Unifying Theoretical Physics: Kant & Ritter

[LightbulbSun]

Science and Philosophy fall into different spectrums. Science deals with "physical phenomena" while Philosophy deals with "social phenomena" and "abstract thought."

 

[rewebster]

Yes---and the "abstract thought" is where new physics theories are derived.

One of my more favorite ones in that vein is the 'what would I see if I were riding a beam of light?'

 

[ZapperZ]

well, everyone uses philosophy and physics everyday--some more than others-----but I think having an appreciation for philosophy (and the understanding beyond the unconscious usage of it) helps the scientific process for initiating the creative process for new theories. If we didn't have philosophy, we may just be re-using the same technology and not create new areas.

But that is just speculation, don't you think? I mean, considering the fact that many physicists right now didn't have any formal training in philosophy, and yet, they still can function pretty well (would you like to argue with them that they can be better?) clearly shows that you have no evidence to support your argument. In fact, there are plenty of contrary evidence.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

IMO. The data and analysis your present in a pre-print or a paper is subject to logical analysis by reviewers and yourself, of course. True? So what is the basis of the logic for the analysis? For example, can you ever fully disprove a hypothesis?

The answer: logic as originally developed in philosophic discourse.

Therefore, while you may not give a darn about it, you must have learned the rules of logic everyone agrees upon in order to logically discuss research results, for example. It's a tool you cannot be without. So I totally disagree that it fails to be important. I do agree that you may never have thought of philosophy in the context of your research, you simply learned "the rules" without having been taught how they came to be used. You have to speak to that.

But how much of these things are learned innately? I learned how to do many things without having any formal training in them. I also learned how to carefully reasoned things out, not because I took a class in philosophy, was aware of philosophical ideas, but rather out of learning things myself and thinking things through. And yes, I have spoken on that already in the previous post.

I think people missed the profound idea in that Feynman's quote. These are rules that the birds learned because it is in their nature, and not because someone has formalized a set of knowledge for them. Scientists eventually learned how to do science, not because they are taught to do so (as if such skills can be taught), but because they acquire them by repeated process until they learned what to do.

Again, the study of philosophy could go away tomorrow, and I don't think any of us here at the lab would notice, nor would our training of new physicists would be affected. Until someone can challenge the validity of that statement, I do not see how that original quote by Feynman isn't accurate.

Zz.

 

[arunma]

Yes---and the "abstract thought" is where new physics theories are derived.

One of my more favorite ones in that vein is the 'what would I see if I were riding a beam of light?'

Well...that doesn't seem much like philosophy to me. It's true that Einstein derived special relativity by asking questions like the above, and its true that these questions are highly abstract and require a great degree of physical intuition. But does this really constitute philosophical thought? Abstract and intuitive thought doesn't cause something to fall in the realm of philosophy. After all, at the end of the day, SR had to be testable, even at the theoretical level (i.e. it had to be consistent with Maxwell's Equations). Philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't submit to definitions such as "right" and "wrong," and needn't be tested. For this reason, I'm not sure that Einstein's thought process shold be classified as philosophy.

 

[dst]

Philosophy has had an impact on some branches. If I remember (wishful thinking, my memory is atrocious), some major figure in physics used the anthropic principle to place a bound on the fine structure constant. So it may not place error bars on your blazar spectra but it can sometimes be useful.

 

[rewebster]

But that is just speculation, don't you think? I mean, considering the fact that many physicists right now didn't have any formal training in philosophy, and yet, they still can function pretty well (would you like to argue with them that they can be better?) clearly shows that you have no evidence to support your argument. In fact, there are plenty of contrary evidence.

Zz.

speculation?---I was going by definitions-- and as far as 'no evidence'---I was using almost direct quotes of the definitions.

Also--you said:

Again, if the subject of philosophy were to go away today, physicists would hardly notice the impact in their work. That, to me, is the most tangible evidence I can offer.

Zz.

I don't know of any papers on that, but if physicists lost the "correct principles of reasoning (logic).", it seems to me that it would impact their work.--wouldn't you think?

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know of any papers on that, but if physicists lost the "correct principles of reasoning (logic).", it seems to me that it would impact their work.--wouldn't you think?

Certainly. But is this something that had to be taught, or is this something innate, or acquired via doing science? That is what I was asking. If the study of birds go away, would the birds still know how to fly or how they should behave?

