Shut Up and Calculate: Exploring Feynman's Ideas on Physics

[brainstorm]

I find it offensive that people who not only are not professional but do not even know how to calculate dismiss these efforts as "utterly unscientific", and it applies just as well to the Copenhagen school.

Taking offense to methodological criticism is also "utterly unscientific." A disciplined discussion about methodology should explore the reasons for how and why to utilize certain methods in pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge without degenerating into an interest-driven defense of certain methods over others on the basis of their inherent value as methods loose from the specific function they fulfill in specific research endeavors. Generally elevating qualitative or quantitative methods, or any specific method for its own sake is "utterly unscientific" or perhaps "anti-scientific," imo - or actually I think this goes beyond my personal opinion and involves basic issues of reasonability and value/interest-neutrality.

To do good science, you have to know more than just how to perform operations and follow recipes. Technical proficiency has its own value, but it is not inherently good science in itself. Good science involves knowing and reasoning why a particular method is used, quantitative or qualitative (i.e. mathematics or something else); and methodological reasoning cannot be done purely with mathematics, as far as I know. Someone please correct me with an example if I am mistaken.

 

[apeiron]

It so happens that we pretty much have the exact theory describing those beasts : mostly QCD + electroweak corrections.

It turns out that there are pretty much as many hadronic models as there are people trying to model them : we know the relevant fundamental degrees of freedom (quarks and gluons) but we do not know how to calculate the observed properties of the effective degrees of freedom (mesons and baryons).

You seem to be describing a special situation, (much like string theory?), where you have what seems like a concrete beginning (a model of the components), but then no clear path to the next level of description. So a bit like being faced by a combination lock, the only choice seems to be to try every possible combination until one finally clicks.

If this is what you mean by "shut up and calculate", then it sounds like a last resort.

But did the components themselves (QCD) not involve important conceptual leaps? Were the physicists not guided by vague analogies that suggested paths to follow. And then perhaps came the "shut up and calculate" phase where they had to make good on their hopes and intuitions.

 

[Evo]

Is humanino still the only scientist posting in here?

 

[Pythagorean]

Is humanino still the only scientist posting in here?

It depends on how you define scientist. I consider myself a scientist, I'm just not a published scientist (yet). I am, however, doing publishable research through an accredited university, but I don't have a PhD. You could call me a baby scientist without offending me too much. I still have much to learn.

 

[Evo]

It depends on how you define scientist. I consider myself a scientist, I'm just not a published scientist (yet). I am, however, doing publishable research through an accredited university, but I don't have a PhD. You could call me a baby scientist without offending me too much. I still have much to learn.

I define a scientist as someone that is degreed and employed in that science or doing post doctoral work in that science. A BS does not a scientist make, if you are not employed in that field, it is a step in that direction though, IMO. More to the point, this thread is aimed at physicists.


My sister's (now ex) boyfriend has a PhD in astrophysics, both of his parents are tenured professors at a prestigious University. He's never worked a day as an astrophysicist, he delivers pizzas for a living. So is he a scientist or a pizza delivery boy?

My point is that humanino is brilliant in his field, he has refused to accept a Science Advisor medal, but the entire mentor staff acknowledges his brilliance. And then I see posts of members arguing wih him as if they have similar credentials and knowledge.

 

[Pythagorean]

I define a scientist as someone that is degreed and employed in that science or doing post doctoral work in that science. A BS does not a scientist make, IMO. More to the point, this thread is aimed at physicists.

I agree that a BS is insufficient; I consider myself a (baby) scientist because I'm employed in the sciences, not because of the paper.

 

[apeiron]

More to the point, this thread is aimed at physicists.

What the heck is it doing in the philosophy forum then?

 

[humanino]

Generally elevating

What am I elevating ? I am not elevating anything. You are the one elevating :

To do good science, [...] it is not inherently good science in itself. Good science involves knowing and reasoning why a particular method is used, quantitative or qualitative (i.e. mathematics or something else)

I guess you may agree that good science also involve honesty. Sometimes we have methods which provide good answers when compared with data, yet the models do not answer some of our philosophical questions. In that case, it's not that we do not ask the questions, it's just that we are being honest. Some questions are ill-formulated in a given theory. I accept and enjoy criticism. You mention methodology : the method is to understand what people do and then criticize.

You seem to be describing a special situation, (much like string theory?), where you have what seems like a concrete beginning (a model of the components), but then no clear path to the next level of description. So a bit like being faced by a combination lock, the only choice seems to be to try every possible combination until one finally clicks.

Yes.

If this is what you mean by "shut up and calculate", then it sounds like a last resort.

Yes, it is a last resort. There is a difference between not asking a question, and admitting that the theory cannot answer the question.

