Physics major doesn't believe in empiricism

[ice109]

i am he. what am i going to do? I'm seriously having a philosophical crisis here. i think I'm going to switch my major to math.

 

[G01]

What problems are you having with empiricism? Maybe some of us can offer insight into your dilemma.Physics and all science is based on observations of the natural world. This brings with it the component of empiricism. Empirical data from experiment is essential in science and we really couldn't be scientists without it. Empirical data guides us in the formation of our models and theories. To describe the universe without empirical data would be equivalent to trying to paint an accurate portrait of someone you've never seen.

 

[ice109]

i have a problem with empiricism as a philosophy in that i don't think it's the right one

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why?

 

[G01]

i have a problem with empiricism as a philosophy in that i don't think it's the right one

Why?

Yes. Please explain what you don't find correct about it. We can't offer our insight into your crisis if we don't know what the crisis is.

 

[ice109]

Yes. Please explain what you don't find correct about it. We can't offer our insight into your crisis if we don't know what the crisis is.

that is the crisis.

Why?

because its leads to inherently tautologous systems. yes the theories we create come from empirical phenomena and so they're "seeded" by something outside of themselves. but the predictions are based off of the axiomatic system we've created so if they're confirmed they're tautologically true.

honestly this is all very murky in my mind right now so please no one get upset if I'm talkin bs.

to be a little more specific

when people have asked me why i do physics the answer has always been : "because i want to know how things works." so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.

 

[G01]

that is the crisis.

because its leads to inherently tautologous systems. yes the theories we create come from empirical phenomena and so they're "seeded" by something outside of themselves. but the predictions are based off of the axiomatic system we've created so if they're confirmed they're tautologically true.

honestly this is all very murky in my mind right now so please no one get upset if I'm talkin bs.

to be a little more specific

when people have asked me why i do physics the answer has always been : "because i want to know how things works." so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.

Well, let me ask you this question:

How would you go about finding out how nature works if not through science? (I am asking this seriously. If you think science isn't going about things correctly, how would you go about it if not through the scientific method?)

 

[ice109]

Well, let me ask you this question:

How would you go about finding out how nature works if not through science? (I am asking this seriously. If you think science isn't going about things correctly, how would you go about it if not through the scientific method?)

i don't think you can find out how nature works.

 

[G01]

i don't think you can find out how nature works.

We may not be able to find out EVERYTHING about nature, but saying that we can't know how nature works is a little absurd. There is a reason why the average human life span has doubled since the scientific revolution. There is a reason why we have automobiles, planes, space shuttles, telecommunications and electricity. It is because we understand those aspects of nature that we were able to make those advances. We may not understand them completely, but with every piece of evidence and every experiment done, we get closer and closer to the real truth. We may never know everything about how the universe works, but we can keep learning more and more. If you assume your never going to understand everything and say, why bother, of course your not going to understand anything.

Also, here's something to think about. If a model makes accurate predictions with no measurable deviation within experimental error about how nature works, how are you so sure that it's just a mathematical construct, and not the actual operating principle of that part of nature. Can you distinguish between them? I don't think you can.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.

I know how you feel! You are correct in that physics cannot provide the answers that you seek; nothing can. However, you will get as close to the essence as possible through physics. Mathematics doesn't even try to do that.

My motives were much the same as yours in that I wanted to REALLY understand things at the most fundamental level, but I certainly don't regret sticking it out. Then again, as much as I enjoyed the subject, there is no way that I would have ever considered becoming a math major, so we are different in that regard.

 

[ice109]

We may not be able to find out EVERYTHING about nature, but saying that we can't know how nature works is a little absurd. There is a reason why the average human life span has doubled since the scientific revolution. There is a reason why we have automobiles, planes, space shuttles, telecommunications and electricity. It is because we understand those aspects of nature that we were able to make those advances. We may not understand them completely, but with every piece of evidence and every experiment done, we get closer and closer to the real truth. We may never know everything about how the universe works, but we can keep learning more and more. If you assume your never going to understand everything and say, why bother, of course your not going to understand anything.

