Are there infinite scientific histories?

[Kherubin]

If this question has been asked many times before, then I apologize, but I am simply interested in the opinions of others.

Do you think that all scientific truths that can be discovered, are discovered? As an illustration, do you think that if Einstein had not discovered his special theory of relativity, then others would have soon after? (This is probably a poor example, because many of the theoretical pieces were in place prior to the arrival of Einstein and it is therefore likely that such a discovery would have been made by another. However, perhaps you could replace this analogy with a more esoteric branch of mathematics).

Alternatively, do you think that perhaps the progress of science is an ever-branching tree of knowledge and therefore in some cases, of sufficient import, we have already gone down a fork in the road to which we cannot return? As time progresses, in this case, our collective body of science becomes more and more distinct form other possible 'sciences' and the knowledge we have available to us becomes different from that which we may have had access to if our history were otherwise.

Thanks for your time and ideas,
Kherubin

 

[chronon]

If Einstein hadn't come up with SR, then by 1910 we'd have probably had essentially the same theory, but it may well have been based on absolute space and time, and clocks and rods being distorted by their motion through the ether. A decade or later someone would have come up with the idea of spacetime, but it would be thought of as philosophy rather than science (carrying on the Newton vs Leibniz arguments about whether space is absolute or relative). I'm not sure what would have happened regarding General Relativity in this scenario.

 

[chiro]

If Einstein hadn't come up with SR, then by 1910 we'd have probably had essentially the same theory, but it may well have been based on absolute space and time, and clocks and rods being distorted by their motion through the ether. A decade or later someone would have come up with the idea of spacetime, but it would be thought of as philosophy rather than science (carrying on the Newton vs Leibniz arguments about whether space is absolute or relative). I'm not sure what would have happened regarding General Relativity in this scenario.

There were people that actually came up with the same kind of ideas that Einstein came up with.

Here is one exposition:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/13/6330/21089

This happens more than you think in the realm of the physical sciences and mathematics. Different people can develop the same ideas through different courses of endeavor.

Given that the most fundamental thing, communication of and the easy ability to obtain information, has just gone off the chart in comparison to previous history, it's going to be even more likely that multiple people follow up pursuits of discovery and reach the same conclusion or result. Its not like you needed to be in a place with a big physical library, you can pretty much get resources for nearly everything online.

 

[Schrodinator]

Aether is correct though!

Kidding.

Science is the quest to approximate truths through evidence, the relation to the truth (whatever that is) is asymptotic. Philosophy deals in truth statements, science only in evidence. If science ever discovers absolute truths then it will have rendered itself redundant and as merely philosophy.

Lorentz, Poincare, Bohr etc were thinking along the right lines already although Lorentz I believe was an Aether proponent. I'm sure had Einstein not come up with SR, on reflection about the Michelson-Morley experiments and their implications someone would of sooner or later.

 

[Kherubin]

Thank you very much for your replies.

As I said in my initial post, the Relativity analogy is just that, an analogy, and probably a poor one at that.

The question at the heart of this thread is substantially more general: if, for example, two identical Earths with two identical, early human societies were set off and running at a time equivalent to 100,000 years ago on our planet, if, when they reached their equivalent of 2011AD, they had developed science, would their sciences be identical to one another and to ours? Perhaps, more interestingly, would that trend continue for ever?

Thanks once again,
Kherubin

 

[Schrodinator]

Probably they would be simillar certainly.

However if one hadn't had religion then I suspect it would be roaming the universe in FTL space ships by now, instead of wasting time burning scientists. And we would of met other races and been able to compare our science to simillar sciences.

 

[chiro]

Thank you very much for your replies.

As I said in my initial post, the Relativity analogy is just that, an analogy, and probably a poor one at that.

The question at the heart of this thread is substantially more general: if, for example, two identical Earths with two identical, early human societies were set off and running at a time equivalent to 100,000 years ago on our planet, if, when they reached their equivalent of 2011AD, they had developed science, would that science be identical to one another and to ours? Perhaps, more interestingly, would that trend continue for ever?

Thanks once again,
Kherubin

We barely understand the interaction of a collection of particles let alone a collection of particles that together forms an entire planet and the complex formations of life and other structures.

It is an interesting question, and if it could one day be experimentally done, it would be interesting to see the results, and see if any hidden interactions (i'm thinking a non-local quantum kind of effect) were found and able to be manipulated.

When I think of this kind of experiment, I think of a multi-verse where you get branches that are defined by some probability distribution with a geometry that has a very complex manifold where there is this intricate web of paths between all the possible combinations that are a direct result of the probability density function of available states.

The thing is that if the multi-verse does exist, we still don't have the technology to probe it, whereas with your experiment, if we could indeed create the scenario, then we would have the capability to measure it.

