I On the relation between physics and philosophy

  • #121
martinbn said:
I must say that I don't understand the examples for the positive role of philosophy, given in this thread or in the paper. For instance general relativity. In my opinion what was important was a clear physics problem, find a relativistic theory of gravity with Newton's gravity as a limit, and a clear physical principle (the equivalence principle). What played a positive role was the work of Minkowski, the geometers from Riemann to Levi-Civita and Ricci, the collaboration with Grossman, and the competition/discussions with Hilbert. None of this is philosophy. The philosophical parts like the Mach principle or the hole argument seem to me that held Einstein back. In many texts they are not even mentioned. The same is true for the development of the theory. Problem solving was what made progress possible. The philosophical musings were never productive.

In fact general relativity is a good example where philosophy is not needed and was an obstacle. This is also true when it comes to learning the theory.
Suppose we guess from present evidence that reality is made of math so to speak and suppose a correct theory based on that was developed. Would you say any philosophy was involed or not?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore and weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
ftr said:
Suppose we guess from present evidence that reality is made of math so to speak and suppose a correct theory based on that was developed. Would you say any philosophy was involed or not?
It is hard for me to say what is involved and what not, because as written it makes little to no sense to me.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #123
martinbn said:
It is hard for me to say what is involved and what not, because as written it makes little to no sense to me.
Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #124
ftr said:
Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math. IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else?

This exemplifies the problem, as far as I see it. Your question is impossible for me to discuss in any terms that I have confidence make any sense. I cannot process that question using mathematical knowldege; and I cannot process that question using my knowldege of physics. I cannot process that question at all.

You tell me that there are people called "philosophers" who can and do discuss such questions. I say good luck to them. This doesn't make me a fanatic; only someone who is honest about the questions that I can comprehend.

Then you tell me that these people, through deliberations of such questions, have come to the conclusion that my thinking on mathematics and physics is sub-optimal. In other words, if I could open my mind to such questions I would gain new insight into mathematics and physics.

Do I, therefore, dedicate a certain amount of study time to philosophy? Unfortunately, in the past when I have tried to read philosophy I get the same feeling: how does anyone decide whether any of this is true or false? From the Greeks to Popper, I get the same uneasiness. How can anyone be sure about any of this?

In conclusion, I respectfully decline the offer to debate what appear to me to be intractable questions.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Irishdoug, Tendex, weirdoguy and 1 other person
  • #125
ftr said:
Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else.
Same answer as before. If I don't know what any of this means, how could I tell you anything about it!
 
  • Like
Likes Motore, weirdoguy and PeroK
  • #126
PeroK said:
You tell me that there are people called "philosophers" who can and do discuss such questions.
Dr. Tegmark is a hardcore scientist heading the FQXI organization which includes top physicists. Also, I wasn't after a debate I just wanted to sample opinions about what constitute philosophy vs deduction from known concepts. There are many well known physicists in the past and today who also talk "philosophy" as is time real or not ... etc. Actually FQXI has a contest that will delve in these questions among many other questions relating physics and philosophy relation with highly reputable scientists participating.
 
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
  • #127
ftr said:
Dr. Tegmark is a hardcore scientist heading the FQXI organization which includes top physicists. Also, I wasn't after a debate I just wanted to sample opinions about what constitute philosophy vs deduction from known concepts. There are many well known physicists in the past and today who also talk "philosophy" as is time real or not ... etc. Actually FQXI has a contest that will delve in these questions among many other questions relating physics and philosophy relation with highly reputable scientists participating.

Those look like fairly concrete questions to me. Does Goedel's theorem have implications for physics is a perfectly reasonable question.

Having found out a bit about Max Tegmark, I wonder whether the examples you give are actually questions he has considered. If you're going to use his name, I suggest you quote him accurately.
 
  • #128
PeroK said:
Those look like fairly concrete questions to me. Does Goedel's theorem have implications for physics is a perfectly reasonable question.
The theorem is usually talked about in the context of the mathematical universe hypothesis and and not in mathematical physics of the standard theories.
PeroK said:
I suggest you quote him accurately.
How/where did I quote him inaccurately.
 
  • #129
Julius Ceasar said:
Reading what others have written here it would seem you're not telling the full story

Please clarify; I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a simple response to your simple (and wrong) claim.

Julius Ceasar said:
History has shown where fanatical thinking has got us.