Also, here's something to think about. If a model makes accurate predictions with no measurable deviation within experimental error about how nature works, how are you so sure that it's just a mathematical construct, and not the actual operating principle of that part of nature. Can you distinguish between them? I don't think you can.

no offense but i don't think you've ever read about epistemology. I'm not a run of the mill crackpot and this isn't a run of the mill dilemma.

technology and medical advances aren't good evidence of insight into the way the world works. take for example electricity; holes flowing from positive terminal to negative terminal or electrons flowing from negative terminal to positive are exactly the same thing, all the equations still say the same things. so which is it? does it matter which it is?

most technology is not based off fundamental physics, it's based off of macroscopic phenomena. samething for medicine.

I know how you feel! You are correct in that physics cannot provide the answers that you seek; nothing can. However, you will get as close to the essence as possible through physics. Mathematics doesn't even try to do that.

My motives were much the same as yours in that I wanted to REALLY understand things at the most fundamental level, but I certainly don't regret sticking it out. Then again, as much as I enjoyed the subject, there is no way that I would have ever considered becoming a math major, so we are different in that regard.

yea I've seen you in my threads before, kindred spirits we would be if i believed in spirits.

besides the fact that i don't think physics means anything, i think it would be completely unsatisfying to solve problems that have no real answers; because they're meaningless. I knnow someone will jump on me for this but I'm not using meaningless in the same sense as others. math atleast doesn't pretend to describe anything except itself so a solved problem in math is the truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if we ignore the limitations, in the end, unless you are among the elite of the elite, people in physics get paid to do practical work.

The only thing that got me through was a "fundamental" love of the subject; limitations and all. And I would have never worked so hard for something that I didn't love.

 

[ice109]

Even if we ignore the limitations, in the end, unless you are among the elite of the elite, people in physics get paid to do practical work.

The only thing that got me through was a "fundamental" love of the subject; limitations and all. And I would have never worked so hard for something that I didn't love.

another reason why maybe i won't continue

 

[Werg22]

ice109, why not perceive science as the attempt to discover nature's "axioms", or at least the attempt to discover whether or not nature has axioms? If the axioms we suggest lead to an inference that we can observe in nature, then it is supporting evidence. When there is a contradiction between nature and theory, we try to come up with a new set of axioms and go on from there. In mathematics we don't have to have a system of axioms confirm anything outside of themselves, science is the opposite. Empiricism is, after all, just the gathering of information that hints us towards the axioms we're looking for.

 

[ice109]

Ice06, why not perceive science as the attempt to discover nature's "axioms"? If the axioms we suggest lead to an inference that we can observe in nature, then it is supporting evidence. When there is a contradiction between nature and theory, we try to come up with a new set of axioms and go on from there. In mathematics we don't have to have a system of axioms confirm anything outside of themselves, science is the opposite.

the attempt to discover nature's axioms is to imply that there are a priori truths which there are not.

 

[Proggle]

Physics is what it is: A model for making predictions out of phenomena that can be measured. Trying to extend it beyond that will no doubt leave you unsatisfied. Physics does not explain the "why" of things, and should not attempt to.

The only reason mathematics is any different is because you are able to define your fundamental principles. That does not mean it has any more or less value as an expression of what is true.

 

[proton]

I do agree with you that empiricism has its flaws in that many times we cannot trust our senses (e.g. we can only see the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum with our eyes)

However, physics is worth studying because it let's us have accurate, though not 100% certain, ideas about how nature works. For example, gravity is an amazing phenomena about nature yet we cannot know for 100% certain how it works exactly. So in a sense, physics does indeed let us know about nature

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Physics is what it is: A model for making predictions out of phenomena that can be measured. Trying to extend it beyond that will no doubt leave you unsatisfied. Physics does not explain the "why" of things, and should not attempt to.

