On the relation between physics and philosophy

[PeroK]

Its not one or the other, i am not asking you to debate the specific issue but i am asking if you could.

You could debate a specific point of the theory.

Most of cosmology, however, is limited to the experiments that nature has chosen to do. We're not in a position to create a large black hole, say. Or run our own experiment that lasts a billion years.

In terms of the origin of the universe, we are even more limited in the experiments that can be performed to test a theory.

But, insofar as a theory depends on "quantum vacuum fluctations", you can test things on a smaller scale.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Sorry i wanted to know what experiment you could come up with to show how you can get
"a universe from nothing" as per the title of krauss's book.

One cannot test what existed before the universe existed!

 

[julcab12]

I say, philosophy is the ingredients capable of making a good or bad dish, something that works or not. Some Physicist just wanted leftovers nowadays. Just like having a great turkey the other day and now I'm making a sandwich out of it. I need a new good dish out from those ingredients.^^

 

[gleem]

Thanks @julcab12 and @PeroK and @Julius Ceasar for your temperance in not precipitating an end to this thread. We have probably discussed more of the philosophy physics relationship than ever before in a single thread although I have not been a member this forum long enough to know for sure. The Greeks having been essentially the founders of philosophical thinking have also produced a list of 147 aphorisms inscribed at Delphi.These saying represent basically a code of conduct to allow the continued orderly evolution of society some of which have been followed without intervention.

 

[lavinia]

I decided to read a little of Copernicus's De Revoluionibus Orbium Coelestium to see whether philosophical bias in any way inspired his researches. To me his goal seems consistent with a desire to explain the apparent irregular motion of the planets and the Sun and Moon in terms the Aristotelian assumption that away from the Earth is a realm of perfection which is reflected in circular motion on celestial spheres. One can judge for oneself what his thought processes are. The entire tract of which I include a few excerpts is wonderful reading.

This is from his introduction. He gives a reason that the method of epicycles and eccentrics has been unsatisfactory.

"... those who devised the eccentrics seem thereby in large measure to have solved the problem of the apparent motions with appropriate calculations. But meanwhile they introduced a good many ideas which apparently contradict the first principles of uniform motion. Nor could they elicit or deduce from the eccentrics the principal consideration, that is, the structure of the universe and the true symmetry of its parts. On the contrary, their experience was just like some one taking from various places hands, feet, a head, and other pieces, very well depicted, it may be, but not for the representation of a single person; since these fragments would not belong to one another at all, a monster rather than a man would be put together from them. Hence in the process of demonstration or "method", as it is called, those who employed eccentrics are found either to have omitted something essential or to have admitted something extraneous and wholly irrelevant. This would not have happened to them, had they followed sound principles. For if the hypotheses assumed by them were not false, everything which follows from their hypotheses would be confirmed beyond any doubt. "

Here he states the desire to have a unified theory of the Universe.

"In the first book I set forth the entire distribution of the spheres together with the motions which I attribute to the earth, so that this book contains, as it were, the general structure of the universe. Then in the remaining books I correlate the motions of the other planets and of all the spheres with the movement of the Earth so that I may thereby determine to what extent the motions and appearances of the other planets and spheres can be saved if they are correlated with the Earth's motions."

By “saved' in the sentence above I take this to mean seen as circular motion. It seems possible that Copernicus is attempting to”save” the Aristotelian model of the Universe that models the heavens as unchangeable spheres whose only possible motion is rotation and which carry the celestial bodes along with them. These therefore must traverse circles on these spheres. Planetary motion was not apparently circular but Copernicus finds this a flaw in models of the Heavens.""THE MOTION OF THE BEAVENLY BODIES Chapter 4 IS UNIFORM, ETERNAL, AND CIRCULAR OR COMPOUNDED OF CIRCULAR MOTIONS

I shall now recall to mind that the motion of the heavenly bodies is circular, since the motion appropriate to a sphere is rotation in a circle. By this very act the sphere expresses its form as the simplest body, wherein neither beginning nor end can be found, nor can the one be distinguished from the other, while the sphere itself traverses the same points to return upon itself."

