Physics and philosophy (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 27, 2015, 16:55 (3280 days ago)

We really don't understand our reality, and turning physicists into philosophers has resulted in some stupid books. Look at Krauss as an example. This article points out the problem:-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/-"If your goal is only to calculate, this might be sufficient. But understanding existing theories and formulating new ones requires more. Einstein arrived at the theory of relativity by reflecting on conceptual problems rather than on empirical ones. He was primarily bothered by explanatory asymmetries in classical electromagnetic theory. Physicists before Einstein knew, for instance, that moving a magnet in or near a coil of wire would induce an electric current in the coil. But the classical explanation for this effect appeared to be entirely different when the motion was ascribed to the magnet as opposed to the coil; the reality is that the effect depends only on the relative motion of the two. Resolving the explanatory asymmetry required rethinking the notion of simultaneity and rejecting the classical account of space and time. It required the theory of relativity.-"Comprehending quantum theory is an even deeper challenge. What does quantum theory imply about “the nature of reality?” Scientists do not agree about the answer; they even disagree about whether it is a sensible question.-"The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness."

Physics and philosophy

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 17:36 (3225 days ago) @ David Turell

I went to a conference in Vancouver ... Imagine No Religion 5.-Saw and heard Krauss speak at this event. If I recall correctly he did say philosophy does have a place in science, though he did not give the impression it should replace science.-I thought the Grand design was somewhat amusing saying that philosophy is dead and in the following pages followed a philosophical discussion of the philosophy of science. Nevertheless I really enjoyed the book.-
Your article did not mention Krauss ... am I detecting a bias here?

Physics and philosophy

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 17:58 (3225 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: I thought the Grand design was somewhat amusing saying that philosophy is dead and in the following pages followed a philosophical discussion of the philosophy of science. Nevertheless I really enjoyed the book.
> 
> 
> Your article did not mention Krauss ... am I detecting a bias here?-Yes, in the fact that I have seen him quoted second-hand as not needing philosophy. If you heard him say it is needed, then my bias is gone. Then again he thinks a universe can come from nothing. That is an interesting philosophic thought.

Physics and philosophy

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 18:18 (3225 days ago) @ David Turell

Not entirely without corroborating evidence.-eg a flat universe.

Physics and philosophy

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 23:42 (3225 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: Not entirely without corroborating evidence.
> 
> eg a flat universe.-And how do you get a flat universe from nothing?

Physics and philosophy

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 23:44 (3225 days ago) @ David Turell

A flat universe adds up to nothing.

Physics and philosophy

by David Turell @, Monday, June 22, 2015, 00:50 (3225 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh A flat universe adds up to nothing.-And Guth said in his book by adding in the negative value of Gravity the universe adds up to nothing. These are math tricks of energy values, but the universe is certainly something other than nothing.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum