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

[Pattern-chaser]

Seems you take the Popperian stand. But why always try to falsify?

I agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented on.

After enough scrutinizing, shouldn't one be able to say "This is it" finally?

Is 0.97 equal to 1?

[Raymond]

Seems you take the Popperian stand. But why always try to falsify?

I agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented on.

After enough scrutinizing, shouldn't one be able to say "This is it" finally?

Is 0.97 equal to 1?

"Is 0.97 equal to 1?"

One drop of water plus one drop of water gives one drop of water. So we can say 0.97 equals 1. If 1 is the truth we can know 1. And 0.97.

[Raymond]

Seems you take the Popperian stand. But why always try to falsify?

I agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented

You really think science proceeds Popperian? I don't think that progress proceeds like that.

[Pattern-chaser]

So we can say 0.97 equals 1.

Then physics has surely reached its end.

[Raymond]

So we can say 0.97 equals 1.

Then physics has surely reached its end.

Haha! The final formula: 1=0.97...

[intentes_pupil]

[...]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.
[...]

It is not about willing to change the model. It is about the humbleness principle to be open for contradictions, given the observations, and allow to modify or expand the model. It is the very fact of accepting (or at least starting from the assumption) that you don't know everything, the key point to differentiate physics from dogmatism.

If someone finds a model and claims to have found the definitive knowledge, that person might be a saint, a guru, the pope; but this person is not a physicist.

I am interested in your idea of falsifying having it's limits. Could you develop more on that?

KR

[Raymond]

[...]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.
[...]

It is not about willing to change the model. It is about the humbleness principle to be open for contradictions, given the observations, and allow to modify or expand the model. It is the very fact of accepting (or at least starting from the assumption) that you don't know everything, the key point to differentiate physics from dogmatism.

If someone finds a model and claims to have found the definitive knowledge, that person might be a saint, a guru, the pope; but this person is not a physicist.

I am interested in your idea of falsifying having it's limits. Could you develop more on that?

KR

Yes, I understand the feeling of humbleness but I don't think this has to be connected with limiting our knowledge. If you have a humble approach to nature I can see no reason why nature won't show herself. Why shouldn't you be a true physicist if you consider your fundamental theory or model as true. Feynman said he wouldn't be surprised that the final fundaments wouldn't be math but a simple thing (he differed from Einstein who said you have to be able to explain your theory to a 6 year old, while he said that anyone claiming to understand quantum physics hasn't understood it; or don't they differ? I think you can explain qm very well to a 6 year old, maybe even the best). Is considering your theory or model as fundamentally true a sign of not being a physicist? There is soooo much more than fundamental laws or structures. I think it might even be a sign of not being a true physicist if you don't wanna know the fundamentals of nature, or claiming you found them. If it really is reasonable, after scrutinizing, criticizing, refining, falsifying, etc. Why not? It even gives a feeling of awe and maybe even more humble.

[intentes_pupil]

[...] Why shouldn't you be a true physicist if you consider your fundamental theory or model as true. [...]

If you believe you reached the limits of what can be known and that to be true, there is no room for new knowledge. The very first time some observation happen to challenge your so called truth you have two options:
1. Accept you had not reached the limits of physics (knowledge) and expand your knowledge --> this is what science is about.
2. Reject the observation and burn the heretics. --> this is what dogmatism can lead to.

I don't really understand your argument rationally.

Do you speak from a theological, religious, spiritual point of view?

[Raymond]

[...] Why shouldn't you be a true physicist if you consider your fundamental theory or model as true. [...]

If you believe you reached the limits of what can be known and that to be true, there is no room for new knowledge. The very first time some observation happen to challenge your so called truth you have two options:
1. Accept you had not reached the limits of physics (knowledge) and expand your knowledge --> this is what science is about.
2. Reject the observation and burn the heretics. --> this is what dogmatism can lead to.

I don't really understand your argument rationally.

Do you speak from a theological, religious, spiritual point of view?

Having reached a fundamental rock doesn't mean there is no room for new knowledge. It just means you can't go deeper, not that you can't go higher. Untill observations prove otherwise I consider my model fundamentally true and objective. And I'm pretty convinced there won't arrive objections from experiment or theory. On the contrary. Experiments corroborate my model (muon g2 experiment).

Part of my cosmology is religion-inspired. They combine perfectly.

[intentes_pupil]

Having reached a fundamental rock doesn't mean there is no room for new knowledge. It just means you can't go deeper, not that you can't go higher.

[...]

Part of my cosmology is religion-inspired. They combine perfectly.