It is not a matter of why, it is a matter of the essence vs models.

The only reason mathematics is any different is because you are able to define your fundamental principles. That does not mean it has any more or less value as an expression of what is true.

We have no reason to believe that mathematical models not rooted in physics have any basis in reality, but I have often wondered... And there are a few examples where purely mathematical models predicted real models.

ice109, I'm not trying to discourage you, and definitely don't drop out of college [which I assume is not on your list of options], but I think it is very important to be true to one's self and to pursue a life that will make you happy.

...and it is possible that physics in its most fundamental form is [or will be] essential, we can just never know.

 

[Defennder]

ice109, I think you're confused about the nature and study of science. This is more of a philosophical problem than any scientific one. I can't quite judge from your replies what your exact position and philosophical conundrum is, but I'm guessing it's something to do with the empirical underdetermination of theories. This is more philo than anything else, so perhaps you'll like to ask this in the Philo forums instead. In a nutshell, and I hope I'm right about this, what this means is that by the Duhem-Quine thesis, every empirical confirmation of a theory requires interpretation that and every interpretation itself is theory-laden. Hence you can't claim the theory is validated simply because you have a positive result, as it may be that certain other hidden background assumptions are not proven as well. This ties in quite nicely with Goodman's riddle of induction, which questions why we should accept human intuition in formulating valid inductive hypotheses as opposed to completely arbitrary ones, which though does not contradict the results, are ridiculous enough for us to not consider them.

As interesting as this philosophical theorizing may appear, bear in mind that if you were to examine the record of the cumulative works of philosophy and that of empirical science since their inception, I think you'll agree that science has definitely achieved a lot more. If you're interested, I advise that you check Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science and math. You appear to be stuck in a phase of thought loosely corresponding to the period of development of philosophy of science in when Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The philo of science have since moved on. Lakato's philosophy attempts a way out of this phase. Of course this says nothing about mathematics, but as an alternative to physics, why not go into engineering? It's probably the the closest thing to physics. After all, even if you can't discern and comprehend scientific truth, we can at least use them to our practical advantage to make things work, right?

 

[Chi Meson]

I remember taking some philosophy classes when I was in college too. Made me temporarily paralyzed with doubt and confusion also.

A laser still works, though.

 

[Moonbear]

when people have asked me why i do physics the answer has always been : "because i want to know how things works." so implicit in that statement was the assumption that physics explained how things truly worked. but it doesn't. i mean what is a nonlocalized particle? it's not real; it's a mathematical tool, a concept. there's no such thing as a fuzzy particle. we only use this terminology because the math makes it so. what's a field? what are virtual particles? they're not real! they're tools used to make good predictions. that's why there have been so many theories that describe the same things to varying degrees of accuracy.

After reading this, I'm wondering why you're considering math as an alternative? Wouldn't your issues over what is "real" only be amplified in math compared to an experimental field?

You may find that it's just certain branches of physics that leave you dissatisfied, and that you'd be best off pursuing a different specialty that you feel is a bit more "tangible."

It's also possible that your grasp of scientific method isn't quite fully formed yet. Some of what you say points at that possibility. When you talk about tools used to make good predictions, indeed, that is the starting point of an experiment. You develop an hypothesis, and based on that hypothesis, you have your predictions (i.e., if the hypothesis is supported, when we do X, Y will happen), you test your hypothesis, and based on the results, you either continue to find ways to test it and bash at it to make sure you can't falsify it, or you need to refine it or scrap it entirely.

And, yes, sometimes (often) the evidence has multiple interpretations, and different people work on investigating different ones of those interpretations. If you already knew which interpretation to pursue, you wouldn't need to pursue it. It means the information available is still incomplete or insufficient to distinguish among all the alternative interpretations, and what experimentalists are doing is trying to design the experiment that will provide a more definitive answer...however, sometimes that can't be done right away without building up a body of other evidence first, or learning more about the system to figure out what that experiment needs to be.

