Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Quotidian]

Where does all this leave us? This started out as a thread about the limits of Science, and it led to a discussion about particles. Does the entire edifice of Science rest on the concept of particles?

I am sure there's no 'ultimate thing'. Big Science can pursue the ultimate particle for the rest of time, and I'm sure they'll never come to an end.

(I wrote a long entry here, and then due to the browser bug with Safari on the iMac, which I have reported, it was lost. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend The Tao of Physics by Frithjof Capra.)

[Steve3007]

So, there must be something distinctly different about particle physics (or more generally, physics) that causes some people to complain that the object of its study does not exist.

The fact that they can't be directly perceived so they have to be understood by analogy with things that can.

[Quotidian]

Read the sign on the door. Some of us actually study philosophy, too. Hrmmph.

[Steve3007]

Sorry Quotidian. Was your complaint that my comment was not philosophy? If so, I apologize and withdraw it. Or was it that it was too obvious? Or that it was perceived as a rejection of philosophy?

[Janus D Strange]

Forget Godel, Quantum physics has completely demolished the reliance on our logic as a universal property of the cosmos. It's science itself which tells that not only does logic have limits but our senses constantly decieve us in more ways then we can imagine. As we get further and further from daily human experiance, our logic breaks down and the world stops making sense. Thus, science is the only means we have by which we can extend our senses and propel our minds to places they otherwise could not go.

The problem I see with this statement is that, if we forget logic, how will we know what is entailed in the light of QM, that is, what its results entitle us to believe? Sounds like we're headed for Chaos! A place where all ideas and beliefs break down.

[Quotidian]

Hey nothing personal. Don't worry about it.

The question of the limits of science is really a metaphysical question. As soon as you stop doing experimental science and making observations and start thinking, 'what does this mean?' - in the sense that Einstein and Bohr were doing in that photo that Seeds provided - you're doing metaphysics.

There has been a big push in modern philosophy to get rid of anything metaphysical whatsoever. The point about QM is that it has imposed the requirement to think about metaphysics on us again. (Etienne Gilson: 'Philosophy always buries its undertakers'.)

I had written a post about that point but the Safari Browser Bug destroyed it and I have to go and do other things now.

Incidentally I am not nearly so sceptical as Xris about the general outlines of modern physics and cosmology. I agree it has enormous gaps and unanswered questions, but I don't think that fringe physicists like - what was his name? - understand it any better, and besides in some major ways, I am sure the science has it right. But, as I said, I am interested in philosophy. The difference between science and philosophy is a difference that is really only intelligible to philosophers- because it's a philosophical difference.

The problem I see with this statement is that, if we forget logic, how will we know what is entailed in the light of QM, that is, what its results entitle us to believe?

I agree with that, but at the same time, I think recent science has pushed beyond logic. The strangeness of quantum mechanics seems to undermine or contradict basic logical laws, like the law of the excluded middle.

However I don't think this nullifies logic, but it simply shows that logic has its limits, which, I think I am correct in saying, was already anticipated by Kant in his Antinomies of Reason.

[Steve3007]

I agree with that, but at the same time, I think recent science has pushed beyond logic. The strangeness of quantum mechanics seems to undermine or contradict basic logical laws, like the law of the excluded middle.

I don't think it has/does. How does it violate the law of the excluded middle? (Answer later, when you've done other things.)

[Xris]

http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/04/ ... de-is-god/

I post this and request you examine it with consideration before you post. Then examine the response from those who have not questioned his logic but his audacity. I chose this particular link because of their response.

[A Poster He or I]

The view that QM violates the law of the excluded middle comes from projecting upon it an interpretive framework that blatantly assumes standard realist causality, the very thing that QM implicates.

When philosophizing constitutes shoving experience into predefined boxes rather than imagining new orientations to illuminate potentially unknown relationships in reality, then philosophy's conservatism becomes an obstacle to any constructive potential.

[Quotidian]

Well, I wanted to agree with Janus that we can't 'forget logic' even though in some respects, some of the discoveries of recent science seem impossible to understand in the light of classical logic. But that does get into some very tricky areas of formal logic and physics, and I probably don't have either the skills or the time to pursue the idea in any detail.

