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

[Loren Booda]

What other science will most influence physics in the foreseeable future?

 

[Prometheus]

Linguistics

 

[yesicanread]

Technology integration with a eye on mental health, and fun.

 

[loseyourname]

Since when is linguistics a science? Biology will have the biggest impact on biophysics.

 

[Nexus[Free-DC]]

The major influence on Physics will be what is has always been: Mathematics.

 

[Rader]

It will be a toss up between nano-tecknology=new materials and nuclear engineering=fission.

 

[wuliheron]

Mathematics is already making a huge impact on physics and it is thought that within the next five to fifty years the two will finally be reconciled. Logistics under pin mathematics and linguistics under pin logistics.

 

[marcus]

What other science will most influence physics in the foreseeable future?

astronomy is the science with the most influence on the development of theoretical physics now and for the foreseeable future

what technologies will influence physics is another question:
the technology that e.g. goes into satellite observatories (gammaray, microwave observing) and neutrino astronomy and ultrahigh energy cosmic ray astronomy, and so forth is an important factor.
but instrument R and D is its own thing distinct from science.
so for the most influential science I say astronomy

 

[yesicanread]

I said technology integration.
There is a overflow of papers that go unnoticed by the physics, and science researchers.

 

[Prometheus]

Since when is linguistics a science?

Since the beginning of time, so to speak. I believe that lingistics will have the most profound impact on all sciences in the near future, particularly on physics.

Are you really not aware that linguistics is a science? Check dictionary.com, for starters.

For example:

linguistics

\Lin*guis"tics\ (-t[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. linguistique.] The science of languages, or of the origin, signification, and application of words; glossology.

[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

linguistics

n 1: the scientific study of language 2: the humanistic study of language and literature [syn: philology]

 

[p-brane]

Philosophy will always be a big contributor to the science of Physics. Trepidaciously I might add that the relationship between Philosophy and Physics is a synergistic one. And that this relationship produces a tangible progress in the efficiency of the understanding of all things existencial.

 

[loseyourname]

linguistics

\Lin*guis"tics\ (-t[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. linguistique.] The science of languages, or of the origin, signification, and application of words; glossology.

Yeah, but it's a social science. That isn't science.

 

[wuliheron]

Yeah, but it's a social science. That isn't science.

Not true, Functional Contextualists have become the first to bridge the cognitive and behavioral sciences in a consistent and nontrivial manner by studying linguistics. In other words, the hard numbers of the behavioral sciences can now be applied to the study of linguistics. No longer are the cognitive and social sciences always separate and distinct entities from those of the so called hard sciences.

 

[loseyourname]

Jeez, guys, can you take a frickin' joke?

 

[wuliheron]

Jeez, guys, can you take a frickin' joke?

Why do you assume I was not joking?

 

[Loren Booda]

joking|gnikoj

 

[Locrian]

I got a good chuckle out of the linguistics response!

 

[Prometheus]

Since when is linguistics a science?

What do you really know about physics? How do you know this? How do you organize this knowledge? I will give you a hint. You organize your knowledge of physics along the lines of the grammar of the language in which you think. You perhaps think, incorrectly, that there is only one way to view reality, and that your grammar provides a completely unbiased and universal way to view reality and to organize your understanding of physics. This is a major mistake on your part, in my opinion.

For example, physics speaks of space-time. However, the English language does not naturally support a unified concept of space-time, but instead subdivides the concept of space from the concept of time. It takes great theoretical effort for the mind to bridge this division that is built into our grammar.

Eventually, followers of physics will learn that in addition to looking outward, to the ends of the universe, in order to understand the structure of the world, they should also look inward, and analyze the structure of the language through which they filter 100% of all understanding that they have ever had about the structure of the world.

To respond to the original question, I think that linguistics is a safe bet.

 

[Locrian]

Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math. You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.

 

[Rader]

Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math. You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.

Except when math is latin to the unskilled user. What you mean to say is those who know the language of math use it as a medium to understand physics.

 

[Prometheus]

Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math.

Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.