If you want to know all the answers down to the most minute detail, you'll find yourself frustrated and dissatisfied. If you realize that your smaller contributions are helping build the larger body of knowledge to BETTER understand how things work, rather than to KNOW how things work, then you'll find experimental science a very satisfying field.

Depending on what you do with your skepticism or distrust, you may find yourself well-suited to be an excellent experimentalist who is detailed, careful, and ensures every piece of equipment used is properly validated that when you say it is detecting something you know that's really what it's detecting...or you may find yourself completely paralyzed because you can never be satisfied things are perfect enough to do the actual experiment.

It may also simply be that physics is too abstract for your satisfaction. You may find another branch of the sciences is more to your liking, something where the experiments are still more tangible to you.

 

[G01]

I was thinking ice109, and I also don't know how going into mathematics is going to help you. From your point of view, how do you know that anything in mathematics is "real?"

If you are of the belief that we will never get real answers to anything, I think you are going to find the same dilemmas in most if not all other fields as well.

 

[russ_watters]

...they're tools used to make good predictions.

Isn't that the point of science? If you accept that these tools do, in fact, make good predictions(and they do), then I don't understand why you don't accept the scientific worldview.

i don't think you can find out how nature works.

That statement is straightforwardly false and directly contradicts the one I quoted above.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, here's something to think about. If a model makes accurate predictions with no measurable deviation within experimental error about how nature works, how are you so sure that it's just a mathematical construct, and not the actual operating principle of that part of nature. Can you distinguish between them? I don't think you can.

More philosophically important: does it matter? I tend to believe they are one and the same, but even if they aren't, so what? Science has still done it's job by finding an approximation that works to within our ability to measure it.

 

[russ_watters]

the attempt to discover nature's axioms is to imply that there are a priori truths which there are not.

Are you saying that you believe the universe does not act consistently? Science is the evidence that it does. Perform an experiment 10 times and get the same result ten times. That means the universe obeys some rule to make that happen. Whether you want to call them "a priori truths" is really an irrelevant question. Maybe God has a bunch of stone tablets where he wrote them down? Maybe the universe just always acts consistently and the only equations describing it are ones we constructed? It doesn't matter which is correct. Either way, science still works.

 

[russ_watters]

I was thinking ice109, and I also don't know how going into mathematics is going to help you. From your point of view, how do you know that anything in mathematics is "real?"

Math avoids the conundrum since you can always just say that what you are doing only exists on the piece of paper on which it is written. It doesn't have to be "real", just logically consistent. Of course, for ice, I would think that put him down squarely on the wrong side of the issue: he seems to care a lot about what is "real".

 

[G01]

More philosophically important: does it matter? I tend to believe they are one and the same, but even if they aren't, so what? Science has still done it's job by finding an approximation that works to within our ability to measure it.

I think I agree with you here russ.

Math avoids the conundrum since you can always just say that what you are doing only exists on the piece of paper on which it is written. It doesn't have to be "real", just logically consistent. Of course, for ice, I would think that put him down squarely on the wrong side of the issue: he seems to care a lot about what is "real".

Yeah, for this reason, I can see ice109 having the same conundrums in in math as he is having here with physics.

 

[ice109]

i don't have problems with math because it doesn't attempt to be "real"

That statement is straightforwardly false and directly contradicts the one I quoted above.

prove it, not the contradiction which i don't see , but that you can know something about the world.

 

[Cyrus]

I think your making something out of nothing. How can you say physics does not teach you something about the world? It does tell you something about the world -through abstract concepts.

 

[Hurkyl]

math atleast doesn't pretend to describe anything except itself so a solved problem in math is the truth.

Allow me to throw a monkey wrench into things...

Just as you have no a priori reason to believe that empiricism leads to "truths" (whatever a "truth" might be)... you have no a priori reason to believe that rationalism leads to truths.

To put it another way... why do you allow yourself to believe that logic yields truths, but not experiment?

 

[ice109]

Allow me to throw a monkey wrench into things...