But did the components themselves (QCD) not involve important conceptual leaps? Were the physicists not guided by vague analogies that suggested paths to follow. And then perhaps came the "shut up and calculate" phase where they had to make good on their hopes and intuitions.

They were guided by precise analogies, the same principles which lead to QED, and a straightforward (in retrospect of course) extension from abelian to non-abelian groups.

 

[Evo]

What the heck is it doing in the philosophy forum then?

The OP is about physics, but doesn't have enough substance for the physics forum. We still need to have some level of scientific merit here. We are lucky enough that a real physicist is sharing here, perhaps we should listen to what they say since they actually work in this field.

That's all I am saying.

 

[apeiron]

The OP is about physics, but doesn't have enough substance for the physics forum.

This is unclear thinking. The OP is clearly about the philosophy of science and the nature of creative genius. Physics might be the domain, but the epistemological questions are more general.

We are lucky enough that a real physicist is sharing here, perhaps we should listen to what they say since they actually work in this field.

Yes, thank-you Humanino.

 

[brainstorm]

The OP is about physics, but doesn't have enough substance for the physics forum. We still need to have some level of scientific merit here. We are lucky enough that a real physicist is sharing here, perhaps we should listen to what they say since they actually work in this field.

That's all I am saying.

I can only really speak for myself, but I don't think anyone wants to alienate or celebrate anyone else on the basis of their professional status as a physicist or otherwise. I thought this thread was just about discussing the relative validity of the logic behind the approach, "shut up and calculate." I would think there would be plenty of seasoned professional physicists with a distaste for people who think they can do physics just by being proficient in mathematics. Aren't there any mathematicians deserving of criticism for insufficiently applying their math skills in terms of theoretical approach? Only a physicist who is truly math proficient themselves would be in the position to evaluate this. Those of us illiterate or semi-literate in math can only bow to the stuff that goes over our head.

 

[Pythagorean]

@ Evo

Calculations apply to, for instance, mathematical biology as well. Not just physics. :P

To do good science, you have to know more than just how to perform operations and follow recipes. Technical proficiency has its own value, but it is not inherently good science in itself. Good science involves knowing and reasoning why a particular method is used, quantitative or qualitative (i.e. mathematics or something else); and methodological reasoning cannot be done purely with mathematics, as far as I know. Someone please correct me with an example if I am mistaken.

You're not mistaken, that's indeed how science is taught. The mistake is the mentality that qualitative and quantitative somehow live in separate realities. You seem to be implying that by studying the equations, no qualitative or philosophical understanding will come of it. That's what is wrong, imo..

Also, the assumption that the academic study of physics blindly plugs and chugs numbers without thinking about the meaning of their models is equally bogus.

It's not like there's a "formula" (hehe) to learning the material either. You don't study qualitative first than quantitative. There's a dynamic relationship between the two, they supplement, feed, and feed off of each other. You study qualitative and quantitative aspects in parallel over the course of your degree. Some subjects may focus more on one aspect than the other, but 1+1=2 for instance, is meaningless in physics without units or a description of what we're adding up to equal two. And "I have some apples" is not accurate enough. There's a balance between qualitative and quantitative aspects.

"shut up and calculate" is a response from non-physics to a response from physics geared towards people who want to have the qualitative without the quantitative.

 

[humanino]

<rant>

Yes, thank-you Humanino.

I take no pride in being employed as a physicist. This is not fake humility, it just so happens that I imagine it much harder for instance to raise a child (to decency) than to reach an academic position. Louis Pasteur had a quote about pride of academic positions : "The profession does no honor to the man, but the man ought to honor the profession."
</rant>

 

[Evo]

This is unclear thinking. The OP is clearly about the philosophy of science and the nature of creative genius. Physics might be the domain, but the epistemological questions are more general.

Is that an agreement that this can't hold up in the hard physics section, since there is no hard physics?

 

[apeiron]

Is that an agreement that this can't hold up in the hard physics section, since there is no hard physics?

I don't really understand that comment. But the OP is about how scientists should do science, which is epistemology.

 

[apeiron]

They were guided by precise analogies, the same principles which lead to QED, and a straightforward (in retrospect of course) extension from abelian to non-abelian groups.

A serious question: isn't the "getting more mathematical" aspect here about the systematic relaxation of constraints so as to move to a more generalised view. So you move from geometry to topology by relaxing constraints (such as the need to define distances, for instance) and so end up in a realm that "looks" more rarified or abstract as a result.

Non-euclidean geometry relaxed the constraints on Euclidean flatness. String theory relaxed constraints on dimensionality. Non-abelian groups relaxed the constraint of commutativity. Progress is about finding what we were assuming to be pinned down, then unbuttoning it and discovering what structure still remains to be described.

But then there is a new problem of how to recover particular physical solutions from the newly created, less physical-seeming, landscapes. We now need a theory about constraints themselves - one that can pick out the right solution for a reason. Either that, or we are reduced to clicking through every possible combination, every possible set of constraints, in the hope one is the unique solution.

