- #1
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,165
- 56
Chronos said:It is ludicrous to entertain the idea that discoveries drop out of mathematical formalisms. That is about as sensible as claiming houses drop out of tool boxes.
What do you think of Joseph Silk's book on the Big Bang theory compared to Singh's?SpaceTiger said:I think this highlights one of the biggest problems in physics/astrophysics today. Einstein seemed slow relative to his peers simply because he wasn't anything like his peers -- he was a conceptual thinker, not a calculator/database. He wasn't content just to know things and then spit them out, he needed to really understand them and connect the dots of the big picture. Sadly, that kind of physicist is still quite rare, despite the fact that we now have machines to do the computing and compiling for us. We still think someone that can multiply 100 numbers in their head is the epitome of intelligence. I've had colleagues try to convince me that virtually every major discovery in physics "just came out of the math" and that having a conceptual understanding was pointless.
If you ask me, we need to broaden, or perhaps even change, our common understanding of intelligence.
selfAdjoint said:Thinking of mathematics as just a tool box rather than as an element of reality on its own leads to such restricted views!
vincentm said:What do you think of Joseph Silk's book on the Big Bang theory compared to Singh's?
Obviously, the universe works just fine, so it is not wrong. Our descriptions of the universe are approximations, whether expressed in conceptual terms or quantified in mathematical terms. Where we run into trouble, I believe, is elevating some past approximations to the level of "unquestioned truths" and thus blocking real progress. If we are not willing to ask hard questions about fundamentals (i.e. How does mass curve space-time? How can the Higgs field and the gravitational field be precisely congruent over all visible space and time?, etc) we will not progress.Chronos said:Not all mathematical predictions have physical counterparts. Which begs the question: is the universe wrong, or just our version of it?
Einstein said:"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ...Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."
The main idea of Lee Smolin's book is that the laws of physics are not fixed and unchanging, but instead evolve over time in a process of natural selection. Smolin argues that this process of natural selection could explain the emergence of our universe and the laws that govern it.
Smolin's theory challenges the traditional view of theoretical physics that the laws of nature are fixed and unchanging. It opens up new possibilities for understanding the origins of our universe and the laws that govern it. It also suggests that the laws of physics may be subject to change in the future, which could have profound implications for our understanding of the universe.
Smolin's theory is considered to be a controversial and speculative idea in the field of theoretical physics. It challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of the current theories, such as the concept of a static and unchanging universe. However, it has sparked new discussions and debates among scientists, and some have proposed alternative theories that build on Smolin's ideas.
There is no direct evidence to support Smolin's theory, as it is still a theoretical concept. However, Smolin argues that his theory is supported by the observed fine-tuning of the laws of physics for life, as well as the concept of self-organization and emergence in complex systems, which is seen in many areas of science.
If Smolin's theory is correct, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the origins and evolution of the universe. It could also change our understanding of the laws of physics and the role of life in the universe. Additionally, it could lead to new avenues of research and potentially revolutionize our understanding of the cosmos.