When you ponder a theory in physics, or when you try to develop your own, do you really use no English at all?

I recommend that you give this a little more thought.

 

[wuliheron]

Linguistics have been a well grounded science since Acceptance and Commitment therapy proved itself clinically. It is derived from the work of Radical Behaviorists who became the first to meaningfully span the cognitive and behavioral sciences over the last thirty years or so.

 

[loseyourname]

Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.

When you ponder a theory in physics, or when you try to develop your own, do you really use no English at all?

I recommend that you give this a little more thought.

The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.

 

[Egmont]

The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.

To give just one example of how this reasoning is not correct:

The Lorentz transformation is mathematically expressed, yet nobody knows what it means when v > c, since the time dilation factor becomes imaginary and nobody has a clue what "imaginary time" means. Yet several mathematical equations also give imaginary results, and we often don't have a problem with those. For instance, "imaginary current" has a very clear meaning in electricity, "imaginary position" has a very clear meaning in mechanics, and so on.

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

Either that, or physics is not as consistent as physicists claim.

 

[Prometheus]

The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.

It is certainly very easy for you to make this claim, isn't it? Can you provide any evidence to support it?

Do you know a thousand different languages such that you have any evidence to back up your statement, or are you just making a claim that you suppose is true?

To me, your statement reflects clearly the fact that you have little understanding of the differences among languages. Concepts such as space and time are not mathematical concepts, they are words in language. Not all languages have the same grammtically induced concept for these words as English. In fact, most do not.

You are suggesting that all statements in physics are mathematical equations, and that all topics in physics are discussed on the basis of fundamental equations.

Theories in physics are based on postulates. These postulates are described using language, not using equations. In order for an equation to have meaning, a linguistic environment is prerequisite.

 

[Locrian]

Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.

Being sarcastic is an excellent alternative to presenting an argument. You don't need to discuss the difference between physics and communicating physics, or the difference between proving math has a linguistic basis and proving physics has a linguistic basis or any other such topic, you just have to be snide and ask people to think alot.

 

[Locrian]

they should also look inward, and analyze the structure of the language through which they filter 100% of all understanding that they have ever had about the structure of the world.

I make the case that physics provides no understanding of any "structure of the world," but instead is a mathematical system designed to predict past and future events. I feel an argument can be made for this because looking into the past at the philosophy of science, I find that the "understanding" scientists think they have at any time is dependant on a mistaken use of language to translate mathematical concepts, and invariably it ends up being that this idea they created (which is most certainly built on language) is thrown in the can when a new theory comes along.

On the other hand, the original math still has merit. All the language was a waste, but the math is still a predictor. On top of that, these frameworks created to describe the world philosophically can actually impede future development, by suggesting a way things "should" be, instead of concentrating on a mathematical system to predict observables. If philosophical interpretations of the mathematics were a part of physics, then why do they not aid the science and sometimes hinder it? It seems to me people assume creating a philosophical framework of what physics "means" is part of physics because it is often done by physicists. I do not feel they are correct.

In other words, I dissagree with your very definition of physics, as I find it includes a spurious idea (that physics provides a "structure of the world") that has no place in the science.

 

[Prometheus]

Being sarcastic is an excellent alternative to presenting an argument.

On the contrary, this is the argument. Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics, or that physics could ever have developed in the first place. The science of physics did not even begin to develop until language grammar had evolved to support such development.

You don't need to discuss the difference between physics and communicating physics, or the difference between proving math has a linguistic basis and proving physics has a linguistic basis or any other such topic

What is the difference? When you think about physics, is that not communicating to yourself? Is not the structure of the world, as ingrained in your mind as a reflection of your understanding of the grammar of the language in which you think, critical in how you communicate physics to yourself? Is not all of your understanding and description of physics based on your communication of ideas to yourself?

 

[Prometheus]

I make the case that physics provides no understanding of any "structure of the world," but instead is a mathematical system

I consider that you are making an incredible jump in thinking, using your language to enable yourself to do so, when you think that mankind developed mathematics out of think air rather than because the grammar of language has evolved to the degree that modern grammar supports the development of such math. This is my opinion, of course.