So maybe we have no choice but to grope blindly and hope eventually to strike lucky as a result of just grinding the calculations. Or possibly still, a theory of constraints would give us qualitative reasons for say yes, I can see why that feels like the correct choice.

I would think in fact that people even in your field are trying to imagine the correct constraints that would narrow the search for an answer? There is still an important conceptual aspect, even if the level of thinking is rarified.

 

[brainstorm]

You're not mistaken, that's indeed how science is taught. The mistake is the mentality that qualitative and quantitative somehow live in separate realities. You seem to be implying that by studying the equations, no qualitative or philosophical understanding will come of it. That's what is wrong, imo..

This is the way I've thought about scientific math all along. The problem, imo, is when scientists claim that they can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. When people say this, it is fundamentally naive, yet such people often purport to be right purely on the basis that they are experts in their field. Put more simply, they think scientific expertise automatically makes them experts in philosophizing and/or other meta-knowledge of what they're doing. Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism. This is not to say that people aren't extremely good at what they do or that their expertise is not real expertise. I would just say it is often more technical than scientific.

Also, the assumption that the academic study of physics blindly plugs and chugs numbers without thinking about the meaning of their models is equally bogus.

Great. So why do people resist communicating about them except in maths then?

It's not like there's a "formula" (hehe) to learning the material either. You don't study qualitative first than quantitative. There's a dynamic relationship between the two, they supplement, feed, and feed off of each other. You study qualitative and quantitative aspects in parallel over the course of your degree. Some subjects may focus more on one aspect than the other, but 1+1=2 for instance, is meaningless in physics without units or a description of what we're adding up to equal two. And "I have some apples" is not accurate enough. There's a balance between qualitative and quantitative aspects.

In one sense you study them in tandem, and in another sense they are parallel discourses. Ultimately, I think a mature scientist should be able to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative issues. I also think people should be able to see how quantitative issues emerge into qualitative ones and vice versa.

"shut up and calculate" is a response from non-physics to a response from physics geared towards people who want to have the qualitative without the quantitative.

How can you automatically assume that because someone isn't skilled in mathematics that they can't understand at least some aspect of science? It sounds like what you're arguing is that if someone can't or won't do the math, they should be relegated to studying creationism as their primary explanation of everything in the universe.

 

[humanino]

...

We have a theory for systems under constraints, or systems in which the symmetries are larger than they appear as you have grasped. That's gauge theories. The appearance of infinities plaguing quantum gauge fields is related to this aspect : we are doing redundant integrals including "directions" in which "the integrand is constant" (which spits out infinity).

There has been recently tremendous progress in calculating amplitudes involving many (massless, which means high energy limit) particles in non-abelian gauge theories. The integrals are re-written over a twistor space. The crucial step was published by Witten in 2003 but it took a few years to digest. The initial construction of general twistor was due to Penrose in the 70s. These twistor constructions allow us to incorporate gauge constraints at a very early stage in the formalism. So Penrose (a general relativist) has put forward a general proposal long time ago that spacetime is emergent from more fundamental geometrical entities (twistors), from general arguments and hints that the formalism should naturally incorporate quantum mechanical counter-intuitive features (such as non-locality). He always had very seducing discussions around, beautiful motivations, elegant and convincing analogies. But note that for about 30 years the majority of people have not really listened to those general quasi-philosophical arguments. It is only once we had down-to-earth concrete calculations (not involving such general arguments) that people follow the lead and get to publish important papers. I can not tell for sure how much Witten cared about the geometrical beautiful aspects of twistors when he first decided to work on this. But it remains clear that only the efficiency of the calculation was convincing.

I think this illustrates well that people do care about discussions and permanently reflect over the philosophical interpretations, but that only calculations matter when it comes to convince one another for which direction to explore. This is always what I understood of "shut up and calculate" : calculate first, and then discuss the interpretation of the calculation.

 

[humanino]

Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism.

The reason the attribution of an academic title in science relies on nuts and bolts is because the difficult step is to understand the nuts and bolts. Once this is understood, it is easy to discuss about the interpretations. If nuts and bolts are not understood, the discussion is vacuous. It is very difficult to discuss about colors with someone who never opened their eyes.

This answer is following a background expressed in the previous message.

 

[yossell]

I'd like to emphasise that instrumentalism is itself a view about methodology, and thus is a kind of philosophy. The view that all we can know or meaningfully argue about is that which is observable - including the discussion of what exactly is observable - is a strong version of empiricism, and many influential philosophers have supported this view. (e.g. Hume, Locke, Quine)

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.

 

[yossell]

I have read as much of Bohr's original texts as I could, and I do not agree that his "shut up and calculate" attitude was inadequate, and I am quite sure that those who believe Bohr was uninterested in philosophy and interpretation are misinformed.