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Well...that doesn't seem much like philosophy to me. It's true that Einstein derived special relativity by asking questions like the above, and its true that these questions are highly abstract and require a great degree of physical intuition. But does this really constitute philosophical thought? Abstract and intuitive thought doesn't cause something to fall in the realm of philosophy. After all, at the end of the day, SR had to be testable, even at the theoretical level (i.e. it had to be consistent with Maxwell's Equations). Philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't submit to definitions such as "right" and "wrong," and needn't be tested. For this reason, I'm not sure that Einstein's thought process shold be classified as philosophy.

its a thought experiment:

"Thought experiments have been used in a variety of fields, including philosophy, law, physics, and mathematics."

"Scientists also use thought experiments when particular physical experiments are impossible to conduct (Carl Gustav Hempel labelled these sorts of experiment "theoretical experiments-in-imagination"), such as Einstein's thought experiment of chasing a light beam, leading to Special Relativity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

To me, a "theoretical experiments-in-imagination" is an abstract thought.

 

[rewebster]

Certainly. But is this something that had to be taught, or is this something innate, or acquired via doing science? That is what I was asking.Zz.

all of the above and more if you want or is needed---are you saying you don't use philosophy (logic) in what you do at work?

I think it depends on the work that someone does.

If the study of birds go away, would the birds still know how to fly or how they should behave?

Zz.

To me, that's not a good comparison for the OP's post,--- and The "Philosophy of science..." , to me, is different than the use of philosophy IN science.

 

[ZapperZ]

all of the above and more if you want or is needed---are you saying you don't use philosophy (logic) in what you do at work?

I think it depends on the work that someone does.



To me, that's not a good comparison for the OP's post,--- and The "Philosophy of science..." , to me, is different than the use of philosophy IN science.

I think we have a miscommunication here.

Note that I asked if such skills can only be taught or acquired innately or via practice. I don't have to go to cullinary school to learn how to cook. In fact, the majority of people who cook do not learn how to cook formally. Yet, what is being argued here is that since I can chop and dice and cook almost with the same technique as the professional chefs that went through cullinary school, it shows that cullinary school is necessary? My argument here is that even if there are no cullinary schools, people still can cook and put good food on the table. I would bet on that every time.

I'm not discussing the OP. I'm defending Feynman's quote that puts the OP in perspective. Considering that Feynman was a theorist, I'd say he should know what he's talking about.

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yes---and the "abstract thought" is where new physics theories are derived.

One of my more favorite ones in that vein is the 'what would I see if I were riding a beam of light?'

Isn't that something that Einstein thought up after reading about how telegraphs worked in a children's book?

You're kind of reaching if you're going to include the daydreaming of teenagers. What you're basically doing is sweeping any kind of interesting or innovative thought up into philosophy. The fact that you picked Einstein makes it look even more like aggrandizement of philosophy by coveting prestige for it.

 

[rewebster]

OK, Z--if you insist on going off topic:

yes, Feynman's quote, I agree with it---paraphrasing it: electrons are going to do what they do, no matter how much one studies them.

BUT---to me, it doesn't have relavance to the OP's post.



Does one have to study Philosophy to do Physics?--no------but I think the ideas that have developed in philosophy (if that person has a good grasp on them)--may make a BETTER theoretical physicist.

 

[dst]

People may wish to see: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0410/0410144.pdf

Does one have to study Philosophy to do Physics?--no------but I think the ideas that have developed in philosophy (if that person has a good grasp on them)--may make a BETTER theoretical physicist.

More information is always good. Who knows, a physicist who also is an expert in surgery or food science or if we want abstract, say, music even, could use those things to help.

 

[rewebster]

Isn't that something that Einstein thought up after reading about how telegraphs worked in a children's book?

You're kind of reaching if you're going to include the daydreaming of teenagers. What you're basically doing is sweeping any kind of interesting or innovative thought up into philosophy. The fact that you picked Einstein makes it look even more like aggrandizement of philosophy by coveting prestige for it.

it was an example of an 'abstract thought' (see post)

 

[rewebster]

People may wish to see: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0410/0410144.pdf




More information is always good. Who knows, a physicist who also is an expert in surgery or food science or if we want abstract, say, music even, could use those things to help.