You say that the language was a waste, and the math still remains. However, was it not language that enabled the development of the math?

This is meaningful. If we have different concepts of what physics entails, then this is a source of disagreement and discussion. You state that physics provides no undersganding of the sructure of the world. Therefore, you are suggesting, I gather, that our belief that there is a universe, that it is composed of matter, that there is energy, that time, space, and light are important concepts, and so on are not relevant, because do not concern these words that give us a concept of the structure of the world.

I have 2 questions. 1. What is the subject of non-science does the study of the structure of the world belong, in your opinion? 2. Please provide me an example of physics, so that I can get an idea of what physics is, in your opinon.

 

[Locrian]

You say that the language was a waste, and the math still remains. However, was it not language that enabled the development of the math?

You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.

I see we agree on this. Once you strip away all the muck that is associated needlessly with physics (but isn't physics) we can get down to the question of how much language affects math. More importantly, how is an advancement in linguistics going to affect the math that affects physics? I'd be interested in hearing your response.

I can use language and ponder swimming. I can converse about swimming with my friends. I can even write a book with words about swimming. However, language is not necessary for swimming. Fish show me this is true. This is all so postmodern. Has a physicist Trojan Horsed another paper on the New Math into a journal?

I think you might also be able to go the route of observables and the use of language to determine them. Still, this is right on the line between what physics is and isn't, so I have a hard time seeing any great advance that will come from linguistic advances in the communication of experimental measures. In any case, "the structure of the world" or maybe "how the universe really is" are concepts left to the philosophers. They can have them and do what they will with them, just so long as they don't push them on me, suggest they are important, or suggest they denote the quality of my work.

 

[loseyourname]

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

To stay on this route, you don't investigate what "imaginary time" is by looking into language. "Imaginary time" means that the quantity coming out of the equation when v is greater than c is an imaginary number. To understand what this means, we need to understand what an imaginary number is. It is certainly not a linguitic anomaly. It is a number system built from multiples of the number that, when multiplied by itself, results in -1. If anyone ever figures out exactly how this might translate into a physical phenomenon (it is entirely possible that it does not), it will be a mathematician, not a linguist.

 

[loseyourname]

And of course, the point remains that any calculation using the Lorentz Transformations will always give the same results, when it is made using the same input, regardless of the language spoken by the person performing the calculation.

 

[zeronem]

On the contrary, this is the argument. Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics.

I doubt that. Imagine a primitive Human Being who knows nothing of language or how to read. He just scavenges for food. Well one day he found an apple on the floor, he threw it straight up in the air and having no idea about gravity the apple came back and hit him in the head. He was exited by this apple coming back down to hit him, so he threw it up in the air again and he would catch it and throw it up again and again. He then finds an orange on the ground, notices how it is different from the apple and throws it up in the air, once again he notices that it comes back down just like the apple. He starts to jump himself and he notices that he comes back down just like the apple and the orange. This primitive being is aware of gravity. Well he is primitive so he can't really give this force a term intill language develops. BUT, he has come to some understanding of the Physical Phenomena Gravity.

 

[Loren Booda]

How about psychology, or brain development? Physiologists pore over Einstein's brain - why not his or future evolution of cognitive abilities revealing a new area of physics not currently accessible to typical homo sapiens sapiens?

 

[loseyourname]

Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics, or that physics could ever have developed in the first place.

Just to elaborate on the point zeronem made, language is not necessary to understanding. It isn't even necessary to communication. For instance, a tiger has a great understanding of the grazing habits of its prey, without language. A bee can very effectively communicate with its hive by the alignment of its dance with the lines of the honeycomb, the angle between them indicating the direction that food lies in. This is essentially nothing more than pointing in a certain direction and I doubt would qualify as language.