I think to answer your question, we would have to know the probability space for every physical event and then use statistical techniques to simulate it.

To understand the kind of mathematics you would need, think about one physical object that doesn't interact and describe its probability density function over time with respect to some physical quantity (position for example).

Now think of two particles with the ability to interact and describe the probability density function of those particles with respect to some physical quantity (position for example).

Now extend that to many many different physical objects and compute a probability density function for all physical objects and you will start to get something macro enough, that can be analyzed on a macro scale.

Now let's put the above in context: in the first year of a university students typically get problems that deal with objects in the range of 2 objects to maybe half a dozen objects.

In a graduate math course, brownian motion and Wiener processes are introduced that deal with a stochastic process in one variable. This is graduate level so think upper undergraduate,graduate level math.

We are talking many many many times more general than what we learn. To really be able to handle something like this we would need some technical break-throughs in math, statistics and computer science to make this feasible.

Never the less, hopefully one day we will get there.

 

[Kherubin]

An interesting and valid set of responses, chiro, but I was considering the problem several levels higher on the hierarchy of complexity.

For example, from a sociological or anthropological viewpoint rather than a quantum one.

What do you think from this perspective?

 

[Schrodinator]

An interesting and valid set of responses, chiro, but I was considering the problem several levels higher on the hierarchy of complexity.

For example, from a sociological or anthropological viewpoint rather than a quantum one.

What do you think from this perspective?

I Think he answered that we just do not know atm.

 

[chiro]

An interesting and valid set of responses, chiro, but I was considering the problem several levels higher on the hierarchy of complexity.

For example, from a sociological or anthropological viewpoint rather than a quantum one.

What do you think from this perspective?

If what I think you're saying is right, you want to separate the macro analysis from the micro analysis.

There certainly are ways that you can come up with valid macro statements without knowing or relating them to micro statements and I don't doubt it could be done in the context of your experiment.

One concrete example is Newtons laws in physics. This can be seen in the context of macro analysis and can in its own right be recognized without a need to refer to results about micro analysis of elementary atomic physical objects.

One thing though is that of course the context is different since you're talking about sociology. One good framework for analyzing human behavior is to study something like game theory and utility theory.

The only complexity I see for the above approach though is that all games more or less have very clear boundaries and rules, and its through those rules that you can generate outcomes and optimize behaviors to generate optimal outcomes given your state space.

Like my first post discussed with respect to physics, the same argument holds here. You might want to restrict yourself to a particular domain of social interaction and use that as a basis of a game which you can analyze.

The problem is that all humans are taking part in a highly complex game where we don't even know the rules. We are experiencing life which helps us define what we think are the rules so that we can react accordingly to help us make optimal choices in regard to some particular context.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you somehow create a model that's good enough to outline a minimal set of rules that relates to a high proportion of human behavior, then you could probably use that model to generate outcomes as well as optimal outcomes that help someone make an optimal choice with regard to known constraints.

This is the kind of thing that economists work on, as well as biologists and maybe even psychologists and sociologists.

So to sum up, if you wanted to take a macro kind of approach in the context of behavioral science (sociology, psychology, economics etc), it might be helpful to put things in the perspective a game theoretic approach and work from there if you somehow can come up with boundary conditions, and constraints that work well enough to be accurate and simple enough to analyze.

 

[Kherubin]

Thank you for your answers, enlightening as ever.

Outside of running an experiment (macro or micro), however, what is your 'feeling' on the progress of science?

Do you think if we turned back the clocks and ran them again, we would end up with the same result?

Do you think that there is an underlying process driving science to be the way it is today?

As apeiron intriguingly states in another of my threads (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3308006), may this process be Darwinian in nature?

Thanks again for your time,
Kherubin

 

[chiro]

Thank you for your answers, enlightening as ever.

Outside of running an experiment (macro or micro), however, what is your 'feeling' on the progress of science?

Do you think if we turned back the clocks and ran them again, we would end up with the same result?

Personally I think the scientific method is the best approach we have, but its not by no means complete.

Its a step up from the past because in the past people could just say whatever the hell they wanted and if there were the right person, it would be law but if it were not the right person it would be heresy and they could end up being at best ostracized or at worst burnt at the stake.

One thing that you have to realize is that between all time periods, human beings are very emotional creatures and have significant emotional attachments to things that they are deeply involved with especially when it comes to creative endeavors.

Science requires a kind of emotionless, logical, un-biased mindset to work and unfortunately I don't think that we as a species are there yet in terms of this.

I'll give you an example. Think about the tobacco (cigarette) industry when studies came out and said that cigarette smoking could be linked to cancer (note that in statistics you can't prove one way or another that something causes something, but like a lawsuit prove that the evidence is extremely strong so that the chance of it being wrong is as minimal as possible). Now the tobacco industry comes back and says "it's all baloney" and say there is no link from their own "studies".

