition... this isn't even a question. I'm studying nanotechnology and i see every day how we have lagged behind.

words like "momentum" didn't exist either until someone invented it and incorporated it into the language. and you have to learn both the words and the science as well you know... being european doesn't instantly make you a scientist or capable of understanding the word "momentum". "momentum" is just a word, what is important, is what it means.

so they had to learn science like everyone else and invent and learn words aswell, and that somehow makes them less capable scientists? i fail to see your logic, m8...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Only through natural language could people compare their observations of the world so that science could get started. And in actual science papers - even math papers - there is as much language as notation, and PhD candidates are required to learn some foreign languages so they can read the literature.

But none of this justifies the extreme nominalism that says momentum is just a language game. There is a real world, and it does have real properties, whatever we call them or even if we don't recognize them so we don't have a name for them. Or don't you think the universe existed and ran before humans evolved?

 

[Prometheus]

Reality is fundamentally the same though, right?

Ok.

However, do you disagree that there are many ways to interact with and understand reality?

If I were to say to you something like: Considering that someone with your background made such a statement, I think that it is not too bad.

would I be attempting to compliment you or insult you, or neither? Whatever my reality is for this interaction, what is your reality? Would you think that I am complimenting you or insulting you, or neither?

Reality is as much in the mind of the beholder as it is outside of the mind. Langauge grammars have a powerful hold on the minds of the beholders, and therefore on their interpretation of reality.

 

[Prometheus]

Ah, post-modern gobbledegook
Do you really think that the Romans knew a lot about beta-decay (the weak force) or about the strong nuclear force ?
This is a typical pattern of "reasoning" in postmodernism: I guess you're talking about the 4 elements of Aristoteles, and the 4 forces (gravity, strong interaction, and electroweak interaction ; eh, only 3 ?? :shy: ok, before, it was, weak interaction and electromagnetism) in modern physics.

Unfortunately, I think that your post does not deserve a serious response. Talk about gobledegook, read your own response for an excellent example of what you are talking about. You make meaningless generalizations, and then lump my statement in with them, when the only thing that is clear is that you have little idea what you are talking about in the context of my posting.

You seem so caught up in your world of hyper-generalizations that I am surprised that you came out of it to notice my post.

You make gradiose claims about beta-decay, as though somehow this has some significant relevance to my point. Do you really think that you understand my point? Do you really think that my point is so shallow that your rebuttal hits it right on the mark? Perhaps you do.

You take the 4 forces, and try to claim that they are now 3. This is a meaningless intermediate step from 4 forces to a unified force, and therefore has no relevance in this conversation, in my opinion.

I claim that the 4 forces of the ancient Greeks are structurally identical with the 4 forces of modern physics. Do you think that I am suggesting that the content is also identical, and that they used the same examples and the same terminology to exemplify these forces?

I suspect that you do not really understand what the ancient forces symbolized, and you do not know what the modern forces symbolize. You take them both at simplistic face value, and therefore see no relationship.

That is fine. Feel free. I would appreciate if you would avoid your fancy yet meaningless catch phrases in stating your point of view that attempt to lump me in with your grandiose generalizations that are superficial and convey nothing of value.

The only thing they have in common is the number 4, so we say that it is the same thing.

Are you this shallow, or are you saying that you think that I am?

Also, in christian religion, the unified god is actually 3. Like the 3 little pigs. Or the 3 forces of nature.

You are actually making a point worthy of discussion. However, I supsect that this is just a joke on your part, and that you do not recognize any serious symbolic relationships here

 

[Prometheus]

I hope I can explain what I meant and why I don't see it as a contradiction.

You example illustrates your point well. I don't quite agree with your conclusions, of course as that is the reason for this post in the first place, but I do understand your reasoning.

OK, I can handle the Japanese thing. If my memory serves me, you have to say something like "kono hito wa onisan desu" or "kono hito wa otosan desu", depending on whether your brother is older or younger than you. Point taken, the word "brother" does not exist in traditional Japanese, but still there is no loss of information when you translate the English sentence into Japanese.

You say that there is no loss of information. Doesn't that fact that the translation is not possible count for something? Furthermore, Japanese is extremely noun heavy, compared with English. Doesn't the extreme reliance on nouns possibly reflect a difference in understanding?