I had always thought Bohr to be one of the physicists most interested and most determined to try and understand what quantum mechanics told us about the world, that he introduced new concepts, such as complementarity, to aid him in this and, as such, was very removed from the instrumentalist and 'shut up and calculate' view.

It's true that the term `copenhagen interpretation' is associated both with Bohr and the shut up and calculate view, but I had never seen Bohr himself as properly belonging to this school. Indeed, many of the views that are now associated with the copenhagen interpretation owe more to Dirac and von Nuemann's development of quantum mechanics than to Bohr's work.

 

[humanino]

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.

I realize that I have sometimes used the words "philosophical question" in a sense which can be interpreted as pejorative. It would have been better to specify "only philosophical" in the sense that we are interested in the question but unable to answer it scientifically. My entire point was that those questions which are sometimes answered by "shut up and calculate" have most probably been thought of by the likes of Bohr. So the answer "shut up and calculate" (which is not meant to be aggressive) is an acknowledgment of ignorance, and the reason for this ignorance can only be traced back to technical dead-ends.

Thank you for pointing out the clarification.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is the way I've thought about scientific math all along. The problem, imo, is when scientists claim that they can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. When people say this, it is fundamentally naive, yet such people often purport to be right purely on the basis that they are experts in their field. Put more simply, they think scientific expertise automatically makes them experts in philosophizing and/or other meta-knowledge of what they're doing. Then the question should be how someone can have a PhD (doctor of PHILOSOPHY) in their field without understanding what they are doing beyond the technical level of the nuts and bolts of instrumentalism. This is not to say that people aren't extremely good at what they do or that their expertise is not real expertise. I would just say it is often more technical than scientific.

Nobody can conceptualize models purely in terms of equations and math. Equations are meaningless without qualitative assumptions and definitions attached to them. I think they are in denial about philosophy if they make those claims. In other words, scientists that deny that philosophy enters their mind are in denial.

Great. So why do people resist communicating about them except in maths then?

Well, traditionally, they didn't and there's still many authors like Brian Greene who still attempt it. But that led (leads) to a lot of misconception by people who don't want to study the quantitative aspects. It's the same complaint that you've given only from the other end: to think you can understand these concept in a purely qualitative manner is incorrect.

How can you automatically assume that because someone isn't skilled in mathematics that they can't understand at least some aspect of science? It sounds like what you're arguing is that if someone can't or won't do the math, they should be relegated to studying creationism as their primary explanation of everything in the universe.

It's not an "automatic assumption", it's an observation that's been demonstrated repeatedly here in the philosophy section of physics forums. It's also a matter of having studied the subject for 4+ years in a standardized academic institution. It's not an assumption I was born with, it's one I developed after interactions with laymen (even offline).

But you also have to realize that that 4+ years is also spent developing and learning the qualitative aspect, so even if we ignore the quantitative aspect, you're not going to reach the same level of understanding in even a year of philosophy forum threads.

 

[brainstorm]

`Philosophical' has come to be a perjorative term, meaning hopelessly metaphysical, speculative, even mystical. But it's a misrepresentation of the subject matter to make out that philosophy precisely is a matter of getting deeply involved in difficult and possibly intractable interpretative issues.

Or even just reasoning about the relationships between variables or the implications of a particular model.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, traditionally, they didn't and there's still many authors like Brian Greene who still attempt it. But that led (leads) to a lot of misconception by people who don't want to study the quantitative aspects. It's the same complaint that you've given only from the other end: to think you can understand these concept in a purely qualitative manner is incorrect.

I think this is a good point, and part of the reason it hasn't come out is because of the relative superiority many mathematics-proficient scientists exude when dismissively regarding those who aren't academically trained to the extent they are. There are basic mathematical relationships that are fundamental in concepts like velocity, acceleration, momentum, heat, etc. but it seems like highly trained physicists will dismiss these as mathematics because they are more interested in math that challenges them intellectually. Basic understanding of quantification does, however, allow people with poor math skills understand a lot of science, and I think it would be unfair to presumptively invalidate any thoughts they have because of this. Granted, it always helps to know what people do and don't understand, and be mindful of how this affects their perspective on specific issues, but it just seems unnecessary and wrong to use math-skill as a basis for completely alienating people who are actively interested in your subject matter. It also seems more like chest-beating than constructive discourse to me. What is ultimately the purpose of science except to facilitate progress in culture generally, regardless of people's relative academic level?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think this is a good point, and part of the reason it hasn't come out is because of the relative superiority many mathematics-proficient scientists exude when dismissively regarding those who aren't academically trained to the extent they are.

Yeah, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated among my peer group. What is tolerated is getting frustrated at people who keep insisting and arguing from ignorance. And it's generally a lack of mathematical formalism that is the cause of their ignorance.

