Physics major doesn't believe in empiricism

[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)

 

[ice109]

it's true these are very nascent ideas in my head that haven't gotten that much attention.

 

[Manchot]

Oh great, you've gotten me in a philosophical crisis once again. Consider this: all of mathematics is described by some axiomatic system. However, you need some medium to describe the axioms, whether it is a piece of paper, human memory, or a computer's memory. Ultimately, all of those media are in turn described by the axioms of the universe. "Where" are those axioms described? Is my existence simply a theorem of this system? Is it possible that within this system, we can construct systems identical to our own? Is our entire existence due to the fact that some higher-dimensional being was bored and decided to write down the axioms and rules of inference for string theory?

This is why I try not to think about these issues too much.

 

[russ_watters]

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

I know that if I drop my pen, it will fall down, not up. And I can prove it...

 

[ice109]

I know that if I drop my pen, it will fall down, not up. And I can prove it...

no you don't really know it, you guess it. you can't know anything for sure. unless you can predit the future, for the rest of time, you can't assuredly know anything. even in physics people aren't sure if the fundamental constants are changing or not.

 

[russ_watters]

no you don't really know it, you guess it. you can't know anything for sure.

Guess? No. Predict. And you know that - you used the word in the post I quoted!

Btw, that contradiction was in saying you accept that science makes good predictions but simultaneously that we can't find out how nature works. The predictions are about how nature works and if the prediction is right, then we knew. I dropped my pen and it fell. I predicted it - I knew it would fall.

I really don't understand your conundrum. You are making things up as you go here - you are pushing science down and you must know you are not being fair in your arguments, because you are changing them! You are forcing yourself down a path you have decided on in advance, despite evidence, from your own changing words, that your reasoning is wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Another change in your argument - or at least something that wasn't clear before - is that you are sour on science partly because it doesn't provide 100% certainty. Sorry, but that is not a flaw in science, it is a strength. It is the very thing that enables science to advance and there is no other way of looking at nature that can figure things out better.

But the word "know" does not require 100% certainty. Definition 5: "to understand from experience or attainment". Understanding Newton's theory of gravity allows me to make a prediction with a very high degree of certainty (but not quite 100%) that the pen will fall down and not up.

 

[rewebster]

hey ice---it sounds like you're angry about 'something' and disillusioned about 'something' too---whether its the same thing--I can't tell yet---why don't you paraphrase it (again)? (especially since it sounds like you may be getting it a little more defined now)

 

[ice109]

this isn't an attack on science. this isn't an attack on anything. I am not angry about anything.

 

[rewebster]

didn't say attack-----disappointed and angry are 'pretty' close to the same thing

 

[ice109]

didn't say attack-----disappointed and angry are 'pretty' close to the same thing

russ said attack, and no angry is not the same thing as disapointed. for russ: I'm not trying to substantiate any argument either. i as of right now, don't think empiricism is a good philosophy and rationalism is. i haven't had time to digest all the comments from all of the people in this thread nor have i had time to read/think/study this more so you questioning me is pointless. so even if you find a flaw in some argument you perceive I've made it's not going to change my opinion because i haven't made any argument.

 

[rewebster]

well, I thought your post (#6) was the most 'informative' of 'the' 'problem' so far--I wasn't looking for a 'flaw'

-------------------------
(I was just thinking of what level of 'logic' you're using to 'rationalize' trying to figure out your dilemma--and if it relates to the problem itself)

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

I just fully realized that you said this: I should point out that even in mathematics, many problems are solved by defining things. Often, you are faced with a situation where you know the conclusion to a theorem and the problem is to figure out what hypotheses are needed.

One of my favorite examples was a lecture on Bézout's theorem: suppose you have two plane curves A and B defined implicitly by the equations f(x, y) = 0 and g(x, y) = 0 respectively, where f is a polynomial of total degree m and g is a polynomial of total degree n. Bézout's theorem states that if their intersection is finite collection, it contains mn points.

For example, consider two ellipses:
9 x^2 + 16 y^2 - 25 = 0
16 x^2 + 9 y^2 - 25 = 0
Both of these equations have total degree 2, so there should be 4 points of intersection. And you can check that they intersect at (\pm 1, \pm 1).

Now, as I've stated it, Bézout's theorem is false. It turns out that you need to consider points at infinity, complex points of intersection, and count multiplicities.


Today, there are outstanding questions that have this problem: we know what the theorem should be, but we don't know how to set up the hypotheses correctly, and the road to progress on these questions is to discover how to define things correctly.

 

[Alkatran]

If I know that, most of the time, a coin will fall down when I drop it then I know something about the universe. You don't need certainty to have information.

If you do go into math, I suggest you stay away from statistics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was reminded of this:
Before Newton, it was believed that angels pushed the planets along their lines of motion on the celestial spheres. After Newton, the positions of the angels were rotated by ninety degrees.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Not at all. We learn what nature does, but perhaps not how it works.

ice109, why do you argue that truth does not exist? Isn't it correct so say that we can never know if we have models or truth, but it could be truth? Also, couldn't it be that the limitation is ours - that we simply cannot comprehend nature at the deepest level - and not that science is an artificial construct?

 

[TR345]

physiscs is celebate where math is a whore. But remember that just because a hot piece of math can provide the excitent of a challenge, and the pleasure of solution and release, that doesn't make it meaningfull. It goes and passes and is gone while physics the companion that doesn't put out will be forever with you around you and part of you because it has no solution only description.

 

[rewebster]

If I had to 'guess/assume' about ice's dilemma could be that 'what' he went into 'physics' to find out (the mysteries of the unverse) are still mostly in that category --'unknowns'. Maybe he doesn't want to take on the 'challenge', to be one of the few...---(stopped, -




---I was stealing a line from the marine recruiters)