Speaking of the irregularities in planetary motion and of nearby celestial objects such as the Sun and Moon he concludes

"We must acknowledge, nevertheless, that their motions are circular or compounded of several circles, because these nonuniformities recur regularly according to a constant law. This could not happen unless the motions were circular, since only the circle can bring back the past. Thus, for example, by a composite motion of circles the sun restores to us the inequality of days and nights as well as the is four seasons of the year. Several motions are discerned herein, because a simple heavenly body cannot be moved by a single sphere nonuniformly. For this nonuniformity would have to be caused either by an inconstancy, whether imposed from without or generated from within, in the moving force or by an alteration in the revolving body. From either alternative, however, the intellect shrinks. It is improper to conceive any such defect in objects constituted in the best order.

It stands to reason, therefore, that their uniform motions appear nonuniform to us. The cause may be either that their circles have poles different [from the earth's] or that the Earth is not at the center of the circles on which they revolve. To us who watch the course of these planets from the earth, it happens that our eye does not keep the same distance from every part of their orbits, but on account of their varying distances these bodies seem larger when nearer than when farther away (as has been proved in optics). Likewise, in equal arcs of their orbits their motions will appear unequal in equal times on account of the observer's varying distance. Hence I deem it above all necessary that we should carefully scrutinize the relation of the Earth to the heavens lest, in our desire to examine the loftiest objects, we remain ignorant of things nearest to us, and by the same error attribute to the celestial bodies what belongs to the earth."

Note also that uniform circular motion is considered to be the natural motion of the sphere - and therefore for bodies moving on them - and deviations from it , what he calls “ non uniformity “ he considers “improper to conceive” in objects “constituted in the best order” So he implicitly assumes that uniform circular motion is perfect and must therefore characterize the Divine realm of celestial spheres.

Interestingly, This reminds me of the idea of inertial motion except in the celestial realm uniform circular motion he considers to be inertial rather than linear motion. This force free natural motion for celestial objects is apparently characteristic of the Heavens as opposed to the Earth which seems disturbed by non-uniform forces.

 

[lavinia]

Here is an article on Kepler's philosophical thinking.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kepler/#TheCos

 

[PeterDonis]

Pure thought alone is a great tool for ruling out what is least likely.

The history of philosophical attempts to do this and their abject failure is strong evidence against this claim.

 

[ftr]

If it is a human activity then anything goes, just like love and war and everything for that matter. For physics, pure thought (through deduction from known concepts) is just one. And there are many philosophies as in how to attack problems and how to think about them, really mixed with art of the business derived from experience. Experimentation with ideas (using philosophy as a catalyst) coupled to shear luck can give excellent results. Combination of many techniques, And so on...

 

[A. Neumaier]

I decided to read a little of Copernicus's De Revoluionibus Orbium Coelestium to see whether philosophical bias in any way inspired his researches.

From De Revoluionibus Orbium Coelestium:

This is the nature of the discipline which deals with the universe's divine revolutions, the asters' motions, sizes, distances, risings and settings, as well as the causes of the other phenomena in the sky, and which, in short, explains its whole appearance.

Here is an article on Kepler's philosophical thinking.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kepler/#TheCos

From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kepler/ :

“Physics”, as in the traditional, Aristotelian understanding of the discipline, deals with the causes of phenomena, and for Kepler that constitutes his ultimate approach to deciding between rival hypotheses

Causes, not just agreement with experiment! This is still the main reason for the use of and interest in physics: People want to cause things they deem to be beneficial. The positivistic attitude (just one of the possible philosophies motivating physicisists - in my view a mistaken one), often taken to be the modern view of what physics is about, completely ignores this.

 

[A. Neumaier]

The Greeks having been essentially the founders of philosophical thinking have also produced a list of 147 aphorisms inscribed at Delphi.These saying represent basically a code of conduct to allow the continued orderly evolution of society some of which have been followed without intervention.

How is this related to physics?

 

[gleem]

How is this related to physics?

Not related to physics but to physicists and their fruitful discussions through regardful communication. Thus advancing the whole community.

 

[lavinia]

From De Revoluionibus Orbium Coelestium:From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kepler/ :

Causes, not just agreement with experiment! This is still the main reason for the use of and interest in physics: People want to cause things they deem to be beneficial. The positivistic attitude (just one of the possible philosophies motivating physicisists - in my view a mistaken one), often taken to be the modern view of what physics is about, completely ignores this.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Aristotle's Theory of motion. The idea of causation here though not scientific in the modern sense, shows the belief in causation.