What you mentioned about the bible losing information, happens because translators have to worry about aesthetics as much as correctness. If someone translates a Japanese book and replaces every instance of "otosan" with "my older brother", it would be ugly and boring. But it is the translator who introduces information loss, not the translation process itself.

This is a major source of difference between us. I believe that most words in Japanese cannot be translated into a single equivalent in English and vice versa. How would you, or your friends, translate the word animal into Japanese? I will bet you that if you ask Japanese, 100% will tell you that animal in Japanese is doubutsu. This is fairly close, but is also very wrong in most cases.

That is because you think the proper translation of a word such as "onisan" is "brother", when it in fact is "a person's older brother". The Japanese word does contain more information, but that information can be just as well expressed in English, or any other language for that matter. Depending on how primitive the language is it may be tedious, but you can always do it.

But, this is missing the point, in my opinion. Such translations cannot always be done. In this extremely simple example, it is simply the fact that Japanese has more nouns, and English requires adjectives to perform some of the Japanese noun distinctions. This is a simple example, and in this case, the loss of information is not great. However, this is an extremely trivial example. When deeper cases are examined, the differences become extremely significant, in my opinion.

Did I say "every way"? I don't recall, but if I did please apologize. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about science, and I'm quite fond of the various alternative philosophies. I'm not too familiar with Chinese culture, but I do like the little I know. However, I'm trying not to allow my somewhat disdainful attitude towards materialistic science get in the way of an objective assessment, and what I do observe is that what you call the Indo-European way of thinking is, regretably I might add, quite popular around the world. I take it that when most Chinese doctors reject traditional Chinese medicine in favor of European approaches, that they know what they are doing. Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about our medicine, in fact I'm quite skeptical of it to the point of cynicism.

Western medicine is quite popular in China, but your statement that most Chinese doctors reject it in favor of European approaches is without foundation. I wonder where you got it. Doctors who go to western medical school become steeped in western techiques, and tend to reject Chinese medicine, which they neither understand or are qualified to judge in a profession manner. Doctors who study Chinese medicine, as I have done, do not consider western medicine to be superior. Doctors in China recognize that in some cases western medicine is far superior and in some cases Chinese medicine is far superior. Western medicine is very popular in China, but so is Chinese medicine. Western medicine is based on western science, whereas Chinese medicine is based on the Dao.

I do not at all mean to disagree with the idea that western science is quite popular. It is also quite successful, which contributes to why it is so popular. However, it is very different from the model of the Dao. Not all of these differences are superior, in my opinion, only different.

You know, due to the popularity of western science, a number of Chinese intellectuals have, over the past decades, developed an inferiority complex. Fortunately, this is dissipating, I believe. There are valid reasons for the popularity of western science. This should not be construed as superior in all important ways, in my opinion. The Dao is an extremely profound model of nature.

I suspect the Chinese people are open to things they cannot understand, while the modern Western-European mind is quite closed to anything it can't properly understand. But I may be wrong about the Chinese.

Although this is a reasonable interpreation to make, I think that you are jumping to interpreatations that are not fully justified. The Chinese have been open to adopt what the west has developed. They have been able to recognize the value in doing so, and they have been able to do so. The west has not been able to see the value in the Chinese model of nature. This should not be construed to be equivalent to the notion that the Chinese model is therefore inferior in most respects.

Well, my reasoning comes from the fact that physical reality doesn't change depending on how you describe it. What does change is the metaphysics, the interpretation of what is implied by our observations of the world.

And yet, our descriptions are all that we have. In English, and in western science, we have a concept known as time and another known as space. Modern physics teaches that we should think in terms of space-time, but our language grammar does not enable us to recognize this unity. It does allow us to pretend, which is what most people who use the word space-time do. The Chinese grammar makes the unity of concepts easier to grasp, because Chinese is a unified language at the most fundamental level, unlike English and the Indo-European languages.

I would agree with you that other languages can tremendously help in the development of a more solid, more consistent metaphysics. For instance, it seems to me the Chinese concepts of ying and yang seem far more sophisticated than the primitive Western notions of duality, so there's definitely something to be learned.

