In defense of the philosophy of physics

[Frabjous]

https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-philosophy-of-physics-when-you-can-do-physics-itself

 

[mcastillo356]

I don't understand what is the difference between a physician and a philosopher on physics.

 

[PeroK]

I don't understand what is the difference between a physician and a philosopher on physics.

A physician is a medical practitioner. A physicist studies physics. A philosopher thinks about what others are really doing when they do stuff.

 

[dextercioby]

Look up the Argentinian Mario Bunge and his writings from 50+ years ago.

 

[robphy]

Possibly interesting:

• Carlo Rovelli on physics and philosophy
  https://www.youtube.com/@PIOutreach
  
  "Conversations at the Perimeter
  Theoretical physicist, philosopher, and international bestselling author Carlo Rovelli joins Lauren and Colin for a conversation about the quest for quantum gravity, the importance of unlearning outdated ideas, and a very unique way to get out of a speeding ticket. Rovelli is a Distinguished Visiting Research Chair at Perimeter Institute. He is also the author of seven popular science books, including The Order of Time, Reality is Not What it Seems, and the breakout bestseller Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, which has been translated into more than 40 languages. "
  
  
  
  
  
• (one of my professors when I was in grad school at UChicago, who moved to Irvine, then eventually retired)
  https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/malament/
  https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/malament/publications/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Malament
  "The class of continuous timelike curves determines the topology of spacetime"
  https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977JMP....18.1399M/abstract
  ( 10.1063/1.523436 )
  
  
• Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science
  Volume 08 (1977): Foundations of space-time theories
  https://conservancy.umn.edu/collections/968a8eb0-e5c4-4d65-80e4-74ef7c6ea463
  (some notable chapters)
  - "Observationally Indistinguishable Space-times" Malament, David
  - "Prediction in General Relativity" Geroch, Robert
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know who this Philomena Cunk person is, but she is wise beyond her years.

 

[mcastillo356]

I still don`t understand: which is the philosophy behind Newton`s second law of motion $\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$, for example?. I can´t even provide any attempt. Yes, I can google it, but I find nothing new: mathematical empiricism, absolute space and time, forces as the cause of motion, etc.

 

[fresh_42]

I still don`t understand: which is the philosophy behind Newton`s second law of motion $\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$, for example?. I can´t even provide any attempt. Yes, I can google it, but I find nothing new: mathematical empiricism, absolute space and time, forces as the cause of motion, etc.

I think that this equation is more a definition than a result: $\vec{F}\sim \ddot{\vec{x}}.$ The philosophical background, and that applies to basically the entire field of physics, is why we describe the world using differential equations, and why it works. In the end, a derivative is a linear approximation, yet we get exact results.

 

[mcastillo356]

I think that this equation is more a definition than a result: $\vec{F}\sim \ddot{\vec{x}}.$ The philosophical background, and that applies to basically the entire field of physics, is why we describe the world using differential equations, and why it works. In the end, a derivative is a linear approximation, yet we get exact results.

Now I understand the work of those who think and work about the essence of physics. Thank you, @fresh_42

 

[robphy]

Possibly interesting:

• ( https://closertotruth.com/
  https://closertotruth.com/contributors/ )
  
  
• What is Philosophy of Science? | Episode 1611 | Closer To Truth
  ( Featuring interviews with Simon Blackburn, John Hawthorne, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, John Searle, and Daniel Dennett.)
  
  
  
  
• Does Philosophy Help Science? | Episode 1612 | Closer To Truth
  (Featuring interviews with Steven Weinberg, Paul Davies, Colin Blakemore, and Scott Aaronson.)
  
  
  
  
• What Does the “Unreasonable Effectiveness” of Mathematics Mean? | Episode 2204 | Closer To Truth
  (Featuring interviews with Michio Kaku, David Wallace, Michael Hopkins, Stuart Kauffman, Jim Holt, and Paul Davies.)
  

