Science isn't the kind of circular dynamic I thought it was.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of scientific explanation, particularly whether physics can fully explain its own principles and laws. Participants explore the distinction between describing phenomena and understanding the underlying reasons for those phenomena, touching on the relationship between physics and metaphysics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether physics can explain itself, particularly in relation to fundamental constants and the nature of mass and space-time.
  • Another participant argues that physics focuses on how things change in response to conditions, suggesting that questions of "why" are more suited to metaphysics.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that theories are not proven correct but are validated through experimental results, with the merit of a theory being its alignment with experimental data.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about any theory being able to explain itself, noting that at some point, postulates are necessary, and these are chosen based on their simplicity and fit with experimental results.
  • The complexity of physics and the limitations of mathematical proofs are highlighted, with a reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, although its applicability to physics is questioned.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the ability of physics to explain its own principles, with some arguing for a clear distinction between physics and metaphysics, while others suggest that the nature of scientific theories inherently limits self-explanation. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of scientific theories and the role of postulates in both physics and mathematics. There is a recognition of the complexity involved in proving foundational concepts and the challenges posed by abstract reasoning.

MinnesotaState
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Science isn't the kind of "circular dynamic" I thought it was.

"Why the laws are as they are is a pretty easy question to answer."

The statement above really bothers me.

Why is C constant? Why does mass distort space-time? ...

Experiment tells us what the laws are

but experiments don't exactly tell us why the laws are set that way.

or can they?

You can tell me why mass distorts space-time because that's what the experiment shows, but does the experiment give reason as to why mass distorts space-time in the first place?

I'm struggling to word this but,

Can Physics explain itself?

Can it make the full loop?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All physics does is tell us how something changes or reacts in response to changes in environment or conditions.

The question of why something is the way it is is more appropriate for metaphysics rather than physics.
 
You never really prove a theory's correctness, you just test its validity until it's no longer valid.

And the best test is to check how much does the theoretical result differ from the experiment, that's the only merit a successful theory has.
 
It is very unlikely that any theory of reality can explain itself. It is unlikely that any theory of anything can explain itself. At some point there is a postulate. In mathematics the postulates/axioms are chosen for a number of reasons. In physics they are chosen to fit with experiment (and be as simple as possible).

Since physics quickly gets very complex, take simple math. How do you prove that 7+6=13? Usually one would say "well, I have 7 apples and I have another 6 apples..." but how do we know that the same holds for pencils? It doesn't work for clocks (in North America).

One might dream that someday part of the set of postulates could be used to prove the others, but we should be humbled by the failure to do so in mathematics. I shouldn't bring up Godel's incompleteness theorem because I don't know enough about it and I've been told that it can't be applied to physics, but I just did, so read about it.
 

Similar threads

Graduate "GR from RG" (dynamical gravity from renormalization group flow)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
687
Undergrad Theories without Fundamental Space and Time
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Graduate Dasgupta et al., What is the alternative to a unique dS vacua?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Graduate New ideas on confinement and meson masses from Brazil
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Smolin: Lessons from Einstein's discovery....
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
Graduate Why must science have an a priori foundation?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Deur Gravitational self-interaction Doesn't Explain Galaxy Rotation Curves
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
Olympiad dynamics problem with 3 masses and a pulley
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K