Excellent perception. The Chinese concepts exist at a much deeper level than the western concepts. In other words, the subdivision of the Dao into Yin and Yang occurred much earlier in the Chinese model than in the western models.

I'm just not sure what you mean by "models of nature", whether you think they should incorporate metaphysics or not.

At the most fundamental level, speakers of Indo-European languages recognize two differenct, and seemingly incompatible, models of the world, religion and science. Each of these have large numbers of adjerents who believe passionately that these models of nature can truly and accurately describe nature. Of these 2, religion is a unified model, as it has a single force, a singel god. Science is a subdivided model, as it has 4 subdivided forces of nature. Both of these models of nature are natural outgrowths of the understanding of the world of their speakers, based on the possibilties inherent in nature as reflected through the grammar of language.

Chinese is a unified language. It supports a single model of nature, which is unified, the Dao. The Dao is extremely profound, just as science and religion are profound. The Dao is very different from science and religion. The Dao is as close as the Chinese languauge gets to natively supporting a science, and it is as close as it gets to a native religion.

 

[Prometheus]

If in fact reality is Unity, we do we strive for change? When maybe we should try and maintain that which is essential and primeval?

Reality is in the form of a cycle. In the first stage, there is unity. Unity is followed by subdivision. Ultimately, subdivision must return to unity, or there would be no cycle.

Science improves with each generation. Our species improves with each generation. You children, if you have any, will have an imporved situation over yours. However, they begin their cycle of life as you do, and they will end it as you do. Without change, there could be no improvement.

 

[Prometheus]

I think that this is completely wrong.

OK

Science is based on logic (with as a corrolary mathematics) and experiment.

Interesting. I think that science and logic are both based on the grammar of our Indo-European language. Things that are logical are considered so because our language grammar supports such organization. Logic cannot be assumed to be a foundation of science, because they have the same basis, in the grammar of language.

Japanese scientists are just as good at "indo-european" physics as are British scientists, just to take an example.

Yes, this is a good example. However, do you think that it is possible that western science could ever have originated in China or Japan, or only that they are able to develop skill in utilizing and improving that which they never could have originated themselves?

BTW, it is almost impossible to write down current "models of nature" using written language alone, you need a lot of mathematics too. You can easily translate technical descriptions of these models from English to Chinese and vice versa. No information gets lost if the translation is done correctly.

True. I am a technical translator of Chinese and Japanese. Technical translations, particularly from Japanese, are the easiest of all translations to do. Most Japanese technical words are based on English, and the rest are based on Chinese. As well, writers tend to write in westen forms, because after all the content is western in scope. It takes almost no understanding of the Japanese culture to understand descriptions of atoms and molecules.

The part about "correctly" I find hard to understand. For example, consider a register in computers. I might talk about a register, or the register, or registers. In Japanese, there is no way to make a distinction, and all would be translated the same. An English-speaking reader derives information from the article and the plural, but the Japanese reader does not have access to these nuances, no matter how "well" the translation is done.

 

[vanesch]

Unfortunately, I think that your post does not deserve a serious response.

Then why do you respond to it ?

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

Interesting. I think that science and logic are both based on the grammar of our Indo-European language. Things that are logical are considered so because our language grammar supports such organization. Logic cannot be assumed to be a foundation of science, because they have the same basis, in the grammar of language.

I will of course not deny that *some form of language* is necessary to do science, or mathematics. But I think that a very rudimentary language is enough. The thing I want to argue with is that the specific grammatical structure of a language matters. It is a bit like programming languages, such as C, or fortran, or lisp, or prolog. They are "universal" in that any algorithm described in any of them can be expressed in the others (and can express any task that can be performed with a Turing machine) ; only some problems are more efficiently done in C, and others more in prolog. But it is a matter of efficiency, not of possibility.
I think that all human languages are "universal enough" to do science. In fact, you do not need much in a language to do science. You need the concept of true and false, the modus ponens (if A and if A->B then B), and something that says "sometimes" and "always", and some way of expressing "with this symbol, I mean that thing in nature", which can very primitively communicated, like repetitively pointing to the symbol, and then pointing to the thing, and saying "urgh, urgh!". You also need a few concepts like "next" and "previous". I'm probably forgetting a few things, but this should be sufficient.
Indeed, from the moment you can start writing down formal logic, which you should be able to do with the above concepts, all of mathematics can be worked out, symbolically, on paper. You don't need a single word for it! Once the mathematics is worked out, you can do physics, with the "urgh, urgh" rule. Of course it is tedious !
But it should convince you that not much is needed in principle.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

The part about "correctly" I find hard to understand.

