Carlos Rovelli said:Contrary to claims about the irrelevance of philosophy for science, I argue that philosophy has had, and still has, far more influence on physics than is commonly assumed. I maintain that the current anti-philosophical ideology has had damaging effects on the fertility of science.
I think the Einstein's original formulations of special and general relativity were philosophy, to mention only two examples. But of course those were not pure philosophy, but philosophy combined with physics and mathematics.vanhees71 said:i. I've not a single example, where philosophy lead to some new scientific discovery though.
Well, there are the multitude of empirical facts explained by the standard model and those explained by general relativity. The quest is to explain them in a joint framework. This is an empirically sufficiently constrained problem, even so much constrained that so far no solution was found.vanhees71 said:I think, if you are thinking about quantum gravity you must come to the conclusion that you need to rely on philosophy out of desperation, because there are no empirical facts you can rely on.
How do your two remarks square with Einstein's discovery of general relativity?? At the time of his discovery, there were no facts he explained beyond those already explained by special relativity or Newtonian gravitation. Only the joint framework was missing. Both Einstein and Hilbert found it by pure thought.vanhees71 said:Einstein is the prime example, justifying my claim that profound physical laws, models, and theories cannot be invented from pure thought but have to be discovered by analyzing empirical facts.
Nobody said that theories can be invented by pure thought, that is pure philosophy. But pure empirical facts are also not enough. What one needs is a combination of both.vanhees71 said:theories cannot be invented from pure thought but have to be discovered by analyzing empirical facts.
I don't think this is the case for the early universe. Even the macroscopic objects there need a quantum description.vanhees71 said:I think the problem to find a quantum theory of gravitation is that there are no quantum-gravitational empirical facts known. Everything observable with respect to gravity is about (very) macroscopic objects, for which the non-quantum description is sufficient.
I'm an amateur here, but didn't GR also resolve the instantaneous action at a distance of Newton's gravity? That seems a philosophically motivated endeavor, especially in light of the then-current accuracy of predictions using Newton's theory.vanhees71 said:Einstein found GR in his typical way of extracting the one important empirical fact about the gravitational interaction, the equivalence principle (or put in another way the equivalence between inertial as well as active and passive gravitational mass).
Yes, so if you know from Maxwell that EM has a propagation speed c, and from SR that c is the overall speed limit, then "philosophically" you need a theory of gravity with a propagation speed.Demystifier said:Nobody said that theories can be invented by pure thought, that is pure philosophy. But pure empirical facts are also not enough. What one needs is a combination of both.
Elias1960 said:Rovelli wrote: "I suspect that part of the problem is precisely that the dominant ideas of Popper and Kuhn have misled current theoretical investigations."
Kuhn is essentially not even a philosopher, but a historian of science. I cannot see anything misleading in Popper, but beyond a caricature version of falsification, Popper is widely ignored by the physics community. So, for the actual problems physicists have to blame themselves. First of all, the primitive positivist rejection of philosophy and interpretations in general.
But Rovelli is correct if he emphasizes that there is also such a thing as credibility of theories, and one would better have to take into account the Bayesian interpretation of probability. The rejection of Bayesian probability was certainly a point where Popper failed.
Whatever, the key point of Rovelli is worth to be repeated:
But because philosophers have conceptual tools for addressing the issues raised by this continuous conceptual shift. The scientists that deny the role of philosophy in the advancement of science are those who think they have already found the final methodology, that is, that they have already exhausted and answered all methodological questions. They are consequently less open to the conceptual flexibility needed to go ahead. They are the ones trapped in the ideology of their time.
ad 1) If I'd know this, I'd write a paper.PeroK said:Three questions:
1) What are some, most, or all physicists currently doing wrong?
2) What should physicists be doing instead?
3) If physicists starting doing the right things and stopped doing the wrong things, what problems would they be able to solve that they currently cannot solve?
"Trapped in the ideology of their time" is a nice soundbite, bit what does it actually mean?
Without anything new from experiment, it becomes at least obvious that "shut up and calculate" no longer brings any progress. You cannot forbid philosophy if you have no experiments as a guidance.vanhees71 said:I think, if you are thinking about quantum gravity you must come to the conclusion that you need to rely on philosophy out of desperation, because there are no empirical facts you can rely on.
GR is such an example.vanhees71 said:I've not a single example, where philosophy lead to some new scientific discovery though.
No. What is wrong is yet open (at least to those who don't accept a preferred frame, and even those have to admit that a preferred frame allows for different answers). QT was, btw, not what was questioned, but philosophical ideas about QT.vanhees71 said:E.g., what was thought to be a paradox in the infamous EPR paper triggered a vigorous research effort to clarify the foundations of QT (with the known result that QT is correct but philsophical prejudices wrong) leading to an entirely new branch of physics, which we nowadays call quantum information, leading right now to new engineering with applications in quantum cryptography and quantum computing.