Of course, it would be fine if it was just one little thing to clear up, but when the number of misrepresentations is so high, it's likely that the mathematical formalism will clear up all their misconceptions at once instead of me trying to micro-manage every little misconception (and some of them I'll never see because they're hidden assumptions). It's not like they're going to be a math zombie while they're doing the formalism... they're still going to be wondering about their questions and their ideas and THAT'S the part that will help them WHILE doing the formalism. Most newbie physics majors are completely ecstatic about the qualitative/philosophical part. They can't avoid pondering it while doing the mathematical formalism. I know I couldn't.

Also, you might be interested in the demographic of philosopher mathematicians. Hurkyl is an example of one here at physicsforums. Most mathematicians are actually quite philosophical minded. Mathematics augments philosophical thinking, in my opinion, because it's the language that logic uses. So the end point, I guess, is don't be afraid of the math; you can do it, and you will gain a lot from it.

 

[brainstorm]

Yeah, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated among my peer group. What is tolerated is getting frustrated at people who keep insisting and arguing from ignorance. And it's generally a lack of mathematical formalism that is the cause of their ignorance.

Of course, it would be fine if it was just one little thing to clear up, but when the number of misrepresentations is so high, it's likely that the mathematical formalism will clear up all their misconceptions at once instead of me trying to micro-manage every little misconception (and some of them I'll never see because they're hidden assumptions). It's not like they're going to be a math zombie while they're doing the formalism... they're still going to be wondering about their questions and their ideas and THAT'S the part that will help them WHILE doing the formalism. Most newbie physics majors are completely ecstatic about the qualitative/philosophical part. They can't avoid pondering it while doing the mathematical formalism. I know I couldn't.

Also, you might be interested in the demographic of philosopher mathematicians. Hurkyl is an example of one here at physicsforums. Most mathematicians are actually quite philosophical minded. Mathematics augments philosophical thinking, in my opinion, because it's the language that logic uses. So the end point, I guess, is don't be afraid of the math; you can do it, and you will gain a lot from it.

Sorry, but as kind as your words are, they are still basically condescending. They make me wish I had direct experience with training in academic physics, though, because then I could provide more specific arguments about how math can get in the way of valid qualitative reasoning. Unfortunately, it is extremely time and resource consuming to go to all the trouble of learning all the rigorous quantitative exercises that are required for gaining a higher degree only to get ostracized when you actually have the gaul to point out the flaws in the reasoning behind them. Ideally, professional scientists wouldn't get their feathers ruffled or feel offended or threatened when someone exposes the short-comings of one or more methods that are their bread and butter, but as human beings they tend to. Then they insist that if you don't like their method, you better pick another one and stick to it because you can't be a scientist by remaining methodologically critical. Of course critical methodology is more scientific than methodological dogmatism, but it is not what drives grant-funded research that relies on established methods to pursue other goals than critiquing and reforming those methods.

So, yes it would help for qualitatively bright people to learn the math well enough to use or critique it as necessary, but the cost of learning it in order to critique it sufficiently is too high - so many of us prefer to hover in the informal discourse instead of wasting loads of money and effort pursuing a formal education to answer questions that you can pursue qualitatively to satisfy your curiosity and engage in meaningful discourse with others. If credentialed academians wish to withhold contact from the unschooled in hopes of stimulating more patronage of the academic institutions, they may make some more money from some people, but many others will probably just find themselves that much more in the dark ages. It's a shame that scientists can't just maintain a function of public-enlightenment to the extent that it is possible with us ignoramuses (ignorami?).

 

[Pythagorean]

The point wasn't that you should get a degree in mathematics. Just look at the equations yourself, try to understand them, and ask questions in a place like this.

 

[yossell]

Sorry, but as kind as your words are, they are still basically condescending.

Why do you think this? Whether it's maths or philosophy or logic or buddhist meditation that leads to understanding and insight and djana, just because someone sincerely believes and so states that X is the best way of getting there doesn't mean it's condescending. Nobody's saying that method X is closed to you, or that you're too puny to master method X.

 

[GeorgCantor]

It's time to get back on Earth - There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that math will EVER manage to describe and help us understand reality. As things currently stand in physics, it's more of a question of wishful thinking than solid, forged way to understanding reality.

The mathematical formalism, no matter how well mastered, isn't helping physicists to understand reality better - it's only making them utterly confused about their everyday experience, often times denying the very obvious. Assuming that the universe really exists, this purported 'understanding' is borderline schizophrenic and the real trouble is that it's getting deeper, more acute and psychic. I wouldn't be surprized to see suicide among scientists who take their philosophical ideas and 'understanding' too seriously.

The technical side of the development of the new physics is of tremendous importance but the interpretative issue could well be just a black blind alley.