Now look at what has happened. Many studies found the same thing and the tobacco companies have been sued left right and center and are now forced to put warnings (at least here in australia) saying that smoking is linked to cancer.

This is exactly what I mean when I'm saying that humans aren't "there" yet. We aren't at the stage where we as a people are devoid of such character.

If we got rid of this character trait, you'd fix a lot more than just science, but like Bruce Hornsby said "Thats just the way it is".

So first it was the priests and their tool was religion, and now their weapon is selective science. It's an upgrade for the high priests: for them, science is the new religion.

But I do want to say that there are a lot of genuine scientists out there that do real science, and don't let other external factors get in the way of the truth and I commend those people for they are very rare. But don't believe everything you read (including this!) and become a critical thinker and think for yourself when you read anything: if we had an entire population with this criteria, it would be a very interesting place indeed.

I think that human development is capable of reaching that stage of evolution where those external factors are eliminated, but hopefully its done sooner rather than later.

 

[Kherubin]

Perhaps this emotional bias, while contrary to the ideals of science, is actually a driving force in and of itself.

At this stage, maybe the majority of what we learn is governed by individuals' lust for power and money.

It seems to me that this kind of thinking is particularly unstable (i.e. non-consistent). The inherently opportunistic nature of business suggests to me that if we were to rerun the clocks, people in power would likely take advantage of different circumstances and and therefore pursue different scientific means to achieve those distinct ends.

What do you think?
Kherubin

 

[chiro]

Perhaps this emotional bias, while contrary to the ideals of science, is actually a driving force in and of itself.

At this stage, maybe the majority of what we learn is governed by individuals' lust for power and money.

It seems to me that this kind of thinking is particularly unstable (i.e. non-consistent). The inherently opportunistic nature of business suggests to me that if we were to rerun the clocks, people in power would likely take advantage of different circumstances and and therefore pursue different scientific means to achieve those distinct ends.

What do you think?
Kherubin

I agree and that is one point I tried to make in my last post, but no as explicit as your response. All you have to do is look back at our history and you see countless examples of that.

It is however a lot different in this age. We have physics, biology, psychology, more advanced mathematics, computers and computer science and wide ranges of engineering. Its a different kind of war-zone. You don't send a hundred thousand people into battle with muskets and bayonets. Instead you cripple ones economy, and use other weapons including currency and debt. It's a whole new game nowadays.

Everything from the psychological (think brain-washing, demoralization, and so on) to the biological (virii, engineered products), to the technological (signals intelligence, algorithms) and so on just bring it up to a different level.

However I have to say that there is one thing in the common mans favor and that is information. Back in the middle ages we had no internet, and peasants were denied of any kind of knowledge because royalty knew that an educated peasantry was not something that is easily controllable.

With the internet, people can get access to information and the masses have access to books, scientific literature, other peoples opinions, and a plethora of information that has the potential to turn unaware, uneducated people into well informed people capable of critical thinking and higher levels of independence. So in that respect it is great that in this time in history, people have access to one of the greatest inventions ever made ever to benefit mankind.

For example it's great to come to a site like this and see people with all different backgrounds enter into discussion and debate that is stimulating, broad in scope, and that most importantly allows anyone to participate in arguments full of critical thinking and free of "high priests" telling people their version of the world.

 

[Kherubin]

I suppose this also comes down to questions of determinism vs randomness (sorry if the scope of this topic is becoming a little wide).

If you believe in a completely deterministic universe, then no matter how many times you rerun the clock, the result (including the nature of the science produced) will remain the same each time.

The real question then becomes, if you marginally alter the starting conditions (for example, an almost identical Earth, but with a re-arrangement of natural resources), is the science (& culture) that is ultimately produced identical?

An interesting thought.

Any ideas?
Kherubin

 

[fluidistic]

The answer is an obvious and big "no" to me although I can't demonstrate it. Same answer to your question Kherubin.
Imagine there is only 1 remaining human alive on Earth. Imagine he discovers something new before dying. If he had died before discovering this new thing nobody ever would have done it.

 

[Kherubin]

That's a novel perspective fluidistic.

I think that's a very fair point, but are the circumstances not fairly extreme?

Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum to make a salient point.

Do you then hold the opinion that because the thinking of one individual on their own can alter the entire knowledge-base of humanity, then there should be no difference if the world is fully populated and that same person happens to be one scientist among many?

Credible idea.

Thanks,
Kherubin

 

[fluidistic]

Do you then hold the opinion that because the thinking of one individual on their own can alter the entire knowledge-base of humanity, then there should be no difference if the world is fully populated and that same person happens to be one scientist among many?