Very simple: translate Eng->Chinese. Then translate (independently) back:
Chinese-> English. If both the source text and the final text in english are considered equivalent, it has been done correctly.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

Yes, this is a good example. However, do you think that it is possible that western science could ever have originated in China or Japan, or only that they are able to develop skill in utilizing and improving that which they never could have originated themselves?

Of course it could have evolved there. But I cannot prove it to you, because now it is a historical fact that it evolved in Europe. Take this statement: "martial arts could only develop in China and Japan, because their linguistic structure permits them to do so. Indo-European languages are unable to develop martial arts." If now westerners do karate and ju-jitsu, it is because they have learned it from asiatics, and took the vocabulary with it.
How are you going to argue against such a statement (which is obviously wrong) ?

cheers,
Patrick

 

[vanesch]

I claim that the 4 forces of the ancient Greeks are structurally identical with the 4 forces of modern physics. Do you think that I am suggesting that the content is also identical, and that they used the same examples and the same terminology to exemplify these forces?

The 4 modern interactions are:
- gravity, and the simplest manifestation of it is a falling apple.
- electromagnetism: apart from electromechanical applications, probably the best manifestation is chemistry. Chemistry is all electromagnetism.
- the strong force: keeps nucleae together, and keeps protons together, in two different manifestations.
- the weak force: very subtle, the only "natural" manifestation is in beta decay. It also plays a role in thermonuclear fusion, but only a minor one, the biggest part being due to the strong force.

In what way is this related to what the ancient greeks thought about your 4 forces, except for the fact that both are 4 in number ??
I can grant to the Ancients that they knew about falling apples and that they might have some philosophical idea of what keeps matter together and that with a grain of salt the size of an iceberg you could relate this to gravity on one hand and electromagnetism and the strong force on the other hand but I would be very surprised they knew about the weak force !

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Prometheus]

The thing I want to argue with is that the specific grammatical structure of a language matters.

I think that all human languages are "universal enough" to do science. In fact, you do not need much in a language to do science.

I do not disagree with your point that all languages can "do" science. I do disagree that all human languages are universal enough to develop science as it was developed by speakers of Indo-European languages.

The original science of the ancient Greeks developed 4 elements, and as well 4 forces. We still recognize 4 forces in physics. Is this a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Indo-Europeans subdivide so much of nature into groups of 4? Could this possibly have anything to do with the grammar that encourages such subdivision?

Chinese could never have developed a science based on 4 elements, because the grammar of Chinese subdivides nature into groups of 5. Chinese recognizes 5 elements, etc.

 

[Prometheus]

Very simple: translate Eng->Chinese. Then translate (independently) back:
Chinese-> English. If both the source text and the final text in english are considered equivalent, it has been done correctly.

I get it. If you are willing to let all of the differences slide, and "consider" the translations to be "equivalent", then you can label it as correct.

I think that you and I have a very different view on how possible it is to translate well between English and Chinese. Have you ever tried it? In trivial cases or in scientific cases, I agree that the translations can have the appearance of great similarity.

 

[Prometheus]

The 4 modern interactions are:
- gravity
- electromagnetism
- the strong force
- the weak force

In what way is this related to what the ancient greeks thought about your 4 forces, except for the fact that both are 4 in number ??

Why do you call them my 4 forces?

This is not an easy discussion to hold, both because the topic is complex and because you do not really seem to be receptive to the idea.

Let me begin, however, but not discuss all 4 forces.

The ancient Greeks recognized 4 forces, known as hot, cold, wet, and dry.

Cold is a force that is analogous to gravity. Both are forces that cause attraction, such that what is separate comes together. The ancient Greeks did not develop a theory on the nature of gravity on the basis of the force of Cold, yet one of their 4 forces has the same fundamental properties as one of the 4 modern forces. If it is cold, then 2 people will huddle together as 1. This is a type of analogy that demonstrates that, symbolically, awareness of the same relationship in nature was at work. Of course it is to a much lower level of sophistication, but do you recognize any similarity in the structure of the idea?