 

[apeiron]

The mathematical formalism, no matter how well mastered, isn't helping physicists to understand reality better - it's only making them utterly confused about their everyday experience, often times denying the very obvious.

You are missing the point that is being made. Maths is a stronger language for making statements about reality than ordinary English.

Those who are fluent in maths-speak would be doing more than just "shut up and calculate" in fact as they would have a conceptual grounding that allowed them to have meaningful conversations with other maths-speakers.

Now there are perhaps many who may just parrot mathematical sentences. They can repeat what they have heard, without really understanding. They can apply the rules and get a result without really knowing why. This would be much like school kids being made to act out a Shakespeare play - you can read the lines convincingly but there is little meaning.

But maths, properly used, would be meaning-driven.

Should it then be possible to translate accurately from the maths-level understanding back into everyday English? Only roughly at best.

And perhaps more the point Humanino was stressing, should we be able to arrive at the same understandings using only English language? Why should we expect to when English is just not a precise enough tool?

Compare the situation also to music. Being able to speak musical notation fluently is clearly a skill that lifts musical thinking to a higher level of precision and creativity.

The reason for objecting to the slogan "shut up and calculate" is the "shut up" part. It implies that thought stops and mindless, reality-ignoring, symbol manipulation begins. But I have no problem with the demand that at some point we have to shift from a generalised language to a more precise one.

Even in philosophy, this is also true. And in my own area of particular interest, mind science.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Apeiron, it's not about those who know what the new physics means and those physicists who don't. It's about waging an endless, possibly meaningless, argument between confused people of high intellect and social status about what the equations mean for the world we inhabit. Feynman didn't understand what the hell is going on better than you are. It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

 

[humanino]

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

So can you develop ? Do you suggest that not mastering the math could help ?

 

[slider142]

It's about waging an endless, possibly meaningless, argument between confused people of high intellect and social status about what the equations mean for the world we inhabit.

The meaning of equations are, at most, a fun intellectual aside. Philosophically, it is quite impossible to differentiate qualia: that one person's experience is the same as yours, or, taken to an extreme, that anyone other than yourself exists. These "meanings" may give impetus to a new viewpoint that creates a new hypothesis or model, but given that there are a great many models that generate the same equations, there isn't much celebrity given to "meanings" of the equations in anything other than popular science books for entertainment value, or to create an analogy that the reader has a more everyday acquaintance with. Most people do not consciously easily think in terms of pure higher mathematics without falling back on some easier to use visual or physical analogy.

Feynman didn't understand what the hell is going on better than you are.

This is a highly questionable statement, at most. Feynman shows great understanding of the connection between mathematics and physics in his texts, papers, and the collections of personal vignettes that are published as popular science. As a measurement of understanding the physical world, the agreement of a physical prediction with empirical measurement is paramount. Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

There is no content in this statement to show otherwise. Mastering any form of knowledge is beneficial towards understanding the known world, as the known world is the only source of impetus for that knowledge.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's very deceptive and naive of you to think that mastering math you will develop a better understanding of how everything fits together.

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science. That's sounds more like religion to me. I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This is a highly questionable statement, at most. Feynman shows great understanding of the connection between mathematics and physics in his texts, papers, and the collections of personal vignettes that are published as popular science. As a measurement of understanding the physical world, the agreement of a physical prediction with empirical measurement is paramount. Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

That a theory is becoming MORE mathematical doesn't mean that its interpretation(classical, it couldn't be otherwise) has become any more clear. Feynman was notorious for his rejection to get into the interpretation issues by his own "shut up and calculate"(subject of this thread).

Thus, the fact that quantum electrodynamics, which Feynman contributed many new mathematical physics ideas to, is the most successful quantum field theory shows evidence of this understanding.

Did you know why some of the best physicists in the field(foundations) think that a lot of the basic elements of the theory are too contrived? Like the SE or the values of the free parameters in the SM? Or what the widely used virtual particles really are?

There is no content in this statement to show otherwise. Mastering any form of knowledge is beneficial towards understanding the known world, as the known world is the only source of impetus for that knowledge.

You are failing to see the math posed 2 MAJOR problems in 1935 that sparked the EPR argument(the main issue was Einstein's idea of realsim, BUT...):

1. What the Hell is going on(the interpretative issue) and

2. The Nature Of Reality

Now i can safely say that the latter is the main reason for the mathematical 'fence' kept on purpose by physicists to the question - What is qm saying about the world? It's 'designed' to keep philosophical hordes away from the main issue - that of reality itself. It's surprising there are still people here in the Philosophy who have not come to grips with this little fact.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science.

Really? You are now mandated to speak on behalf of the scientific community?

That's sounds more like religion to me.

The interpretation of the controversial issues are called foundational problems, not religion. Witten is not working for the clergy.