PeroK said:3) If physicists starting doing the right things and stopped doing the wrong things, what problems would they be able to solve that they currently cannot solve?
PeroK said:Three questions:
1) What are some, most, or all physicists currently doing wrong?
2) What should physicists be doing instead?
3) If physicists starting doing the right things and stopped doing the wrong things, what problems would they be able to solve that they currently cannot solve?
Your paper would not be published.vanhees71 said:If I'd know this, I'd write a paper.
In your free time only. You will get no grant for doing it.vanhees71 said:2) If I'd know this, I'd do it.
Your solutions, even if you would be able to publish them, would be ignored.vanhees71 said:3) If I'd know this, I'd solve the problems.
Trapped in "shut up and calculate".PeroK said:"Trapped in the ideology of their time" is a nice soundbite, bit what does it actually mean?
Elias1960 said:Trapped in "shut up and calculate".
No. I would say he takes the interpretations seriously. He thinks that the scientists of the past have taken principles of the existing theories seriously, more seriously than others, and used them as guiding principles for the development of their new theories. He also accepts that the question which of the principles should be preserved and used to guide the new theory has a straightforward and obvious solution. And that a rejection of principles of old theories is not a good idea. But this choice of the principles of the old theories to be preserved is, essentially, a choice between interpretations.atyy said:Isn't Rovelli a supporter of shut up and calculate? Unless you think his "interpretation" actually solves any problems?
Elias1960 said:Trapped in "shut up and calculate".
It starts with an idea! Good luck calculating without one.A. Neumaier said:Both Einstein and Hilbert found it by pure thought
He tries. Being brilliant is not enough. Even doing things right which the mainstream makes wrong is not enough. You also need some amount of luck to have the right idea.PeroK said:Rovelli is a brilliant physicist. Why isn't he using philosphy to revolutionise modern physics?
Wrong. There are quite big stones with clear marks: "Touching this stone is anathema."PeroK said:It seems to me that, on the contrary, physicists and scientists in general have been trying and are trying with every means to their disposal to progress modern physics. If you want a soundbite "no stone is left unturned".
The situation with interpretations of QT has certainly improved during the last years, in this forum too. QT interpretations can be discussed now, are no longer anathema.PeroK said:There is lots of interest in the foundations of QM and major interpretations like Bohmian mechanics and MWI.
As explained, his main argument is that simply rejecting established principles to start a "revolution" is stupid and will not give anything. That one should rely instead on the principles of the established theories. But there are many such principles, and some of them are in some conflict. So you have to make a choice. Making the wrong choice you will end nowhere.PeroK said:The real difficulty, as far as I can see, is that no one knows (including Rovelli) how the next breakthrough will come. Rovelli thinks a change in philosophical mindset is what's needed. Or, is he even saying that?
No, he is saying that if you simply reject whatever principles have remained THEN there will be certainly NO breakthrough. And this is quite easy to guess. Without any guiding principles, you have essentially no chance to make the correct guesses.PeroK said:Is he actually saying that IF scientists changed their philosophical midset, THEN the breakthroughs would inevitably come? Or, is he saying that maybe something would be found? How does he know?
I don't want to forbid anything in science. The freedom of education and research is among the most important consitutional rights in free democratic states. I only doubt that the use of philosophy without empirical input will put us theoretical physicists to the right track.Elias1960 said:Without anything new from experiment, it becomes at least obvious that "shut up and calculate" no longer brings any progress. You cannot forbid philosophy if you have no experiments as a guidance.
If you have a lot of experiments, you can do Kuhnian "normal" science without any philosophy. So, the SM is theory of the same type as QED, which can be reached without caring about philosophy at all, because all you have to do is more of the same.
GR is such an example.
No. What is wrong is yet open (at least to those who don't accept a preferred frame, and even those have to admit that a preferred frame allows for different answers). QT was, btw, not what was questioned, but philosophical ideas about QT.
Hm, if I had a solid quantum theory of gravitation, which is not crackpot nonsense, I'm pretty sure, I'd get it published after (hopefully very careful) peer reviewing. Whether I'd get 3rd-party funding, is another question. Usually it's not easy to get money for high-risk projects, where the probability is low getting something out.Elias1960 said:1.) "Shut up and calculate". It works if there are new results of new experiments which can be handled with the same established methods (Kuhnian normal science).
Your paper would not be published.
2.) Start with caring about interpretations and methodology.
In your free time only. You will get no grant for doing it.
3.) Quantum gravity almost for sure. Because it is a purely metaphysical problem (the conflict between QT and GR does not show up in any physical effect).Your solutions, even if you would be able to publish them, would be ignored.
Trapped in "shut up and calculate".
