Does anybody believe in Physics?

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
And if this incredibly unlikely scenario isn't a matter of a bit more experimentation, then it's much more likely that one or both of the theories that are in contention with each other are incapable of being proven or disproved, and thus not scientific to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, Bohm's interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics both yield exactly the same algorithm for predicting probabilities of quantum events. They are indistinguishable from an experimental standpoint. So this is one example. However, I do not know how much thought/effort professional physicists put into the question of which one is "correct." My impression from discussions with some physicists is that they typically reject Bohm's interpretation, perhaps because it came second chronologically and adds nothing new to the existing theory.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
You beg the question

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Begging the Question
( petitio principii )
Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

Examples:

(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

Proof:

Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we
must already agree that the conclusion is true.

References:

Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33

[/ QUOTE ]

So now that you have some idea of what "begging the question is", here's what "Occam's Razor" is:

[ QUOTE ]


Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The questions I pose about science have to do with being a rational believer, not experimentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then they're not scientific questions, they're philosophical ones. It's occasionally worthwhile to amuse oneself with the "Dude, what if our whole world was just a giant video game?" questions, but they are simply not scientific. They're philosphical.

[PairTheBoard]

Quoted by Jodan O.
PTB -
"Yet in actual reality, all the scientific theories have absolutely nothing to do with what's really going on."

Jordan O. -
"And thus the "actual reality" is completely meaningless, since we can't in any way see it or experience it - it's totally pointless to talk about."

Getting away from the Matrix and back to the world as we know it, Maybe we do exerience it. Maybe when you are awestruck by the beauty of a sunset you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself giddy in love you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself risking your own life to save that of a friend you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself changed forever by the death of a loved one you Are experiencing it. Maybe there are Qualities to Reality that cannot be Quantified and are thus out of the reach of science but not out of our experiential reach. Just because they are useless to science doesn't mean they are useless nor pointless to talk about.

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting away from the Matrix and back to the world as we know it, Maybe we do exerience it. Maybe when you are awestruck by the beauty of a sunset you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself giddy in love you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself risking your own life to save that of a friend you Are experiencing it. Maybe when you find yourself changed forever by the death of a loved one you Are experiencing it. Maybe there are Qualities to Reality that cannot be Quantified and are thus out of the reach of science but not out of our experiential reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't test it, then it's pointless to talk about scientifically. I'm genuinely baffled at what about that simple concept is so hard to understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because they are useless to science doesn't mean they are useless nor pointless to talk about.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a scientific standpoint they are most certainly useless and pointless to talk about. They might be worth something to you from a philosophical or emotional viewpoint, and that's fine, whatever blows your hair back; it's just not science.

[Bodhi]

Your going to make me get out my undergrad notes!

First example: Heisenberg vs. Schroedinger

The realist notion of theoretical equivalence is that observational equivalence between theories means they're the same theory (this move is obligatory, otherwise empirical equivalence undermines realism).

Now, the two theories were proved to be mathematically identical, but is that sufficient for symantic identity or structural isomorphism? I think not.

Another example:

The Brans-Dicke 'scalor tensor' theory of gravitation (1961). In general relativity you have a tensor field GUV, and a value for it at every point of space-time. In scalor-tensor theory you have a tensor field plus a scalor field. Brans-Dicke thought they oculd satisfy Mach's principle by adding the scalor field, and then get Newton's gravitational constant G. But the scalor field is not a constant, and so the value of G is not constant with the expansion of the universe. A numerical coefficient 'omega' was needed to couple the tensor field to the scalor field, but Brans-Dicke left its value open.
So here we have two emprically adequate theories, general relativity and the Brans-Dicke theory; the latter even satisfied Mach's principle, and showed how G can change. The Brans-Dicke theory was abandonned, for empirical equivalency was just that (no one cared to fund further research).

---from my notes for Philosophy of Science, Fall 2000 taught by T.A. Ryckman at UC Berkeley.

[Bodhi]

I am so, so sick of you're saying the same thing over and over and over. Anyone says a peep about epistemology and you're the kid at the front of the class who says 'But it's not science! It's not proveable!' So be quiet for a moment and go back over this whole thread and see if anyone said otherwise.

God forbid, I don't know why someone with a PHD in physics would ever think epistemology had something to do with physics, at least my f*cking professor must not have realized that he couldn't prove constructive empiricism, or instrumentalism. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, the two theories were proved to be mathematically identical, but is that sufficient for symantic identity or structural isomorphism? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you find an area where the two theories predict a different outcome and test that outcome. If theory A's prediction is correct, then it would seem that theory A is the more accurate of the two. If theory B's prediction is correct, then vice versa. If you can't find any area where the two theories predict something different, then theyre equivalent.

The funniest thing is you're getting into a heated debate about the nature of science and bringing out notes for which you paid thousands and thousands of dollars, and all science is (or ever was or ever will be) is common sense with the volume turned up.

But hey, what do I know? You used the word 'isomorphism'.

[Triumph36]

You really have no idea what Bodhi is talking about. It seems as though you've never considered epistomology as relevant at all. Scientific questions have become philosophical questions with the development of quantum mechanics. Consequently, how we know anything comes into question. This isn't 'Matrix'-style speculation like 'what if everything we know is true is a lie' or Hume-style skepticism, but it challenges the absurd and unproveable concept of science being 'common sense with the volume turned up.'

[Jordan Olsommer]

PairTheBoard said "what if we live in a Matrix - then science wouldn't be describing anything about the true nature of the universe!" I replied to this by saying that on the contrary, science doesn't make any claim about describing the "true nature of the universe", but rather the phenomena we can see. Then you chimed in by saying that epistemological issues regarding the laws of physics are science. I said they were not. Then you said you couldn't take seriously anyone who said proveability was a necessary criterion for scientific inquiry (which pretty much means you can't take any scientist on the planet seriously).

So I guess it technically qualifies as "saying the same thing over and over" when people spout different braindead opinions and I repeat "You're wrong" [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

You really have no idea what Bodhi is talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, right off the bat with the fallacy - I like where this is headed.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems as though you've never considered epistomology as relevant at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

To science it's not. Science is the evolution of the process of observation, experiment, and refactoring - considering the nature of what we know is philosophy's department, not science. Please read the excellent introduction of Bertrand Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy" where he explains how philosophy is essentially a bridge between science and religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific questions have become philosophical questions with the development of quantum mechanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophical questions can be (and for the most part are) based on scientific questions, but that does not in any way imply that philosophical questions are scientific. Particles don't give a rip what you think about what they mean in the grand scheme of things, or what they reveal about the nature of knowledge; they behave in certain ways when you mash them together in certain ways, and the job of science is to figure out what framework explains their behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, how we know anything comes into question.

[/ QUOTE ]

...to philosophers. Not to scientists, because that's a question that cannot be tested. Or maybe there's some other reason why the question of "how we know anything" hasnt gotten any significant progress as far as an answer in the past 2,000+ years [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't 'Matrix'-style speculation like 'what if everything we know is true is a lie' or Hume-style skepticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 'what if everything we know is true is a lie' type skepticism? Funny, because that's what I always thought epistemology was ('how do we know something is true or not?'). And even funnier because that's exactly what you said it was in the sentence right before this one.