 

[Egmont]

I doubt that. Imagine a primitive Human Being who knows nothing of language or how to read. He just scavenges for food. Well one day he found an apple on the floor, he threw it straight up in the air and having no idea about gravity the apple came back and hit him in the head. He was exited by this apple coming back down to hit him, so he threw it up in the air again and he would catch it and throw it up again and again. He then finds an orange on the ground, notices how it is different from the apple and throws it up in the air, once again he notices that it comes back down just like the apple. He starts to jump himself and he notices that he comes back down just like the apple and the orange. This primitive being is aware of gravity.

Actually, that primitive being is aware of what you call gravity. And you became aware of gravity not by throwing apples up in the air, but by being taught a scientific explanation of why apples fall. Without being educated about it (ie, without being told what the word "gravity" means), your understanding of what makes apples fall would almost certainly not resemble the modern concept of gravity. You could think, for instance, that apples fall because they come from the ground and as such have a tendency to return to it.

Well he is primitive so he can't really give this force a term intill language develops. BUT, he has come to some understanding of the Physical Phenomena Gravity.

So how long do you think it will take this primitive man to understand that things fall because space is curved? You really think he can understand that without using language?

 

[vanesch]

To give just one example of how this reasoning is not correct:

The Lorentz transformation is mathematically expressed, yet nobody knows what it means when v > c, since the time dilation factor becomes imaginary and nobody has a clue what "imaginary time" means. Yet several mathematical equations also give imaginary results, and we often don't have a problem with those. For instance, "imaginary current" has a very clear meaning in electricity, "imaginary position" has a very clear meaning in mechanics, and so on.

It seems quite common for people trained in human sciences to adhere a lot of importance to language as a tool for reasoning. I know what I talk about, my wife is a Classicist, and we can have endless arguments about it. But physical reasoning is just not that way.
To take your example above, there's no point in looking at v>c in a lorentz transformation, because a lorentz transformation is an element of a continuous group, the lorentz group, and the case v>c is simply not an element of the group we consider. In other cases, we are in the complex plane, which can be considered as an analytical continuation from the real axis (such as when applying a Wick rotation), or we can be considering the complex plane simply as a mathematical tool to describe 2-dimensional real vectors (such as is the case when using complex numbers in electricity, or when solving the poisson equation in the plane). But because historically people have given the name "imaginary" to the vertical axis of the complex plane, you seem to have a fixation on that WORD. It is not because the formula, sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), can appear, or as part of the description of a lorentz transformation (where analytical extension in the complex plane has not much meaning), or in other contexts, where this analytical continuation might have a meaning, that the mathematical idea behind it is not sufficient to express what we mean, as you seem to imply.
The mathematical idea behind it is not the formula, but a continuous group in the first case (analytical continuation has not really a meaning), and a plane in the second (analytical continuation HAS a meaning). I do not think that this is dependent on the spoken language, as long as the mathematical concepts are understood by the audience.
Indeed, I have difficulties believing that the mathematical concept of the lorentz group is different if you have a russian, chinese, english or arabic linguistic background. If you don't believe this, go to a scientific conference, and listen how terribly badly some speakers speak English, and yet understood perfectly well their subject.
But I *KNOW* that people with a human science background cannot accept this because their thinking *IS* mainly organised around the definition of words.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Egmont]

It seems quite common for people trained in human sciences to adhere a lot of importance to language as a tool for reasoning.

For the record, since I have a PhD in physics, the rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

Cheers

 

[vanesch]

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

If you got a PhD in physics, and you wrote the above, then there is something very strange. Maybe you got it over the phone or something
As I said before, it is not the formula, but the mathematical idea of a continuous lorentz group that limits the parameter v to be between -c and +c. Because that's how the lorentz group is parametrized. It is almost as silly as to say that nothing stops you from specifying lattitudes higher than 90 degrees. It is simply because the mathematical idea behind it, namely a sphere (modeling the Earth's surface) is parametrised in theta and phi, with theta only going from -90 to +90 degrees. And yes, the cosine and sine functions do also allow complex arguments. But for the position of a ship on the ocean, that won't happen. You will find lattitudes between +90 and -90 degrees.
How can you say that we need to investigate the linguistic meaning of "imaginary time" to get beyond v>c ??
We need a real number for time (not real in the sense of "reality" but in the mathematical sense, element of R). Why ? Because we need an order relation which is complete, and which exists on R, but not on C. Because the fundamental meaning of time in our model (flat minkowski manifold) is to label what preceeds, and what follows.
Order relation: 1) if a>b then not b>a ; 2) if a>b and b>c then a>c ; 3) not a>a
Complete order: if a and b and not (a=b) then a>b or b>a.