27 pages--hmm-


-thanks

 

[CaptainQuasar]

it was an example of an 'abstract thought' (see post)

Oh, right, LightBulbSun was the one saying that all abstract thought is the domain of philosophy. Sorry.

 

[ZapperZ]

Does one have to study Philosophy to do Physics?--no------but I think the ideas that have developed in philosophy (if that person has a good grasp on them)--may make a BETTER theoretical physicist.

But how do you know this? This is in the same vein of what you said earlier that I claim to be speculative. All you have done here is make an assertion. I can also counter that with my own assertion - a physicist who already have a well-developed philosophy will be encumbered by it because he/she already has an a priori view of how the world should be. There! I don't need any evidence to support my assertion the same way that you offered none. As far as I can tell, I can make an equally convincing argument on my assertion.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

But how do you know this? This is in the same vein of what you said earlier that I claim to be speculative. All you have done here is make an assertion. I can also counter that with my own assertion - a physicist who already have a well-developed philosophy will be encumbered by it because he/she already has an a priori view of how the world should be. There! I don't need any evidence to support my assertion the same way that you offered none. As far as I can tell, I can make an equally convincing argument on my assertion.

Zz.

well, not quite the same---you made assertions ('will be', 'would')--


---the remarks I made had a variable ('may' or 'I think'--an opinion)--leaving open possibilities


Anyway, you have your own philosophy concerning this philosophy, and this had been a nice philosophical discussion about the use of philosophy in the area of the need for philosophy in physics, don't you think?

 

[ZapperZ]

well, not quite the same---you made assertions ('will be', 'would')--


---the remarks I made had a variable ('may' or 'I think'--an opinion)--leaving open possibilities

It still doesn't change the fact that those statements was not accompanied by any evidence to show that they are valid. If we're just making things up, then what's the point in having any form of a rational conversation. I've proven that I too can come up with something equally plausible to counter your statement.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

so, what you're asking is, that, every written statement, such as this one, has to be accompanied by some kind of evidence to show that its valid?



(oh, never mind--that one, the above, was a question)

 

[ZapperZ]

so, what you're asking is, that, every written statement, such as this one, has to be accompanied by some kind of evidence to show that its valid?

If you want to convince me, yes.

That's why I don't pay attention to political speeches. They are long on making claims, but devoid of any evidence that such claims are valid. A lot of people seem to think (or seem to not care) that simply being able to say something and making some apparent connection, doesn't make it valid.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#_note-16

Says the following: Theoretical physics has historically rested on philosophy and metaphysics; electromagnetism was unified this way.[20]

Reference:

20 ^ See, for example, the influence of Kant and Ritter on Oersted.


Does anyone know of any specific articles of where this can be found. (I would have put a question mark but my keyboard is messed up)

From what I've read lately is that Ørsted was into Kant, the age of reasoning philosophy, and ---"The connection made sense to Ørsted since he believed in the unity of nature, and, therefore, that a relationship must exist between most natural phenomena."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_Ørsted



Also:

"A thought experiment (from the German term Gedankenexperiment, coined by Hans Christian Ørsted) in the broadest sense is the use of a hypothetical scenario to help us understand the way things actually are."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment


Another key word in the OP quote--'historically'

 

[ZapperZ]

Then I'm surprised we're not talking about religion, folklore, mythology, etc. I mean, if we're going "historical", why not go all the way?

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

I think that wiki page references some of those---(if you click on the right links--and then follow more links)---


Wiki=the whole world at your finger tips!

 

[ZapperZ]

I think that wiki page references some of those---(if you click on the right links--and then follow more links)---


Wiki=the whole world at your finger tips!

Then it must be correct.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapper

 

[ZapperZ]

I think somewhere in the Netherlands (or thereabouts), there's a "ZapperZ" electronic/computer related stuff. That's more hilarious than this.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

you could, and maybe should, always put a page on wiki to stop the confusion

(then, of course, all of us could edit it-- )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZapperZ

 

[Nusc]

Okay guys. I just found this thread. I forgotten I had posted it. However, I did not find an answer to my question. It seems as though the word 'philosophy' has spawned this vast debate which was completely useless to me and I'll refrain from using such a word in future posts.

Thanks for your concern anyway.