"According to Aristotle, the Sun, Moon, planets and stars – are embedded in perfectly concentric "crystal spheres" that rotate eternally at fixed rates.
...
An unmoved mover is assumed for each sphere, including a "prime mover" for the sphere of fixed stars. The unmoved movers do not push the spheres (nor could they, being immaterial and dimensionless) but are the final cause of the spheres' motion, i.e. they explain it in a way that's similar to the explanation "the soul is moved by beauty".

The idea of unperturbed natural motion seems to go back at least to stars rotating at constant angular speed on Aristotle's crystal spheres. This motion which is undisturbed by either inner changes in the circulating bodies or by outside causes is a premise that motivates Copernicus's search to describe planetary motion as uniform circular motion. Later one has Newton/Galileo's Law of Inertia which describes unperturbed motion as linear. I wonder to what extent these two scientists were influenced by the Aristotelian line of thinking. More generally one has the idea of geodesic motion for bodies in free fall. And then again there is the principle of least action.

 

[Julius Ceasar]

The history of philosophical attempts to do this and their abject failure is strong evidence against this claim.

Reading what others have written here it would seem you're not telling the full story, a recurring theme from those with the purest view of, "shut up and calculate". History has shown where fanatical thinking has got us.

 

[martinbn]

I must say that I don't understand the examples for the positive role of philosophy, given in this thread or in the paper. For instance general relativity. In my opinion what was important was a clear physics problem, find a relativistic theory of gravity with Newton's gravity as a limit, and a clear physical principle (the equivalence principle). What played a positive role was the work of Minkowski, the geometers from Riemann to Levi-Civita and Ricci, the collaboration with Grossman, and the competition/discussions with Hilbert. None of this is philosophy. The philosophical parts like the Mach principle or the hole argument seem to me that held Einstein back. In many texts they are not even mentioned. The same is true for the development of the theory. Problem solving was what made progress possible. The philosophical musings were never productive.

In fact general relativity is a good example where philosophy is not needed and was an obstacle. This is also true when it comes to learning the theory.

 

[Julius Ceasar]

I think philosophy wants to work with physics but physics does not want to work with philosophy, perhaps physics has had a few too many bad experiences and that's all it takes. I think banning bad science is a good idea but be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[ftr]

I must say that I don't understand the examples for the positive role of philosophy, given in this thread or in the paper. For instance general relativity. In my opinion what was important was a clear physics problem, find a relativistic theory of gravity with Newton's gravity as a limit, and a clear physical principle (the equivalence principle). What played a positive role was the work of Minkowski, the geometers from Riemann to Levi-Civita and Ricci, the collaboration with Grossman, and the competition/discussions with Hilbert. None of this is philosophy. The philosophical parts like the Mach principle or the hole argument seem to me that held Einstein back. In many texts they are not even mentioned. The same is true for the development of the theory. Problem solving was what made progress possible. The philosophical musings were never productive.

In fact general relativity is a good example where philosophy is not needed and was an obstacle. This is also true when it comes to learning the theory.

Suppose we guess from present evidence that reality is made of math so to speak and suppose a correct theory based on that was developed. Would you say any philosophy was involed or not?

 

[martinbn]

Suppose we guess from present evidence that reality is made of math so to speak and suppose a correct theory based on that was developed. Would you say any philosophy was involed or not?

It is hard for me to say what is involved and what not, because as written it makes little to no sense to me.

 

[ftr]

It is hard for me to say what is involved and what not, because as written it makes little to no sense to me.

Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else.

 

[PeroK]

Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math. IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else?

This exemplifies the problem, as far as I see it. Your question is impossible for me to discuss in any terms that I have confidence make any sense. I cannot process that question using mathematical knowldege; and I cannot process that question using my knowldege of physics. I cannot process that question at all.

You tell me that there are people called "philosophers" who can and do discuss such questions. I say good luck to them. This doesn't make me a fanatic; only someone who is honest about the questions that I can comprehend.

Then you tell me that these people, through deliberations of such questions, have come to the conclusion that my thinking on mathematics and physics is sub-optimal. In other words, if I could open my mind to such questions I would gain new insight into mathematics and physics.

Do I, therefore, dedicate a certain amount of study time to philosophy? Unfortunately, in the past when I have tried to read philosophy I get the same feeling: how does anyone decide whether any of this is true or false? From the Greeks to Popper, I get the same uneasiness. How can anyone be sure about any of this?

In conclusion, I respectfully decline the offer to debate what appear to me to be intractable questions.