This, together with a few continuity properties, uniquely defines R. If we had called the vertical axis in C, "zork", instead of "imaginary" then this doesn't change a single bit to the reasoning or the conclusion.

But nobody stops you from developing a theory where time can be zork. (it is sometimes used as a mathematical trick, btw, such as in Wick rotation, but just for calculational purposes). You do not need to delve into the etymology of the word "zork" to do so

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marcus]

It seems quite common for people trained in human sciences to adhere a lot of importance to language as a tool for reasoning. I know what I talk about, my wife is a Classicist, and we can have endless arguments about it. But physical reasoning is just not that way.
.

lucky you (about wife being a Classicist)
hope the kids are good both with number and geometrical thinking, as well as words

what is her specialty-----like Greek history writing of the such and such period----or use of Homeric epithets in later imitative epic poetry---or what? Say hello from a Herodotus fan here (there are more than one at PF)

 

[vanesch]

what is her specialty

I think she did something on the grammatical structure of archaic dialects on Crete. Now she teaches latin and greek to high school kids

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Egmont]

If you got a PhD in physics, and you wrote the above, then there is something very strange. Maybe you got it over the phone or something

I actually bought it for $30 over the internet

As I said before, it is not the formula, but the mathematical idea of a continuous lorentz group that limits the parameter v to be between -c and +c. Because that's how the lorentz group is parametrized. It is almost as silly as to say that nothing stops you from specifying lattitudes higher than 90 degrees.

You are correct. It doesn't make sense to say v may be greater than c, but you only know it doesn't make sense because you have a linguistic understanding of what the equation means.

If you show all the math of physics to someone who's extremely competent at math but completely ignorant of physics (a hypothetical person of course), that person would tell you the solution to the Lorentz transformation for v > c is an imaginary number. He will never tell you v > c is as meaningless a mathematical notion as sin(r) > 1.

Besides, if you think physics is nothing more than math, then why is it that it has become a separate discipline? Why don't we just let mathematicians figure out all mathematical truths, and accept those as truths about the universe?

 

[Locrian]

If you show all the math of physics to someone who's extremely competent at math but completely ignorant of physics (a hypothetical person of course), that person would tell you the solution to the Lorentz transformation for v > c is an imaginary number. He will never tell you v > c is as meaningless a mathematical notion as sin(r) > 1.

This isn't true. If I showed the math to someone, I would have to include the restriction on the domain as part of the math. Domains are something people in math are very comfortable with, and they would need no physical or linguistic explanation for why v < c, since it would be part of the mathematical description of the system.

As for why we don't just let mathematicians do the work... well, to some extent we do, since all physicists must be mathematicians to one degree or another. The difference is that physicists use the math to predict observables. You can't make a case that we need language to observe something.

I wish a linguist present would give us a really good definition of the science of linguistics and then talk about whether math can be defined as language. I think that would be an interesting piece to read.

 

[Egmont]

This isn't true. If I showed the math to someone, I would have to include the restriction on the domain as part of the math. Domains are something people in math are very comfortable with, and they would need no physical or linguistic explanation for why v < c, since it would be part of the mathematical description of the system.

I think I'm just going round in circles with this. All I said was that SQRT(x) has valid mathematical solutions for x < 0. Why x can't be less than zero in the particular case of the Lorentz transformation is something that can only be conveyed with language.

It's quite funny to see you guys saying language isn't important to mathematics or physics, when the fact is that everything anyone knows about mathematics was learned through language. You can't show a bunch of equations to someone and expect them to figure out, "ah, this set of equations describes the relative motion of objects relative to an inertial frame". Come on guys, you know that is just not possible, why do you keep saying it is?

