What is the Future of Physics in Relation to Other Sciences?

[vanesch]

Chinese, for example, expresses only a single tense, the present. Chinese therefore has limited ability to express relationships in time compared to English.

In that case, French should be vastly superior over English, because it has a wealth of tenses (the subtle differences between "passe simple" and "imparfait" and "passe compose", but also the conditionnel and subjonctif) which allow to express hypotheses, facts, "ongoing actions" in the past versus momentary actions etc...
Nevertheless, the dawn of physics saw the light in England and Germany with Newton and Leibniz, and not in France.

I have learned a little Japanese (but never used it and lost most of it), and I think I know what you're pointing at. But you're not going to tell me that the formulation of ideas like:
"if I want to have rice next year, I have to plant them today", or "Yesterday, I walked too far from home, and didn't get back home before it was dark. So, in order to return home today before it is dark, I shouldn't go that far today" are not to be had by someone who is a native Chinese or Japanese.


cheers,
Patrick.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In that case, French should be vastly superior over English, because it has a wealth of tenses (the subtle differences between "passe simple" and "imparfait" and "passe compose", but also the conditionnel and subjonctif) which allow to express hypotheses, facts, "ongoing actions" in the past versus momentary actions etc...
Nevertheless, the dawn of physics saw the light in England and Germany with Newton and Leibniz, and not in France.

.

But they had no immediate successors, and the further development of physics in the 18th century was centered in Switzerland (the Bernouillis and Euler) and France (Laplace, Lagrange, Poisson,...). And don't forget Fermat (Snell's law) and Descartes.

 

[Prometheus]

In that case, French should be vastly superior over English, because it has a wealth of tenses (the subtle differences between "passe simple" and "imparfait" and "passe compose", but also the conditionnel and subjonctif) which allow to express hypotheses, facts, "ongoing actions" in the past versus momentary actions etc...

It is not simply the number of tenses alone. More important is the structure of the tenses. These "subtle differences" as you say are not fundamental leaps in terms of structural differences.

But you're not going to tell me that the formulation of ideas like:
"if I want to have rice next year, I have to plant them today", or "Yesterday, I walked too far from home, and didn't get back home before it was dark. So, in order to return home today before it is dark, I shouldn't go that far today" are not to be had by someone who is a native Chinese or Japanese.

Sorry, but I do not understand your question.

I am telling you that if you want to say in Japanese "Tomorrow I will go to the park", there is no correlate to the word "will" in Japanese.

 

[vanesch]

I am telling you that if you want to say in Japanese "Tomorrow I will go to the park", there is no correlate to the word "will" in Japanese.

Doesn't really matter, does it ? If I say " tomorrow I go in the park" you know what I mean, even if the english is not fully correct.
As long as the notion of "tomorrow" or the day after today, or the day before today, can be expressed, the order relation in time is expressible. And that's about all you need. That's what I wanted to say: in each language you will find a way, clumsy or not, to express the basic ideas you need in order to do elementary physics. I cannot imagine a human language so poor that this is not, in some way or another, possible, because lots of "everyday experience" needs exactly the same kind of expression. That's what I wanted to point out with my example phrases to be translated in Chinese or Japanese. The slightest bit of military strategy could not be expressed either, in "you go with your men on that hill ; you wait for him to attack. When you see that his troups are making progress, you do not interfere. If he has a problem, he will signal it with a red flag. If you see the red flag, you attack on the left side, unless they have more than 200 men".

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Prometheus]

Doesn't really matter, does it ?

I recognize that you think that it doesn't matter. Do you not yet recognize that I think that it does?

That's what I wanted to say: in each language you will find a way, clumsy or not, to express the basic ideas you need in order to do elementary physics.

I previously agreed with you on your point about "doing" physics, once it has been developed. My point concerns the ability of the speakers of a language to have developed physics, as it has evolved in western society, from scratch.

 

[vanesch]

I previously agreed with you on your point about "doing" physics, once it has been developed. My point concerns the ability of the speakers of a language to have developed physics, as it has evolved in western society, from scratch.

I didn't understand that you agreed that one could "do" physics, once it had been developed, in non-indo-european languages. Meaning, can a Japanese, who learned also English, and came to, say, Cambridge to study theoretical physics, go back to his country, and teach - IN JAPANESE - to only native japanese speakers, the rudiments of Newtonian gravity ? I would think so, you agree now with me. I didn't understand you agreed with it. But this means that Japanese DOES contain the linguistic structures to talk about Newtonian gravity, right ?
So why then couldn't a native japanse Isaac-san not have had those ideas all by himself, even when thinking purely in japanese ?

But you have of course one big argument against this: it didn't happen ! As I pointed out, you are on the "right side of history". Nevertheless, one should refrain from the fact that a correct outcome justifies a wrong reasoning (like: the days in summer are longer because they expand under heating :-)

I think that to develop the scientific method, there are cultural and political prerequisites, and also a certain prosperity must rule. As I pointed out elsewhere, these conditions were satisfied in ancient greece (and it was exceptional at that time), and later, they were satisfied again around the 17th century in a few places in Europe - although this came because of the renewed interest in the ancient greeks.

If there is not enough prosperity, people just don't sit back and think, they have other problems on their mind. In a centralized theocracy, it is forbidden to think outside of the dogma. In a wardriven tyranny, critical and creative thought is not permitted. Not much is left when you exclude these ways of organizing society. There might also be a cultural influence, in that it simply _doesn't interest_ people to find the way the world works, because they might be influenced by a philosophy where it is considered "good" not to be concerned about this. So the intellectuals use their time and liberty to ponder about other things, like poetry or music or I don't know what.
I think all this has a much larger influence on the possibility, or not, to develop the foundations of physics (and the scientific method in general) than has the linguistic structure of the native language.