 

[robphy]

Possibly interesting:

• Sean Carroll - Philosophy of Physics and Cosmology ( Closer To Truth )
  
  
  
  
• Does Science Need Philosophy? | Sean Carroll and Curt Jaimungal
  
  
  
  
• Scientists vs Philosophers ( NourFoundation )
  

  Philosopher of physics David Z. Albert and philosopher and writer Jim Holt discuss the tension between scientists and philosophers.
  
  An excerpt from "The Origins of the Universe: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing?" featuring Steve Paulson, Neil Turok, Jim Holt, and David Albert.
  
  The New York Academy of Sciences
  Tuesday, October 14, 2014

  
  
  

 

[sbrothy]

I think philosophy of physics is important in at least 2 aspects.

1.) What do our theories (e.g. Quantum Mechanics and interpretations thereof) mean, if anything, for ontology / metaphysics. In short: the meaning of life.

2.) What research directions are worthy of pursuing next.

I know most physicists tend to look down on philosophy, but if you take a hard look at philosophy papers in the realm of physics, you'll find that those worth their salt have done their homework and generally understand the actual mathematics.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think philosophy of physics is important in at least 2 aspects.

Sure. No one's said otherwise. It's just that it's out of scope for PF.

 

[sbrothy]

Well you seem to tolerate my thread in the linguistics forum. Is that because it is where it is, or because there are arXiv papers backing it up?

To be brutally honest I’m not really on the level with you A grad educated STEM people. Thus, history and philosophy of physics is on a level where I feel I can participate while still bringing some “new” (or historical) stuff to the table. Lately I’ve been trying to solve one of @fresh_42 ‘s older and easier assignments, but that’s mostly in private… YMMV…

 

[fresh_42]

Thus, history and philosophy of physics is on a level where I feel I can participate while still bringing some “new” (or historical) stuff to the table.

And this can be very interesting. I love the history of mathematics, Hofstadter's GEB was a bestseller, I have a copy, too, and a very interesting book about mathematics from the 17th to 19th century by Dieudonné. I have found many significant original papers (Einstein, Noether, Planck, Newton, Gauss, etc.) on the internet. I admit that my Latin is a bit rusty, but I like to have the originals. I even have Popper's book titled "Logic of Research" (I translated its title, since the book I have didn't quote the original title, and I don't even know whether he wrote it in English or German).

I see the philosophy of physics (and mathematics) in the same light. It is an important part of science. "Shut up and calculate" is not what I experienced in private talks with scientists. They are as interested in such subjects as everybody else.

 

[sbrothy]

Hofstadter's GEB was one of the first books I really read in depth, solving all the challenges. I really learned a lot about logic and math following his arguments. Especially the one proving commutativity using his logical language.

It may have been a little above my head but it was really inspiring! The feeling of understanding was a real eureka moment!

EDIT: I remember with fondness my stepfathers skepticism. He didn't believe I'd read and understood it. I suspect mostly because it was beyond him.

EDIT2: He reacted likewise when I wished Tor Nørretrander's " The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size" for christmas.

 

[sbrothy]

Benjamin Libet's experiments (behind paywall I'm afraid), was a real eye opener for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

To be brutally honest I’m not really on the level with you A grad educated STEM people.

Not everyone here is post secondary educated...

 

[sbrothy]

Be that as it may. Still I feel pretty inferior regarding mathematics. I wish I prioritized that a little higher. Then again one cannot excel at everything. I'm pretty satisfied with the things I am able to do.

 

[Rive]

"Shut up and calculate" is not what I experienced in private talks with scientists.

In defense of the "Shut up and calculate": it is a very important phase of education. People tend to have many ideas about complicated matters without actually understanding them. But for physics, any 'philosophy of physics' has to be aligned with the real thing, otherwise it's just gibberish.

if you take a hard look at philosophy papers in the realm of physics, you'll find that those worth their salt have done their homework and generally understand the actual mathematics.

Exactly so.