I'm sorry, I do not understand well the question.
But yes, one scientist can discover things that no other scientist ever would, if that is what you mean. I'm pretty sure that if they hadn't decapitated Lavoisier, he would have came up with stuff (theories or whatever "discovery" you might consider) we don't even know nowadays.
By the way I don't really like the word "discovery" in science, I prefer to talk about an "invention". General relativity wasn't hidden under a rock. It came out of brains of people as a construction made by the mind. It's not something waiting to be discovered in nature.

 

[fluidistic]

On the same line of thoughts, a painter generally do unique paints.
A single individual will paint unique paints. If he dies early then the world will never know what he would have painted if he had lived longer. There's no other painter that will pop up and continue his job in the same way as the original painter would have done it. If Picasso had lived longer we would have more paints of him, paints that we currently do not have by any other painter.

 

[Kherubin]

That's a very interesting analogy fluidistic.

I think, but may be wrong, that most people would see a separation between the unbridled creativity of a painter like Picasso, and the gradual revealing of truth that Lavoisier indulged in.

Most people would see the paintings of Picasso, as genuine 'invention' (as you put it) whilst Lavoisier was uncovering truths already present in the world.

I suppose that it all comes down to how you view scientific knowledge.

I have heard the debate between discovery (Platonism) and invention in the context of Mathematics (I think that topic is better discussed elsewhere in these forums), but I have yet to truly think about those questions in the realm of natural science.

What does everybody think?
Kherubin

 

[fluidistic]

I think, but may be wrong, that most people would see a separation between the unbridled creativity of a painter like Picasso, and the gradual revealing of truth that Lavoisier indulged in.

What about theories like String theory where some axioms are almost taken from no evidence. For instance the existence of magnetic monopole or that matter is made of "strings". This isn't something hidden in nature that we actually "found out". We don't even know if magnetic monopole exist and yet this theory has been somehow deeply researched.
This is not an area of study that comes naturally after general relativity. The idea that matter is made of "strings" is a mind invention that might appear to be true but as of now it's not decided. If the people that invented this wouldn't have existed, I think there is great chances nobody ever would have came up with those "weird ideas". Or if someone would have came up with the exact same ideas, he might have passed for a crackpot and the theory/subject wouldn't have been studied deeply, hence our knowledge on it would have been lesser.
I still stand my point on Lavoisier. It's not because he lived a few hundred years ago that we discovered all what he could have in his time, as of today.

 

[Kherubin]

I'm tempted to agree with you fluidistic.

If the people that invented this wouldn't have existed, I think there is great chances nobody ever would have came up with those "weird ideas".

The above quote is, in some ways, what the entire thread comes down to. If enough people studied previous physical theories for a long enough time, would they 'naturally' devise string theory as an 'explanation' for physical phenomena?

I honestly do not know, but it's worth thinking about.

Kherubin

 

[Kherubin]

In a more general sense, I suppose this could be a question of how much people think our science is dependent upon our local environment.

It could certainly be said that some of our physical knowledge is built on facts gleaned from our local galactic neighborhood, however, I think this possibility is most evident in the case of biology.

Medicine relies on a mixture of physiology and biochemistry, whilst both of these require an understanding of biology.

It is conceivable that on another planet life could have had similar beginnings to ours but may have diverged either early (non-organic biochemistry, non-aqueous solvents, energy-carrying media other than electrons) or later (different information carrying molecules than DNA, different functional molecules than proteins) from our biology.

It can then be assumed that most if not all of their biochemical and biological knowledge would be different from ours.

Thus far every aspect of biology we have learned has been constrained by our own biological paradigm. We are starting to explore other possibilities and may one day build distinct 'biologies' built upon novel 'biochemistries'.

However, it seems to me that no matter how far this knowledge goes, it will always be in some way constrained by its intrinsic link to our own 'naturally-evolved' biology. It may well be that we will never know the vast majority of these alien biologies at all unless we encounter the relevant species.


What do other people think?
Kherubin

 

[Kherubin]

Whilst I think it is true that these 'branching points' exist at the level of biology and below (biochemistry, chemistry and, if you agree with any 'multiverse' theory, physics), I am interested to find out if people believe in the existence of these 'forks in the road to knowledge' at the neurological and sociological scales.

If we accept the assumption that there are an infinity of complex systems (machines, living creatures, complex molecules) to build and we only exist for a finite time, then, we must, by definition, only construct an infinitesimal proportion of those systems. I posit that the choice as to which systems, in reality, ARE built is predicated on people's decision-making and therefore scientific histories different from our own COULD have occurred, even with initial conditions remarkably similar, or identical (if you are not a determinist), to our own.