I am a noob and want to practice using this program with quoting and such but that aside i do find truth in a off limits and dismissive attitude toward some subjects and usually it is from the strict empirical method of acquiring knowledge.Elias1960 said:"Touching this stone is anathema."
I don't think using the empirical facts is an issue at all and everyone accepts this as completely normal but i do think you're asked to move along if you even try a different way.vanhees71 said:Of course, there's no direct deduction of theories from empirical results either, but to build new models and theories is also a creative act as in the arts, but you need the empirical facts to guide this creative act.
It seems to me that you have very strong opinions about why you are right and mainstream science is wrong.Elias1960 said:He tries. Being brilliant is not enough. Even doing things right which the mainstream makes wrong is not enough. You also need some amount of luck to have the right idea.
Wrong. There are quite big stones with clear marks: "Touching this stone is anathema."
The situation with interpretations of QT has certainly improved during the last years, in this forum too. QT interpretations can be discussed now, are no longer anathema.
As explained, his main argument is that simply rejecting established principles to start a "revolution" is stupid and will not give anything. That one should rely instead on the principles of the established theories. But there are many such principles, and some of them are in some conflict. So you have to make a choice. Making the wrong choice you will end nowhere.
No, he is saying that if you simply reject whatever principles have remained THEN there will be certainly NO breakthrough. And this is quite easy to guess. Without any guiding principles, you have essentially no chance to make the correct guesses.
If it would need a preferred frame, it would be rejected as Lorentz ether crackpot nonsense. Independent of the question if it would be really nonsense or not.vanhees71 said:Hm, if I had a solid quantum theory of gravitation, which is not crackpot nonsense, I'm pretty sure, I'd get it published after (hopefully very careful) peer reviewing.
The point is that such a theory can be constructed in a quite simple way.vanhees71 said:I don't think that the inconsistency between GR and quantum theory is a purely metaphysical problem, because as long as there is no theory covering both realms of observations our knowledge is incomplete on a purely scientific level, but it's precisely my point that with pure metaphysical ideas without empirical guidance there's no chance to find a more comprehensive theory either.
I would interpret this differently. There are those interested to find some more fundamental theory or to reinterpret QM in such a way that it becomes acceptable as a fundamental theory, and those not interested in such things. The natural starting point for those interested in a more fundamental theory are the weak points of QM. This does not mean that they don't accept the strength of QM, or see any difference in the practical applications of QM.AlexCaledin said:It seems that there are two mainstream QMs:
1. The QM working in the practice of the people who need it to understand very practical things, such as semiconductor properties or chemical behavior.
2. The QM as it seen by people driven by some ambition to interpret it better.
What are the weak points of QM?Elias1960 said:..... are the weak points of QM.
Depends on the interpretation. For most interpretations, the measurement problem. The quite general problem of incompatibility with common sense. For some interpretations, the classical limit is a problem too. For others, Schrödinger's cat is problematic. Then, incompatibility of many things with relativistic principles. Here one can blame relativity instead, but most prefer to blame quantum theory.Lord Jestocost said:What are the weak points of QM?
Then the "interpretations" have weak points, don't blame QM!Elias1960 said:Depends on the interpretation.
Elias1960 said:If it would need a preferred frame, it would be rejected as Lorentz ether crackpot nonsense.
Elias1960 said:The point is that such a theory can be constructed in a quite simple way.
First, destroy relativistic symmetry. Add some term to the Lagrangian which destroys covariance and prefers some coordinates. Then you already have a GR variant as a field theory on R4\mathbb{R}^4. GR in harmonic gauge would be the most plausible candidate.
Then, use a lattice regularization. With a small enough lattice distance on a big enough cube this will not lead to any problem with GR in our observable universe. Don't care about renormalization, use the lattice regularization as a theory itself. It is a well-defined theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom.
Then use canonical quantization to quantize it. The result is a well-defined theory of quantum gravity compatible with all existing empirical evidence. Which is anathema because it destroys, by construction, relativistic symmetry. No chance to publish it.
Ok, add "and a condensed matter interpretation of the fields":PeterDonis said:Go search arxiv.org for papers that use the term "preferred frame". You will find plenty that have been published. "Preferred frame" and "Lorentz ether theory" are not the same thing. The latter is what is off limits for discussion here.
If it would need a preferred frame and a condensed matter interpretation of the fields, it would be rejected as Lorentz ether crackpot nonsense.
Once you ask for evidence that such a paper would be rejected, here is a reference to a publication of such a thing in a no-name journal. I would guess to discuss the paper itself would be forbidden here, because the journal is dubious, therefore the spoiler and the clarification that this is given only to give evidence for my claim that such a theory would be rejected by established journals.PeterDonis said:Have you tried to publish such a theory? Can you point us to a preprint on arxiv.org of a paper describing such a theory that was submitted for publication and rejected?
Either give us some evidence to back up your claims or stop making them.