Ok. Now I understand your point. You mean we cannot go deeper to the fundamentals of physics, am I right? That meaning we found the simplest axioms and theory of the smallest that cannot be further atomized and from which the whole physics can be derived. Right?

That is an interesting point.

First things first. Given your phrase "..can't go deeper, not that you can't go higher", I hope you agree with me that the title of this feed is then misleading (..the end of physics..) since I understand that as having reached the limits of physical understanding (what you call "go higher").

Apart from that and back to the point of not being able to go deeper. I agree that the observation might suggest that. We might have reached the limit of the fundamentals and might not be able to go smaller. But given that we study and understand things given axioms and principles, if for some reasons in the future those principles are shaken (as Einstein did with space and time), a whole new way of doing physics might be discovered that would allow us going "deeper" to find the smallest principles from that branch.

So if you suggest you found the ultimate principles from which the whole physics can be explain, good. That might not change in your lifetime or even in a couple of hundreds of years and it will be fine. But the possibility of that at some point happening is from my point of view really high. Therefore, I prefer to be skeptical about everything, even the principles of physics in order not to worry about changing them in the future in need be.

I think that is the approach physicist and scientist take (and should take).

And totally agree that science and religion is compatible. Science/Physics is the tool that describes what and Religion/Philosophy take care of the Why. Mixing both is from my point of view dangerous illegitimate. Meaning, religion shouldn't be aspiring to describe phenomena and science shouldn't aspire to give answers to whys.

I am curious about your "religion-inspired". Can you elaborate more on that? Maybe being more specific what do you mean by that?

KR

[Pattern-chaser]

Apart from that and back to the point of not being able to go deeper. I agree that the observation might suggest that. We might have reached the limit of the fundamentals and might not be able to go smaller. But given that we study and understand things given axioms and principles, if for some reasons in the future those principles are shaken (as Einstein did with space and time), a whole new way of doing physics might be discovered that would allow us going "deeper" to find the smallest principles from that branch.

I have no rigorously-argued case to offer here. But my limited awareness of history says that we've concluded we know it all quite a few times, and each time, we've been wrong, sometimes very badly wrong. Now, I am of the opinion that we will never – even if we last another 1000 million years – know all that is there to be known. I don't think we could even begin to approach that point. Life, the Universe and Everything is very big, and very complicated, and we are very small, and very limited.

[intentes_pupil]

I have no rigorously-argued case to offer here. But my limited awareness of history says that we've concluded we know it all quite a few times, and each time, we've been wrong, sometimes very badly wrong. Now, I am of the opinion that we will never – even if we last another 1000 million years – know all that is there to be known. I don't think we could even begin to approach that point. Life, the Universe and Everything is very big, and very complicated, and we are very small, and very limited.

As my older post follows, I totally agree with you.

[Raymond]

Indeed I meant physically there can a fundament be found. I don't see any reason why not. Democritus already saw all physical forms as basic atomics hooked up in diversity. I wonder how Plato looked at this, by the way. There is a variety of approaches. Not being tied to a particular one, careerwise or "peer-to-peer-wise" I have a rather ideosyncratic take on the "matter". Maybe I was born the wrong way up or down. Most people, after having gone through the process of learning stick to the prevailing standard and wanna exclude the non-standard view. To give an example: I yesterday answered a question on a physics forum about the fractional charge of quarks. I answered that electrons have a triple charge because of three charged preons it's made of and quarks thus have not a fractional but an integer charge. A good explanation and answer to the question. But it got deleted because it flies into the face of the standard. The preon model even offers a unifying principle beyond the standard model, though it doesn't subscribe to the Higgs mechanism (not the Higgs particle). It seems so obvious to me. Together with a model of particles themselves, space and time, it offers a powerfull rock bottom package. We will never know what their true nature is all about (say their physical charges with which they are filled or what they are) but because we eat them we come to know their nature somehow (consciousness). So untill there are observations contradicting this model, or good arguments against it I hold it for true knowledge of the fundaments.

Of course in the other direction, there is no limit to our knowledge. There is no ToE because there is too much to know.

My theology, which may be pretty ideosyncratic also, made me change my cosmology. It literally stimulated me to invent a structure for which this can happen. And it solves dark energy. Try to tell that to the cosmological priests in their towers of saddened ivory! They are too much involved in trying to keep up the image of being the bearers of some special knowledge, obtainable only for the chosen few...

[Raymond]

On the other hand, it is not known how gauge blocks stick together by wringing. So to say that knowledge of the fundaments is knowledge of everything is nonsense.