I can try to illustrate my point with the following: doesn't it surprise you that the same culture that laid the foundations of science also invented democracy, something unique at that time, and for millennia to come ?


cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Locrian]

This is perhaps the source of our miscommunication. You seem to think that I am referring to minor changes in linguistic structure. Instead, I am referring to differences that have developed over many thousands of years. One such change that has affected science is the development of the expression of time in the form of the verb in language.

Well I think it would be fair that I think that, since the thread began about improvements to science in the "forseeable future." We could certainly have different ideas about what the forseeable future might be. I still have a nagging suspicion we are using words with different definitions.

Unfortunately, you would like me to bring the evidence to you, in a simple manner that is easy for you to recognize. I cannot do that. The best way to understand the evidence is by you going to it. If you would learn the grammar of Chinese or Japanese, for example, you would find that the concepts of western science do not fit them in a natural manner as they do in English.

Well, are there any texts on this subject you might suggest? As a coincidence, I'm in the process of trying to learn Chinese right now. This would make an interesting side study to that. If the reason I am not seeing any evidence is because you cannot bring it to me, then I am willing to try another route.

 

[Prometheus]

Well, are there any texts on this subject you might suggest? As a coincidence, I'm in the process of trying to learn Chinese right now. This would make an interesting side study to that. If the reason I am not seeing any evidence is because you cannot bring it to me, then I am willing to try another route.

Keep your eyes open. When you encounter ideas that seem unusual, do not try to conform them to your English understanding, but attempt to understand the Chinese context that makes them appropriate.

You might consider reading an introduction to the Dao. The Dao permeates the Chinese language, but you might not notice it if you are not looking for it. You will notice that all primary subdivisions of time and space, which are subdivisions into 4 in English, are subdivisoins into 5 in Chinese.

Good luck.

 

[Telos]

Powerful discussion.

For those of you who support linguistics, that it will be the field which will contribute most to physics in the near future, what do you have to say about the way language is evolving presently, compared to the way it was before the information age, and before the invention of mass-market dictionaries?

According to James Burke, the printing press "froze the languages." Dictionaries became widely available and there was less reason to deviate from the "standard." Since then the evolution of language has been very limited. Now in the information age, language evolves mostly by pure augmentation of terminology (adding to the vocabulary set \mathbb{V}) Will this trend change? If not, how will adding new vocabulary help physics any differently than it already has in the past?

I hope these questions make sense. This thread has come to me at a time when I am considering linguistics for postgraduate and doctoral work. I am an Economics undergrad because, frankly, I wanted a "useful" degree first. But then it doesn't hurt to have it as a background social context. Anyways, it may be that linguistics will become much more important than it is today (namely in developing AI), so I am curious to hear your thoughts expanded.

 

[Billy T]

Thread has drifted to focus on language (mainly as its power or lack thereof to structure ideas) I want to note (Hope not already done) that style and notation are very important. I think it very likely that Newton knew of analytical geometry, but he did not use it in Principles of Mathematics. The proper style of proving something in his day was via geometry. His book is full of amazing demonstrations of the power of geometry in the hands of someone like him.
Today several previously unproven postulates have been determined to be true (or disproven) by exhaustive testing of all logical possibilities in long computer runs. Many mathematicians do not consider the positive results as "proof" (not the right style for a proof) - Most all accept the "false nature" of postulate when one can give a counter example, but regret that it was discovered by computer.
In general philosophy thread "time does not exist - math proof" (The math proof shows only that time is not necessary for a complete description of all events in the universe, but this more accurate version does not fit in space available for title) I make use of the general functional notation y=f(t), which is relative new in man's history. I doubt if it is possible to give my proof in the notation Newton used. (The simple proof is attached to the first post, but that thread has become about 13 pages long, so jump directly to the start if interested in it.)

 

[cbb2c]

In science, 'there is physics and there is stamp collecting'; and there is no physics without mathematics; and there is no mathematics without logic. So, from what other science will the next contribution come? There is no other science--only stamp collecting.

All joking aside, what's the point in arguing over that which can't be proven? Regardless, I'll offer my opinion: From which "science" will come the next great breakthrough in physics? It's probably just going to come from where most great breakthroughs in physics come--the imagination, creativity.

 

[pi-r8]

Hi, I'm new to this forum, but I wanted to comment on this discussion, because I know a little about it. I'm a physics major, and my dad is a linguist, so we talk about things like this a lot. He would probably agree with those of you saying that linguistics does and will shape science, because he feels that the language we use shapes the way we think (rather than just being a way of communicating thoughts). I'm not convinced, though- I see thinking as being much more fundamental than language. Mathematics, after all, is a universal language that all people can understand. At any rate, I think the fundamental question here is "how much does our language affect the way we think?"

 

[kipod]

I think the most important question is our ability to survive the power of our current and future developed technologies.

After the invention of the atomic bomb we are living in a new world that can be destroyed by us every day.

So I think that the most important action that we have to seriously take, is to find the gateways between our ethical skills and our technological skills.

In other words, a comprehensive action has to be done, where Education, Linguistic, Law, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Sociology, Psychology, Ecology, Art, etc. will develop and use the art of the dialog between them, in order to reinforce our chances to survive as a developed civilization.

Instead of questions like “Who is the most important …?” we have to develop an organic approach, which looks at every part of our civilization’s wisdom body, as an essential part of the whole body.

What do you think?

 

[Loren Booda]

kipod,

Sounds sound to me. I have an MS in physics, but have almost always worked for social concerns - they allow my conscience to express not impersonal puzzles but to practice empathy and sometimes to save lives.