You can't make a case that we need language to observe something.

Of course not, but you need language to know what to observe. If I give you a set of equations and tell you they describe the gnookness of bewunts, how exactly would you make your observations? Wouldn't you start by asking me to clarify what I mean by those concepts?

Come on, I can't believe this is that difficult to understand.

I wish a linguist present would give us a really good definition of the science of linguistics and then talk about whether math can be defined as language.

I can tell you right away that some philosophers classify math as a language, some do not. In the end, the only thing being discussed is what the word "language" means. As Fliption would say, just a word game. The important thing is not language itself, but the concepts we have in our minds which we express through language. We have a set of concepts for mathematics, and we have a set of concepts for observations of the physical world. The only reason math can be used to predict observations is because both sets intersect. The part of the set of math concepts which doesn't intersect with the set of observables is called "pure math"; the part of the set of observables which intersects with math is called "physics". It is as wrong to claim one can do physics without language as it would be to claim it can be done without math. I honestly don't understand why some people can't see this.

 

[Locrian]

Why x can't be less than zero in the particular case of the Lorentz transformation is something that can only be conveyed with language.

No, that cannot be conveyed by language. Why it cannot be outside its domain isn't a question that has a meaningful answer at all. All one can do is say that, well, -c < v < c for this equation. You could say "that's just how the universe is," but to me that carries no meaning.

It's quite funny to see you guys saying language isn't important to mathematics or physics

I absolutely never anywhere in this thread ever said language wasn't important to mathematics. If you feel you are going around in circles with people it could be, as you say, that we just can't see it. It could also be that you aren't using good examples, aren't wording them carefully enough, or just aren't reading what we write.

 

[Gerinski]

Coming back to the original question, I think that the next breakthrough in physics will still come from maths. The most fundamental issues in physics today are beyond our experimental ability so researchers on the edge are mostly focussing on finding relations or trying to encompass the loose ends from a theoretical -mathematical- way.

And I believe math can still give us a lot of insights, it has still much way to go.

However in a longer term I agree that biology / brain development (in particular obviously triggered from genetic engineering and bionics), can bring forward unexpected developments.

You don't need to fancy about "supernatural or esoteric powers" to be aware that human perception is limited by the ability of our senses, and all the science we can develop is rooted in our perceptions of our environment (plus the processing of those perceptions by our brains).

It's clear that "beyond-human" perception abilities are not science-fiction. Many animals can perceive so many phenomena that we can't (ants communicating by chemical signals, birds finding their way thousands of kilometers away, animals perceiving directly infra or ultra visible light, ultrasounds or magnetism, plants behaving collectively etc etc etc etc, examples are endless and some nearly unbelievable)
Yet all of these are scientifically known facts, but we can not enjoy the knowledge all these perceptions could provide. Our artificial instruments have increased hugely the range of phenomena we can perceive, but surely we're not yet at the end of the road ...

It's very likely that in the future (with genetic engineering, bionic enhancement of our sensory organs, the interaction of the brain with computers, some other type of brain development techniques etc), we will be able to:

1. broaden the borders of our perception abilty, maybe even acquiring some new senses different from our current familiar 5

2. Enhance the processing ability of our brains, so from a certain perceived information we can extract much more knowledge

With such an additional perspective of our environment we may well be able to derive completely new conclusions and knowledge about the universe we inhabit.
Which should of course be reflected in our formulations of physics !

Well, at least that was from an idealistic point of view, but as long as our society is based on the current ultra-capitalist values and rules, the human race will probably not get that far anyway ... oeps, no politics here, isn't it ?! :-)

 

[marcus]

I think she did something on the grammatical structure of archaic dialects on Crete. Now she teaches latin and greek to high school kids

cheers,
Patrick.

I say also.
It's essential

 

[Prometheus]

Still, this is right on the line between what physics is and isn't, so I have a hard time seeing any great advance that will come from linguistic advances in the communication of experimental measures.