I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

"How everything fits together" is the holy grail of science. How and why this may become (or is becoming) unattainable is another matter.


I have a plane to catch and won't be able to respond for at least another 10 hours.

 

[brainstorm]

This is a warped view. "How everything fits together" isn't even a pursuit of science. That's sounds more like religion to me. I can use an equation to tell you how force affects motion, but anybody who starts talking about "how everything fits together" is immediately suspect to me WHETHER they include equations or not.

Great point - one of many that gets obscured when people with mathematical skill insist that their overall worldview is superior as a result of their mathematical proficiency. They end up thinking that grand perspectives like, "how does everything fit together into a coherent all-encompassing model of the universe" are relevant because a few trans-equations logics appeared to their oracle eyes as generalities and they started believing that this was possible for everything and they could rise to rule over the universe. Sorry to be so blatant, but hopefully anyone who reveres science has had such a guilty megalomanic fantasy - and hopefully gained some perspective on it as well. Science and math are enormously powerful conceptual tools and even when they're not directly generating revolutions in technology, they are usually generating revolutions in consciousness and faith in the potential of technology to radically alter the world "as we know it." I love this transformative power of science, but I also recognize that for every 100 scientists, there are at least 100 radically transformative visions of the future possible, and probably many more.

 

[GeorgCantor]

So can you develop ? Do you suggest that not mastering the math could help ?

No, i have a very deep respect for those who actually take the pain , effort and consequently lose their sleep over these issues. The core of my issue is the implicit(sometimes explicit) assumption that mastering the math will lead to a better understanding of the world.

As far as i can tell, everyone that gets out of a quantum theory or relativity major is very confused. A debb theory is helping some to get back to reality, but at a cost(which borders on religion).

 

[humanino]

his own "shut up and calculate"(subject of this thread).

Feynman never said that. What is your reference ? The proper reference was already provided. As I said earlier, discussions here go nowhere.

Did you know why some of the best physicists in the field(foundations) think that a lot of the basic elements of the theory are too contrived?

As I said, they certainly all have their own ideas, yet manage to convince each other only by calculations.

 

[humanino]

As far as i can tell, everyone that gets out of a quantum theory or relativity major is very confused.

To this I certainly agree. I quote Grothendieck sometimes :

Passer de la mecanique de Newton a celle d’Einstein doit etre pour le mathematicien comme passer du vieux dialecte provencal a l’argot parisien dernier cri, passer a la mecanique quantique j’imagine c’est passer du francais au chinois
Alexandre Grothendieck, Recoltes et Semailles

which loosely translate into
"To go from Newton's mechanics to Einstein's must be for a mathematician like going from provincial dialect to the latest parisian slang, to go to quantum mechanics I imagine must be like going from french to chinese language"

 

[yossell]

The meaning of equations are, at most, a fun intellectual aside.

Mach's relationist interpretation of Newtonian inertial frames, Einstein's (and Poincare's) interpretation of the t' in the Lorentz transformations as genuinely representing time in a frame (as against Lorentz' view that they were just mathematically useful adjuncts), Born's interpretation of the wave function as probability, Minkowski's geometric interpretation of Relativity, QFT's reinterpretation of creation and annhilation operators to avoid Dirac's infinite sea and negative energy.

I think there's still debate about the degree of significance of these interpretations, but conceptual changes about the interpretation of the mathematics has played an active role in inspiring or motivating at least some physicists and at least some physics at least some of the time, and so can be more than just a fun intellectual aside.

 

[Pythagorean]

Really? You are now mandated to speak on behalf of the scientific community?

Don't be so hostile. You can ask for sources without implying arrogance. Would you perhaps trust a poet?

"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."
— Bertolt Brecht (Life of Galileo)

If not, read on for scientific sources:

The interpretation of the controversial issues are called foundational problems, not religion. Witten is not working for the clergy.

of course, I didn't mean literally "working for the clergy" I meant this whole concept of whether "everything fits together" is fantastical. Please find me one non-celebrity (i.e. you can't find them on Wikipedia) physicist that really thinks like that and get them to post in this thread. If you're correct, it shouldn't be hard; there's a big pool to choose from here. If you're right, and I'm wrong, they'll put me in my place as the authority on the subject.

Also, if you ask a scientist how to detect a pseudo-science, that's one of the fundamental traits of a pseudoscience: it claims to explain everything:

Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possesses well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

(citation)
Hines T (1988) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.

"How everything fits together" is the holy grail of science. How and why this may become (or is becoming) unattainable is another matter.

Ah, here we are... the "holy grail" of science... a contradictory notion in the first place...

 

[Reasonable1]

Math can be used as a tool of predictability but at times the unknowns may well prove to be it's undoing. As an example let's travel at the speed of light, then the traveler turns on a flashlight pointed in the direction of travel. Do we see the light, a ray, or the reflection on an opposing surface? Math says the light from the flashlight will never be seen by the traveler because we consider the speed of light as diffinitive. But is it or is that speed a point of perspective? Until we travel that fast we will never know if the math is correct and can only infer that it is.