 

[martinbn]

Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else.

Same answer as before. If I don't know what any of this means, how could I tell you anything about it!

 

[ftr]

You tell me that there are people called "philosophers" who can and do discuss such questions.

Dr. Tegmark is a hardcore scientist heading the FQXI organization which includes top physicists. Also, I wasn't after a debate I just wanted to sample opinions about what constitute philosophy vs deduction from known concepts. There are many well known physicists in the past and today who also talk "philosophy" as is time real or not ... etc. Actually FQXI has a contest that will delve in these questions among many other questions relating physics and philosophy relation with highly reputable scientists participating.

 

[PeroK]

Dr. Tegmark is a hardcore scientist heading the FQXI organization which includes top physicists. Also, I wasn't after a debate I just wanted to sample opinions about what constitute philosophy vs deduction from known concepts. There are many well known physicists in the past and today who also talk "philosophy" as is time real or not ... etc. Actually FQXI has a contest that will delve in these questions among many other questions relating physics and philosophy relation with highly reputable scientists participating.

Those look like fairly concrete questions to me. Does Goedel's theorem have implications for physics is a perfectly reasonable question.

Having found out a bit about Max Tegmark, I wonder whether the examples you give are actually questions he has considered. If you're going to use his name, I suggest you quote him accurately.

 

[ftr]

Those look like fairly concrete questions to me. Does Goedel's theorem have implications for physics is a perfectly reasonable question.

The theorem is usually talked about in the context of the mathematical universe hypothesis and and not in mathematical physics of the standard theories.

I suggest you quote him accurately.

How/where did I quote him inaccurately.

 

[PeterDonis]

Reading what others have written here it would seem you're not telling the full story

Please clarify; I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a simple response to your simple (and wrong) claim.

History has shown where fanatical thinking has got us.

If anyone in this thread is exhibiting "fanatical thinking", it is you, with your claims about what "pure thought" can accomplish.

 

[PeroK]

How/where did I quote him inaccurately.

Dr Tegmark has conjectured that the universe is made of math IF a theory that proved that is found, would the conjecture be a philosophy or something else.

I'd like to see some evidence of what he did say.

 

[PeterDonis]

Dr. Tegmark is a hardcore scientist heading the FQXI organization which includes top physicists.

Arguments from authority are invalid. Anyone who claims to be a champion of philosophy should certainly know this.

 

[PeterDonis]

How/where did I quote him inaccurately.

You didn't quote him at all. That's the problem.

 

[ftr]

Also, I wasn't after a debate I just wanted to sample opinions about what constitute philosophy vs deduction from known concepts.

The above was my question, I brought up MUH ( which I support but did not want to debate) as an example to be looked at in light of my question. Nothing important about Dr. Tegmark per se, only he and others to heavily engage in speculations/conjectures/"philosophies" in physics in many of the contests and articles/blogs in that site. All that was a response to clarify

You tell me that there are people called "philosophers" who can and do discuss such questions.

The site even awards a whopping 1.8 mill for bizarre questions like "Consciousness in the Physical World"

 

[julcab12]

Academic philosophers are no longer the guys who offers insight in the fields of experimental physics and astrophysics nowadays. But its not for anyone to decide whether it is useful in discoveries of science. Or such discoveries are mere coincidence, accident of thoughts or product of some experiments. Of course anyone can argue that science/experimenter can eventually catches up with it somewhere in the nooks and crannies of experiments waiting to be revealed. Some guys are just ahead and it doesn't matter really if its wrong or not. Science will pick up the good bits later on.

"A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

Albert Einstein, Letter to Robert Thornton, 1944

"Philosophy and science share the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, and rigorous argumentation. Yet philosophers can operate these tools with degrees of thoroughness, freedom, and theoretical abstraction that practicing researchers often cannot afford in their daily activities."

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-eighteen-accidental-scientific-discoveries-changed-the-world

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/3948

 

[lavinia]

Here is a Lecture given my Max Planck on the Principle of Least Action.

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/013/02/0198-0207

In it he says

"As long as physical science exists, the highest goal to which it aspires is the solution of the problem of embracing all natural phenomena, observed and still to be observed, in one simple principle which will allow all past and, especially, future occurrences to be calculated...

Among the more or less general laws, the discovery of which characterize the development of physical science during the last century, the principle of Least Action is at present certainly one which, by its form and comprehensiveness, may be said to have approached most closely to the ideal aim of theoretical inquiry.

