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

[Raymond]

Anti dark energy is just normal gravity.

Then they would cancel each other out but they don't.

Doesn't that depend on their distributions?

[Atla]

Anti dark energy is just normal gravity.

Then they would cancel each other out but they don't.

Doesn't that depend on their distributions?

No

[intentes_pupil]

[...] Are we finally approaching the end of physics, when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality?

The way I understand physics, it's a constant process of creating models that describe (and allows us to predict) reality, falsify them, and accept them till new observations challenge the whole theory as such.

Therefore, given the nature of "doing physics/science" itself, it cannot be said that physics' goal is to UNDERSTAND the nature of reality but DESCRIBE it in a way that we can PREDICT the future.

Models might be generated that allow us to better predict the future, but the nature of reality is for Philosophers to deal with.

We cannot predict what future observations will look like and what parts of our models will challenge, being possible to open whole new branches of Physics as it happened with relativity.

So my answer is no. I don't think any physicist will ever accept either having understood the whole nature of reality (because that's Philosophy's job) nor having found a perfect model (because that would mean you are not open to change and therefore you are not a physicist anymore).

[Raymond]

"So my answer is no. I don't think any physicist will ever accept either having understood the whole nature of reality (because that's Philosophy's job) nor having found a perfect model (because that would mean you are not open to change and therefore you are not a physicist anymore)"

I don't agree with this. Is the nature of reality philosophy, like ontology or metaphysics? Aren't physics, ontology, and metaphysicss closely connected, overlapping, and maybe sometimes indistinguishable? If you have found a perfect fundamental model (the goal of every physist?), why should you wanna change it? In my mind I have found one. Well, almost. But the general outcome for the model seems to be not further reducible. I think that that's the goal for every physicist. You can be open to change but always trying to falsify, like sir Karl Popper demands, has its limits.

And why should theories always be about prediction? Theories or models can be used for understanding as well. The models describe reality but can also be used to understand.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, I didn't say that the objective story (which I have) is a sine qua non for everyone. The objective story is subjective, and claiming something is objectively true is a human need.

You claim objectivity, and then you state that "claiming something is objectively true is a human need". No, it isn't. It's a factual claim that cannot be proven, and so, "need" or not, it is incorrect and misleading to make such a claim. Those who claim objectivity for their views are simply trying to gain the authority of objectivity to back up their claims. Maybe that's because those claims are unfounded?

Who says I claim authority? I just think my view is true objectively. What's wrong with that?

No-one says you claim authority. I said you seek “to gain the authority of objectivity” for your view(s), which is not the same thing.

What's wrong with claiming your view "is true objectively"? It's an unjustifiable claim, that's what's wrong. Unless...

...I've had this discussion many times, and it often ends up with my correspondent admitting that by "objective" they mean "very likely" or something similar. Is this what you mean by "objective"?

For myself, "objective" only has a use to describe something that accurately corresponds with that which actually is, regardless of our opinions, beliefs, etc. Anything less than that is just an intellectual hypothesis diluted to the point that its meaning is lost. If this is not what you meant, then I have misunderstood you.

Over to you?

[Raymond]

"No-one says you claim authority. I said you seek “to gain the authority of objectivity” for your view(s), which is not the same thing."

I don't think objectivity has any authority. Not over me, nor over others.

"I've had this discussion many times, and it often ends up with my correspondent admitting that by "objective" they mean "very likely" or something similar. Is this what you mean by "objective"?"

That's not what I mean. I mean that your worldview, reality, cosmology, theology, etc. is true and existing still if you are not there anymore to believe in it or have opinions about it. I can stop believing in it tomorrow, but the reality I believe in today will still be a reality then, independent what I believe about it or what opinion I have about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

"...Is this what you mean by "objective"?"

That's not what I mean. I mean that your worldview, reality, cosmology, theology, etc. is true and existing still if you are not there anymore to believe in it or have opinions about it. I can stop believing in it tomorrow, but the reality I believe in today will still be a reality then, independent what I believe about it or what opinion I have about it.

So you indulge a personal fantasy of what actually is? That's OK, I suppose, if a bit pointless. After all, what's the point of asserting the correctness of something that no human can verify or falsify?

But you seem to assume that your fantasy is valid, and that you really and actually do have access to Objective Reality, at least enough to be able to describe certain aspects of it with clarity and authority. You (and all other humans) do not have direct access to Objective Reality; any views we might have about it are therefore fantasy.

That's the trap of Objective Reality: we can start to think that we know - Objectively - something about it, other than its existence. That way madness lies, as they say.

[Raymond]

"So you indulge a personal fantasy of what actually is?"

Who says it's a personal fantasy? I think the cosmology I hold for objectively true has many implications which can be actually experimentally addressed. If you consider all life in the universe as a copy of heavenly life you can even come to know all gods...