Hot is the force that is analogous to electro-magnetism. Whereas Cold causes attraction, Hot causes repulsion and separation. When it is hot, people move a lot and apart. Attraction and repulsion are the nature of electro-magnetism.

Just as with the 2 nuclear forces, wet and dry are much more complex to discuss.

Do you see any relationship with the ancient forces from what I said here, do you think that this is just coincidence, do you think this irrelevant, or what do you think?

 

[vanesch]

Why do you call them my 4 forces?

The ancient Greeks recognized 4 forces, known as hot, cold, wet, and dry.

This is what I thought you were after,but these are the 4 ELEMENTS, not the 4 FORCES. So I asked you because I wanted to be sure. For one, they were not seen as INTERACTIONS, but as CONSTITUENTS of all that be. Earth, wind, water and fire. Aristotle, as far as I understood, DID NOT consider "interactions". He had a classification of "forces" in that each object wanted to go to its "natural place" and had an "inner drive" to do so. But this was not related to the 4 elements.
Honestly, what you write about cold force, and getting together and so on, is to me nothing else but poetic allegory (which I do not say in a condescendent way). I maintain that the only thing the 4 elements and the 4 forces have in common, on a naive, first degree level (the only one that counts!) is the number 4. All the rest is poetry: games of words, stretched analogies etc... that surely amuse the educated, and testify of the creativity of the author :-) But it is, as you say, lost on me, who is a naive person who can recognize eventually a second degree, but doesn't think it means anything beyond amuzement for the educated :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

In trivial cases or in scientific cases, I agree that the translations can have the appearance of great similarity.

EXACTLY. You understand that the use of language for scientific purposes can be reduced to a very rudementary level, which you almost equate with "trivial". Translating texts related to "human sciences" is much, much harder, because there, the machinery of language is used to a much greater extend.
Hence my thesis: all human languages (except maybe a few Eskimo dialects who only can talk about snow :-) must contain a universal enough communication kernel for the rudimentary level needed for scientific purposes to come to expression. And so what can be expressed on that level doesn't depend on that language and cannot greatly influence the kind of science done with it. Culture has a much bigger influence than linguistics.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

Is it a coincidence that Indo-Europeans subdivide so much of nature into groups of 4? Could this possibly have anything to do with the grammar that encourages such subdivision?

Ok, so you are starting to agree with me what I pointed out earlier: that the only thing the 4 elements, and the 4 modern forces have in common, is their number :-)

I need some clarifications. First of all, what, in indo-european grammar, attaches an importance to the number 4 ? If I remember Chomsky (long ago I learned about it) it is more a subdivision in 2, no ?

Next, what else, except the 4 elements, and the 4 forces, comes in bunches of 4 and is to be seen as absolutely fundamental to the development of physics ?

Finally, then, if this is so crucial to the development of physics, how come that these "4 modern forces" have only been 4 for a few decennia ? :-) Indeed, up to the 18th century, one thought that there was only 1 force: gravity. In the 19th century, only 2 forces were known: gravity and electromagnetism. In fact, 3 forces: gravity, electricity and magnetism. The nuclear forces (strong and weak) were added at the beginning of the century, and by the 1960ies, it was recognized that the weak force by itself didn't make sense and had to be unified with electromagnetism in order to make sense (technically: to be renormalizable).
It is maybe not clear to you, but the "weak force" as such doesn't make sense by itself, in the same way that "magnetism" doesn't make sense without electricity. It was just that people _experimentally_ noted peculiar behaviour that they classified as something new, only to be realized much later that the thing by itself didn't make sense.
So it is only between about 1900 and about 1960 that we had 4 forces.
Since about 1960, we have 3 forces again. And we notice that the thing doesn't really make sense, so we have more like 1 force on one hand (gravity) and 2 others on the other hand, which we cannot consider at the same time.
But happily, the two domains of application are widely separated, so for every situation, one of both can be applied.
I really, really don't see where grammar comes in here !

cheers,
Patrick.