...

... it must be borne in mind that the strong conviction of the existence of a close relation between natural laws and a higher will has provided the basis for the discovery of the principle of least action. Provided, of course, that such a belief is not confined within too narrow limits, it certainly does not admit of proof, but, on the other hand, it can never be disproved, for then one could ultimately ascribe any contradiction to an incomplete formulation."

Planck says that Leibniz first enunciated the principle of least action as a reformulation of Newton's laws. He claims that at that time the principle had little practical application and for a long time was viewed as a mathematical curiosity. So it would seem that the Principle was not developed for the purpose of problem solving.

However, Leibniz was certainly looking for a general principle of the Universe.

For instance, Planck says "In this connection mention may certainly be made of Leibniz’s theorem, which sets forth fundamentally that of all the worlds that may be created, the actual world is that which contains, besides the unavoidable evil, the maximum good. This theorem is none other than a variations principle, and is, indeed, of the same form as the later principle of least action. The unavoidable combination of good and evil corresponds to the given conditions, and it is clear that all the characteristics of the actual world may be derived from the theorem, even to the details, provided that, on the one hand the standard for the quantity of good, and on the other hand the given conditions, be rigidly defined along mathematical lines..."

One is reminded again of the belief in causation that is found in Aristotle, Copernicus and Kepler. See my posts above for more detail.

 

[Julius Ceasar]

The history of philosophical attempts to do this and their abject failure is strong evidence against this claim.

Please clarify; I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a simple response to your simple (and wrong) claim.

The disdain for philosophy is strong, even when others supply papers called, "physicists are philosophers too" this disdain draws a curtain on what i am talking about. I still don't think i could get something from nothing and as a guide i think this saves far more time than it ever wastes.

 

[PeterDonis]

The disdain for philosophy is strong, even when others supply papers called, "physicists are philosophers too" this disdain draws a curtain on what i am talking about. I still don't think i could get something from nothing and as a guide i think this saves far more time than it ever wastes.

You keep talking in generalities when I have rebutted a specific claim you made; you have said nothing whatever to address my specific rebuttal. If you want a reason why "disdain for philosophy is strong", one such reason is that philosophers far too often do that.

 

[Julius Ceasar]

I am being specific about how philosophy helps me, perhaps it could help someone find a better explanation for the data by realizing the impossible. MWI comes to mind.
Pure thought is only a starting point for me, evidence always has the final say.

 

[gleem]

A few thoughts:

In the statement " What discoveries have been produced by philosophy?" it seems that some liken philosophy to mathematics in the way that mathematics contributes to the advancement of physics. Philosophy is not a tool. It would seem it would be better to say that it is a process to produce a useful attitude or outlook for advancing one activities. Perhaps it can make doing physics easier or give it a more productive direction.

----

Rovelli noted in his lecture that Einstein valued the work of Schopenhauer. AFAIK Schopenhauer did little if any work relevant to physics. So what did Einstein obtain from him. Nothing? Einstein was helped however in his scientific work by Mach and Hume..

in 1929 Heisenberg spoke with Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore about science and Indian philosophy coming away with ideas that were a great help. What ideas? Heisenberg was also influence by Hume and Kant.

----

In the early years of physics into the mid 20 ^th century it would seem philosophy was part and parcel of a physicist's education. Is the american pragmatism that Rovelli refers to and which may have appeared during (after) WWII due to the urgency of the Manhattan and other projects resulted in the imperative "shut up and calculate" . Or would the vitalization of physics research due to government sponsorship in the 50 and 60's be more responsible for the quip thus kicking philosophical interest to the curb? Interestingly after the government became disillusioned by the dearth of usable results from pure research the government money became scarce. However interest in philosophy began a rebirth although it was below the horizon. In the two decades of " shut up and calculate" era many new physicists were educated eschewing philosophical thought and the old guard being wary of such because of the focus on creating usable ideas did not openly support it.

Those who believe that philosophy in physics is dead need not concern themselves so why are some trying to cut the throat of a corpse as the saying goes, unless they believe in ghosts.

 

[AlexCaledin]

Feynman's philosophy seems perfect, doesn't it?

What does exist? - Our knowledge, as a tiny part of Nature's objective growing knowledge.

How does Nature work, technically? - No need to ask, for it may well be the great Game of some "great gods".