If anyone in this thread is exhibiting "fanatical thinking", it is you, with your claims about what "pure thought" can accomplish.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy and PeroK
  • #130
ftr said:
How/where did I quote him inaccurately.

ftr said:
Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else.

I'd like to see some evidence of what he did say.
 
  • #131
ftr said:
Dr. Tegmark is a hardcore scientist heading the FQXI organization which includes top physicists.

Arguments from authority are invalid. Anyone who claims to be a champion of philosophy should certainly know this.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #132
ftr said:
How/where did I quote him inaccurately.

You didn't quote him at all. That's the problem.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #133
ftr said:
Also, I wasn't after a debate I just wanted to sample opinions about what constitute philosophy vs deduction from known concepts.

The above was my question, I brought up MUH ( which I support but did not want to debate) as an example to be looked at in light of my question. Nothing important about Dr. Tegmark per se, only he and others to heavily engage in speculations/conjectures/"philosophies" in physics in many of the contests and articles/blogs in that site. All that was a response to clarify
PeroK said:
You tell me that there are people called "philosophers" who can and do discuss such questions.

The site even awards a whopping 1.8 mill for bizarre questions like "Consciousness in the Physical World"
 
Last edited:
  • #134
Academic philosophers are no longer the guys who offers insight in the fields of experimental physics and astrophysics nowadays. But its not for anyone to decide whether it is useful in discoveries of science. Or such discoveries are mere coincidence, accident of thoughts or product of some experiments. Of course anyone can argue that science/experimenter can eventually catches up with it somewhere in the nooks and crannies of experiments waiting to be revealed. Some guys are just ahead and it doesn't matter really if its wrong or not. Science will pick up the good bits later on.

"A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

Albert Einstein, Letter to Robert Thornton, 1944

"Philosophy and science share the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, and rigorous argumentation. Yet philosophers can operate these tools with degrees of thoroughness, freedom, and theoretical abstraction that practicing researchers often cannot afford in their daily activities."

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-eighteen-accidental-scientific-discoveries-changed-the-world

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/3948
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #135
Here is a Lecture given my Max Planck on the Principle of Least Action.

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/013/02/0198-0207

In it he says

"As long as physical science exists, the highest goal to which it aspires is the solution of the problem of embracing all natural phenomena, observed and still to be observed, in one simple principle which will allow all past and, especially, future occurrences to be calculated...

Among the more or less general laws, the discovery of which characterize the development of physical science during the last century, the principle of Least Action is at present certainly one which, by its form and comprehensiveness, may be said to have approached most closely to the ideal aim of theoretical inquiry.

...

... it must be borne in mind that the strong conviction of the existence of a close relation between natural laws and a higher will has provided the basis for the discovery of the principle of least action. Provided, of course, that such a belief is not confined within too narrow limits, it certainly does not admit of proof, but, on the other hand, it can never be disproved, for then one could ultimately ascribe any contradiction to an incomplete formulation."

Planck says that Leibniz first enunciated the principle of least action as a reformulation of Newton's laws. He claims that at that time the principle had little practical application and for a long time was viewed as a mathematical curiosity. So it would seem that the Principle was not developed for the purpose of problem solving.

However, Leibniz was certainly looking for a general principle of the Universe.

For instance, Planck says "In this connection mention may certainly be made of Leibniz’s theorem, which sets forth fundamentally that of all the worlds that may be created, the actual world is that which contains, besides the unavoidable evil, the maximum good. This theorem is none other than a variations principle, and is, indeed, of the same form as the later principle of least action. The unavoidable combination of good and evil corresponds to the given conditions, and it is clear that all the characteristics of the actual world may be derived from the theorem, even to the details, provided that, on the one hand the standard for the quantity of good, and on the other hand the given conditions, be rigidly defined along mathematical lines..."

One is reminded again of the belief in causation that is found in Aristotle, Copernicus and Kepler. See my posts above for more detail.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes AlexCaledin and Tendex
  • #136
PeterDonis said:
The history of philosophical attempts to do this and their abject failure is strong evidence against this claim.
PeterDonis said:
Please clarify; I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a simple response to your simple (and wrong) claim.
The disdain for philosophy is strong, even when others supply papers called, "physicists are philosophers too" this disdain draws a curtain on what i am talking about. I still don't think i could get something from nothing and as a guide i think this saves far more time than it ever wastes.
 
  • #137
Julius Ceasar said:
The disdain for philosophy is strong, even when others supply papers called, "physicists are philosophers too" this disdain draws a curtain on what i am talking about. I still don't think i could get something from nothing and as a guide i think this saves far more time than it ever wastes.