I can see that you are having a hard time, which is why your arguments are so against the idea.

In any case, "the structure of the world" or maybe "how the universe really is" are concepts left to the philosophers. They can have them and do what they will with them, just so long as they don't push them on me, suggest they are important, or suggest they denote the quality of my work.

I am not pushing this on you. Look at the posts. You were the first to respond to me. Now, you are saying that I should not even suggest to you that linguistics is important. Sorry to suggest this, but you seem a little arrogant.

More importantly, how is an advancement in linguistics going to affect the math that affects physics? I'd be interested in hearing your response.

Science reflects the organization and understanding of the world that is presented by the grammar of our language. Science did not develop, nor could it develop in its present form, in linguistic environments such as exist in China or Japan, for instance. Once we recognize that other language-based views of the world have value to offer, consideration can be given to other ways to organize understanding, and changes can occur that provide for an improved model of science. I consider that these changes can be very profound. I have experience in this field that is not strictly philosophical in nature, and it forms the basis of my opinion. If you resent being told this, please do not reply to this post.

 

[Locrian]

I am not pushing this on you. Look at the posts. You were the first to respond to me. Now, you are saying that I should not even suggest to you that linguistics is important.

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble understanding what I wrote. I said nothing in that paragraph about linguistics, but instead about philosophical interpretations of physical models - thus my use of "they" and not "you." You asked for my thoughts on what is physics and isn't, and seem to resent my response. Your statement about physics and "the structure of the world" shows you had a misguided notiton of what physics is. I make no apoligies for correctng you.

Science did not develop, nor could it develop in its present form, in linguistic environments such as exist in China or Japan, for instance. Once we recognize that other language-based views of the world have value to offer, consideration can be given to other ways to organize understanding, and changes can occur that provide for an improved model of science.

That's interesting, but what evidence is there that science could never have formed in those countries? Give an example of how a change in linguistics has positively affected science over that past 100 years. Or maybe a specific example of how it will in the future. Imho that would give your argument a great deal of weight.

Resent? I haven't resented anything you've written. Others might be annoyed with your sarcasm or your tone, but not I; I just reply in kind.

 

[Prometheus]

That's interesting, but what evidence is there that science could never have formed in those countries?

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. Now, 2,500 years after the advent of the philosophical development of science in ancient Greece, scientific principles must be superimposed on the grammars of these languages in a non-natural manner. I recognize that you most likely will not understand what I am saying, and therefore that you will not and should not accept what I say without question. However, your lack of understanding in this context should not convince you that I must be wrong.

Give an example of how a change in linguistics has positively affected science over that past 100 years.

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. Chinese, for example, expresses only a single tense, the present. Chinese therefore has limited ability to express relationships in time compared to English. Geometry also reflects no relationships in time, but space alone. Physics has progressively expressed more complex interrelationships of time involved with relationships in space.

Or maybe a specific example of how it will in the future. Imho that would give your argument a great deal of weight.

Asking for a specific example is not an easy request. One aspect of my argument is that a language such as Chinese lacks the ability to express the complex temporal relationships that English can. However, Chinese is able to express spatial relationships that are beyond what can be expressed in English. For example, speakers of English recognize a world of 3 dimensions of space (plus the point, which symbolizes 0 dimensions, for a total of 4 dimension-like concepts). Chinese, however, recognizes a world of 5 dimensions of space. Chinese symbolizes no dimensions of time, but 5 dimensions of space; the point, the ray segment, the line segment, the area, and the volume. English recognizes only four of these dimensions of space (although the point is considered zero dimensions, and the others are considered infinite instead of finite as in Chinese). What about the ray? English recognizes one dimension of time, and time is symbolized in the form of a ray, as a line that flows in a single direction. English and Chinese have the same symbols, but their spatial-temporal symbolism is different. A comparison will, in my opinion, lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship of space with time.

I believe that an investigation into this difference in conceptualization of the dimensions of time and space, among numerous other such types of differences among languages, will lead to a more powerful model of nature.