 

[apeiron]

The initial construction of general twistor was due to Penrose in the 70s.

Yes, and I like twistor theory because of its conceptual appeal rather than because I can speak its mathematics. This soliton-style approach to particles as trapped broken symmetries is the kind of theory that seems most natural to me (as it is a systems view).

I accept your point that twistors were long ignored until some concrete mathematics came along to animate them - to do some actual calculating. But also it is amusing that Penrose is far from a "shut up and calculate" type of guy. He is very conceptual in his physics (as he admits himself with all his drawing in the Road to Reality). He is an ardent Platonist. And he is happy to throw himself into fields like mind science where really he has not mastered the basics at all. (But a lot of people did that in the 1990s I guess).

 

[apeiron]

I meant this whole concept of whether "everything fits together" is fantastical.

Why is it fantastical in principle? Is there an argument to support this? And why do people talk about arriving at a theory of everything (ToE)?

Personally I think it is possible that there is only one way reality can self-organise. The alternative is that there are infinitely many and we just happen to exist randomly and anthropically in one of those realities. If those are the choices, I think the simpler one at least deserves a shot.

 

[Pythagorean]

Interesting... You're one of the people I thought wouldn't mistake the ToE for an explanation of everything (the title is deceptive).

We wouldn't, for instance, be able to suddenly explain all mammilian behavior with a ToE. The ToE is a reduced model that explains all four fundamental forces at once.

 

[apeiron]

Interesting... You're one of the people I thought wouldn't mistake the ToE for an explanation of everything (the title is deceptive).

We wouldn't, for instance, be able to suddenly explain all mammilian behavior with a ToE. The ToE is a reduced model that explains all four fundamental forces at once.

Correct. But people in physics do talk about final theories. And when it comes to reality, it does seem reasonable to believe that everything does seem to fit together (that there are not a number of separate causalities or whatever). So a final theory seems conceivable rather than fantastical.

But you may have some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

 

[brainstorm]

Correct. But people in physics do talk about final theories. And when it comes to reality, it does seem reasonable to believe that everything does seem to fit together (that there are not a number of separate causalities or whatever). So a final theory seems conceivable rather than fantastical.

But you may have some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

I don't think it's silly to think that certain essential forces drive all physical processes at every scale, or that certain patterns of force interaction are the same for different forces at different scales, etc. What I think is ridiculous is when someone thinks there is an underlying logic to the universe that explains everything from biological development to psychology to physics to culture to political economy. The kinds of principles invented to account for such qualitatively distinct fields are so peculiar to one's philosophical perspective or political worldview that they could never be generalized to the subject material itself in a valid way, as far as I can imagine anyway.

 

[Pythagorean]

But you may have (a) some no go theorem in mind. Or you might be arguing that we can know that it is all just (b) too complex for puny human minds to grasp. Or that (c) we cannot in principle extrapolate beyond the measureable.

(reference letters added)

Little bit of b, little bit of c. But b doesn't quite say what I was thinking. It's a matter of information. You couldn't possibly hope to build a complete model of the universe with only the universe available as a resource, other than just moving every atom and interaction over to a new spot and saying "there, I did it". This is a common theme in modeling: there's no way to generalize and specialize at the same time. You always lose information (and this is just considering relatively simple systems, not the whole universe).

Is there a strong reason to call it fantastical? I don't really think so.

Well, you ask for argument and reason and that's a lot like asking for an argument or reason that god doesn't exist. Of course, I don't have one, I can't prove a negative, etc. It's a matter of the history: scripture and pseudoscience are the two types of information that have always claimed knowledge of everything. This pertains to my reply to George, as part of regime for detecting pseudoscience.

(And on mammalian behaviour, already it seems quite possible to account for that in a physically general way by reference to the second law of thermodynamics - dissipative structure, MEPP, etc.)

Of course, this is the kind of research I'm interested in so I won't argue with your statement here, but it's still not an implication at all that a theory of everything is possible. It's still subject to the same constraints logistically: you'd need all the computers in the world ever made (and more) to completely describe an system in all its complexity. The best we can do is ask a specific question and tweak our model towards that question, losing information about other questions.

My disclaimer remains, of course, that I can't prove a negative. But in the same vein, I think the idea of a supreme being is equally fantastical, though I can't prove it. The more recent emergent view is actually of a non-euclidean stochastic universe, which philosophers have used as evidence both for a lack of god and a lack of causality. Of course, I don't really have an opinion here, just presenting similar views.

Iovane, G. (2004) Stochastic self-similar and fractal universe.
Berera, A. (1994) Stochastic fluctuations and structure formation in the Universe.