[Raymond]

"That's the trap of Objective Reality: we can start to think that we know - Objectively - something about it, other than its existence. That way madness lies, as they say. "

That's the trap of thinking it exists in the first place. At least, one and only for all. And indeed, one man's sanity is other's madness. There is no objective way out...

So all there's left to do is stick to our stories and not to take them too seriously. Fundamentalism lurks in every corner, in many guises... Maybe even I am one!

[Pattern-chaser]

That's the trap of Objective Reality: we can start to think that we know - Objectively - something about it, other than its existence. That way madness lies, as they say.

That's the trap of thinking it exists in the first place. At least, one and only for all. And indeed, one man's sanity is other's madness. There is no objective way out...

So all there's left to do is stick to our stories and not to take them too seriously. Fundamentalism lurks in every corner, in many guises... Maybe even I am one!

This topic asks whether we are "finally approaching the end of physics". In that context, it seems strange that you recommend that we "stick to our stories and not to take them too seriously". That doesn't seem to gel with our usual understanding of what physics is, and what it does. Physics, and science, strive to develop hypotheses and theories that describe the world that our senses and perception show us. It is difficult to relate this to "stories", yes?

[Raymond]

But physics is a narrative just like religion is. The story tells that there are means to proof things, by experiment, and tells us what the reality it proves things of is about. If we adopt that story I think we have reached the end on the fundamental level (at least, for me), but the things to discover on the emergent aspect have only begin to surface and looking around in the world of physics or science in general confirms this suspicion. Scientific knowledge grows exponentially, the cause being the scientific "imperative" to always try to gain knowledge. I dunno if that's a good thing. This imperative translates in a notion of progress that includes literal growth, be it in economy or discovery. Deeper, larger, faster, slower, more, higher, further, harder, closer, thinner, thicker, greater, smaller, etcetera, and I don't think that's real progress.

[Raymond]

"That doesn't seem to gel with our usual understanding of what physics is, and what it does. Physics, and science, strive to develop hypotheses and theories that describe the world that our senses and perception show us. It is difficult to relate this to "stories", yes?"

The story in this case is that "physics, and science, strive to develop hypotheses and theories that describe the world that our senses and perception show us." That's the story that's propagated and taught by state institutions like the story of God once was, and against which the Enlightenment revolted to free people from the suffocating grip it had. Which was a welcome revolte, but it got a frip comparable with the the God idea. Science has taken over God. State divorced from God and choose Science as its new partner.

[Pattern-chaser]

But physics is a narrative just like religion is. The story tells that there are means to proof things, by experiment, and tells us what the reality it proves things of is about. If we adopt that story I think we have reached the end on the fundamental level (at least, for me)...

I think the story tells us that there are NO "means to prove things" (in science, of which physics is a core component), but only means to disprove them if they're wrong. I don't think it tells us "what the reality it proves things of is about" either, although it does offer some helpful descriptions of our discoveries. It is difficult to see how this story amounts to the end of physics having already happened.

As an example, wave-particle duality is a clear indication that we are missing at least one fundamental discovery that would explain this apparent duality of behaviour. I'm quite sure there are other areas within science and physics that await new discoveries too. Can "the end" have come, when such obvious examples say otherwise?

[Raymond]

But physics is a narrative just like religion is. The story tells that there are means to proof things, by experiment, and tells us what the reality it proves things of is about. If we adopt that story I think we have reached the end on the fundamental level (at least, for me)...

I think the story tells us that there are NO "means to prove things" (in science, of which physics is a core component), but only means to disprove them if they're wrong. I don't think it tells us "what the reality it proves things of is about" either, although it does offer some helpful descriptions of our discoveries. It is difficult to see how this story amounts to the end of physics having already happened.

As an example, wave-particle duality is a clear indication that we are missing at least one fundamental discovery that would explain this apparent duality of behaviour. I'm quite sure there are other areas within science and physics that await new discoveries too. Can "the end" have come, when such obvious examples say otherwise?

Seems you take the Popperian stand. But why always try to falsify? After enough scrutinizing, shouldn't one be able to say "This is it" finally?

Regarding QM, I think hidden variables offer a nice explanation of the wave-particle dichotomy. You can look at particles classically, with the exception that they can jump instantaneously within the confines of the wavefunction, which again is a temporal cross section of all histories between which a particle (an almost point-like object, but not quite) constantly and instantaneously "hops". Which I can imagine. The interaction between particles can be envisioned as all these real paths being coupled to virtual particles in infinite ways simultaneously. Well, not infinite, but a lot. The particles are not really point-like and this virtue sets a limit on the number of intermediate states represented by Feynman diagrams (which makes renormalization superfluous.

One can even think of hidden variables as space itself. There are thought experiments to find out if hidden variables are a reality or a fantasy. They are very difficult to perform though. Untill now you can assume them to be true because they give the same experimentally verifiable results as the standard interpretation of QM.

[Raymond]

So can the end have come? Yes!