You keep talking in generalities when I have rebutted a specific claim you made; you have said nothing whatever to address my specific rebuttal. If you want a reason why "disdain for philosophy is strong", one such reason is that philosophers far too often do that.
 
  • #138
I am being specific about how philosophy helps me, perhaps it could help someone find a better explanation for the data by realizing the impossible. MWI comes to mind.
Pure thought is only a starting point for me, evidence always has the final say.
 
  • #139
A few thoughts:

In the statement " What discoveries have been produced by philosophy?" it seems that some liken philosophy to mathematics in the way that mathematics contributes to the advancement of physics. Philosophy is not a tool. It would seem it would be better to say that it is a process to produce a useful attitude or outlook for advancing one activities. Perhaps it can make doing physics easier or give it a more productive direction.

----

Rovelli noted in his lecture that Einstein valued the work of Schopenhauer. AFAIK Schopenhauer did little if any work relevant to physics. So what did Einstein obtain from him. Nothing? Einstein was helped however in his scientific work by Mach and Hume..

in 1929 Heisenberg spoke with Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore about science and Indian philosophy coming away with ideas that were a great help. What ideas? Heisenberg was also influence by Hume and Kant.

----

In the early years of physics into the mid 20 th century it would seem philosophy was part and parcel of a physicist's education. Is the american pragmatism that Rovelli refers to and which may have appeared during (after) WWII due to the urgency of the Manhattan and other projects resulted in the imperative "shut up and calculate" . Or would the vitalization of physics research due to government sponsorship in the 50 and 60's be more responsible for the quip thus kicking philosophical interest to the curb? Interestingly after the government became disillusioned by the dearth of usable results from pure research the government money became scarce. However interest in philosophy began a rebirth although it was below the horizon. In the two decades of " shut up and calculate" era many new physicists were educated eschewing philosophical thought and the old guard being wary of such because of the focus on creating usable ideas did not openly support it.

Those who believe that philosophy in physics is dead need not concern themselves so why are some trying to cut the throat of a corpse as the saying goes, unless they believe in ghosts.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and Julius Ceasar
  • #140
Feynman's philosophy seems perfect, doesn't it?

What does exist? - Our knowledge, as a tiny part of Nature's objective growing knowledge.

How does Nature work, technically? - No need to ask, for it may well be the great Game of some "great gods".
 
Last edited:
  • #141
Many physicist do not need philosophy. Physics does. Thus some physicist do.
 
  • #144
Demystifier said:
Most physicists doing science have a PhD, which means Doctor of Philosophy.
So do mathematicians.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #146
gleem said:
Many physicist do not need philosophy. Physics does. Thus some physicist do.
I would put it differently.
Many physicists do not need philosophy. Some physicists do. Thus physics does.
 
  • #147
Demystifier said:
I would put it differently.
Many physicists do not need philosophy. Some physicists do. Thus physics does.
That is not logically valid. Change "philosophy" with something else and you get:

Many physicists do not need [insert something]. Some physicists do. Thus physics does.
 
  • #148
martinbn said:
Hm, posing in front of a black board filled with math/phys and no philosophy whatsoever!
Blackboards are not very useful for discussing philosophy. If you search for youtube lectures on math, physics and philosophy, only the ones on math and physics will often be on blackboards.
 
  • #149
martinbn said:
That is not logically valid. Change "philosophy" with something else and you get:

Many physicists do not need [insert something]. Some physicists do. Thus physics does.
Now you got me. :oldbiggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn
  • #150
Demystifier said:
"Physicists face stagnation if they continue to treat the philosophy of science as a joke."
https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics...XGid8xNnR4F74f3DDEvUHa7-jNugLnlFOmyiunfy1vGEE
I don't get it. 50 years have past and some problems are still not solved, so? Why is that a problem? Look at all the conjectures in mathematics that took more than 50 years, or are still not resolved.

I also don't get why phylosophy is the key! Philosophy has been around for more than 2000 years and none of its problems are resolved. Philosophers argue over the same things as they always have. How can that help? Also, no one stops physicists to use philosophy or anything else they wish to, if it helps them. Why is the author not using philosophy to solve some of the problems? Or is she, and which problems has she cracked?
 
  • Like
Likes DanielMB, PeterDonis and weirdoguy

Similar threads

Replies
45
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
12K