Just saw Poster's contribution. Question for Poster: do you regard the basic logical laws as 'predefined boxes'? Is that what you would say constitutes philosophy' 'conservatism'?

-- Updated December 4th, 2012, 9:25 am to add the following --

For heaven's sake Xris - headlines in 'the Libertarian News' that you linked to: "What A Real Investigation Into 9/11 Would Look Like"; "Questioning Einstein – The Speed of Gravity"; "Does The Earth Circle The Sun? The Real Answer May Surprise You".

I am an advocate for alternative metaphysical views, but I regard that site as the extreme fringe. Don't worry, I won't bother you any further.

[A Poster He or I]

Philosophy per se has no predefined boxes. Those exist in the minds of those who wield philosophy. Conservativism is a relative judgement, meaning the context of the discussion is necessary to its meaning. QM and the law of the excluded middle is the context. You can take it from there.

[Vick]

I think science is as limited as the universe - the longer human race will survive the more we'll understand. Aka it will absolutely advance with no limitations and maybe to a point where men will learn all its secrets.

[Xris]

Well, I wanted to agree with Janus that we can't 'forget logic' even though in some respects, some of the discoveries of recent science seem impossible to understand in the light of classical logic. But that does get into some very tricky areas of formal logic and physics, and I probably don't have either the skills or the time to pursue the idea in any detail.

Just saw Poster's contribution. Question for Poster: do you regard the basic logical laws as 'predefined boxes'? Is that what you would say constitutes philosophy' 'conservatism'?

-- Updated December 4th, 2012, 9:25 am to add the following --

For heaven's sake Xris - headlines in 'the Libertarian News' that you linked to: "What A Real Investigation Into 9/11 Would Look Like"; "Questioning Einstein – The Speed of Gravity"; "Does The Earth Circle The Sun? The Real Answer May Surprise You".

I am an advocate for alternative metaphysical views, but I regard that site as the extreme fringe. Don't worry, I won't bother you any further.

I chose the sight on purpose if you might have noticed. The link they where responding to was the object of my post. It was as much about how people who are closed minded react to such outrageous novel ideas more than the original link. I did warn you but you appear to have ignored my warning. Did you watch it?

-- Updated Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:39 pm to add the following --

I think science is as limited as the universe - the longer human race will survive the more we'll understand. Aka it will absolutely advance with no limitations and maybe to a point where men will learn all its secrets.

I believe we are capable of understanding more than we have up til now. We just have to accept that on occassions we might have something essentially wrong. It might be painful and we might find the alternatives, we examine, are just as wrong but we need to understand that illogical consequences need examination.

[Vick]

Oh I didn't mean to imply we won't have "bumps" on the road but ultimately, I believe science-collective genius- will get there. There's absolutely no doubt we'll make mistakes and lots of them but that's how you reach the truth, proving or disproving theories.

[Teh]

(Nested quote removed.)

I chose the sight on purpose if you might have noticed. The link they where responding to was the object of my post. It was as much about how people who are closed minded react to such outrageous novel ideas more than the original link. I did warn you but you appear to have ignored my warning. Did you watch it?

-- Updated Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:39 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

I believe we are capable of understanding more than we have up til now. We just have to accept that on occassions we might have something essentially wrong. It might be painful and we might find the alternatives, we examine, are just as wrong but we need to understand that illogical consequences need examination.

Previously I asked the question of "Xris" : " If it looks like an electron, behaves like an electron, has the same charge, mass and spin as an electron and obeys the Pauli exclusion principle, but it is not an electron, what is it?"

He/she refuses to answer all such direct questions, but I'll give it one last try:

"If the box is labelled "frogs", weighs the same as frogs, jumps around as if it contained frogs, emitted croaking sounds like frogs, and came with instructions like, "keep damp", "feed with flies", would you be "mad as a box of frogs" to deny there were frogs in the box - or is it just "EM" energy making up 95% of an unspecified quantity?