Just as you have no a priori reason to believe that empiricism leads to "truths" (whatever a "truth" might be)... you have no a priori reason to believe that rationalism leads to truths.

To put it another way... why do you allow yourself to believe that logic yields truths, but not experiment?

there are two different questions here. 1. why do allow myself to believe that logic yields truths. 2 why not experiment?

the second i think I've answered.

about the first: some people are misunderstanding, i don't think math yields any truth about the world. i do think a problem solved in math yields a truth about math. this is more psychologically gratifying than solving a problem which doesn't mean anything.

here I'm assuming that you're question is not why do i think rationalism applied to a rational system(math) yeilds truths in math.

 

[Hurkyl]

about the first: some people are misunderstanding, i don't think math yields any truth about the world. i do think a problem solved in math yields a truth about math. this is more psychologically gratifying than solving a problem which doesn't mean anything.

Actually, this is exactly the impression I had gotten, but I wanted to make sure.

So, mathematics defines a "game"; the rules are logical deduction, and if you play the game correctly, you get a "theorem" (whatever that means).

Empiricism is formally similar; the rules are experimentation, and if you play the game correctly, you get "empirical evidence" (whatever that means).

Combining the two is really neat: if you play the mathematical game, you get theorems. If you play the empirical game, you get empirical evidence. Then, you can combine your theorems with your empirical evidence to produce evidence for other things.

 

[ice109]

Actually, this is exactly the impression I had gotten, but I wanted to make sure.

So, mathematics defines a "game"; the rules are logical deduction, and if you play the game correctly, you get a "theorem" (whatever that means).

Empiricism is formally similar; the rules are experimentation, and if you play the game correctly, you get "empirical evidence" (whatever that means).

Combining the two is really neat: if you play the mathematical game, you get theorems. If you play the empirical game, you get empirical evidence. Then, you can combine your theorems with your empirical evidence to produce evidence for other things.

well you don't need to combine the two to make predictions. but anyway the way you've defined these two things they seem similar but they're not. empiricism is a philosophy and math is not. a philosophy seeks to explain things, empiricism seeks to explain the world. math just is.

i guess you could say that in math when you solve a problem you literally solve a problem. in physics when you solve a problem you define something( a quantity, a force, a field etc). they're wholly different practices.

 

[siddharth]

i guess you could say that in math when you solve a problem you literally solve a problem. in physics when you solve a problem you define something( a quantity, a force, a field etc).

I thought something similar happens in math as well?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it goes like this. You have a set of axioms, which are true without proof. Then, using abstraction and logic, one proves conjectures and hypothesis with help of the axioms. So, in my opinion, it's similar to restating the axioms, which you accept without proof.

empiricism is a philosophy

I don't view it that way. Empiricism is more like an effective technique to ensure that a hypothesis is able to predict how something happens within certain error bars of measurement.

 

[Hurkyl]

well you don't need to combine the two to make predictions. but anyway the way you've defined these two things they seem similar but they're not. empiricism is a philosophy and math is not. a philosophy seeks to explain things, empiricism seeks to explain the world. math just is.

But in some sense, you're not treating them equally. You view science in terms of one of its driving philosophies, but you don't do the same for mathematics.

Rationalism is the philosophy that one can use reason to discover truths; mathematics is a method for applying rationalism, just as experimental science is a method for applying empiricism.

i guess you could say that in math when you solve a problem you literally solve a problem. in physics when you solve a problem you define something( a quantity, a force, a field etc). they're wholly different practices.

Yes, they are different practices. Mathematicians apply reason to make theorems. Experimental scientists apply experiments to gather evidence. Theoretical scientists attempt to discover theories that have the most evidence supporting them.

I'm not trying to say that they are all the same thing; I just have the impression that your critique of empiricism is slightly on the pessimistic side, and you haven't given rationalism the same amount of thought as you've given empiricism.

(For the record, I'm a mathematician & computer scientist with strong formalist tendancies)