GR question

[imatfaal]

Philosophy and logic can be applied to design experiments/observations that settle philosophical disputes.

If it can be settled, let alone with an observation is it really a philosophical dispute?

 

When a critique/question arises involving reason/logic, you can't get around that by reference to math.

No, but if it disagrees with the experimentation or the maths, it doesn't need to be explained; it can be ignored as it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much the lack of apparent simultaneity and rejection of absolute space and time violate philosophical ideals, the theories that correctly model the universe show these things to convenient human-scale crutches that are incorrect in cosmological terms.

 

"because each question generates its own discourse."

in post-modern discourse analysis this would be a highly debated point. You might be interested in foucauldian work on discourse - ie the Archaeology of Knowledge. It is a bit weird and disjointed in places - but a great, if difficult, read. The post-modern conception of the discourse as a normative structure designed to trammel knowledge, exclude exterior interference, protect and promote those within the discourse, and control access to, use of and understanding of information/knowledge is, of course, exemplified by the refusal of the scientific establishment to recognize non-scientific critiques. The fact that the philosophical model fits observation, does not mean that it has validity or predictive power; because firstly it is a philosophical model and not a scientific one (and yes I realise this is recursive) and secondly because it is not really a model but more a non-disinterested charactature. Edited May 31, 2011 by imatfaal

[Royston]

I know what you're saying with this

 

No, you don't...I think this is perfectly clear judging by your responses. Personally I think the seminal field theory is Maxwell's equations, which is really a collection of equations already proved by others. It is a blinding result of vector calculus, and I'm stumped by how such a bunch of simple equations can explain (through application) the workings of EM, but they do, and they do it very well...it gets more complicated when studying materials et.c

 

With all due respect lemur, you are asking 'big' questions, without the background to understand the responses. This is fine to a point, but it is increasingly annoying when you try to convince your audience that you do understand these concepts. I am not being rude

 

I am more than happy to run you through the basics of GR, if you fancy it...QFT is not my field (ha!) but I'm happy to explain what a field theory actually is...nobody knows what a quantum field theory actually 'is', and anyone who claims otherwise, is talking bullshit.

[lemur]

If it can be settled, let alone with an observation is it really a philosophical dispute?

Everything that involves reason and logic is philosophizing. You may be using a different meaning of the word that I am. I am just talking about conceptual processing, the application of logic, etc..

No, but if it disagrees with the experimentation or the maths, it doesn't need to be explained; it can be ignored as it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much the lack of apparent simultaneity and rejection of absolute space and time violate philosophical ideals, the theories that correctly model the universe show these things to convenient human-scale crutches that are incorrect in cosmological terms.

You are making philosophical claims when you make the arguments you are making. I could take your bait and philosophize with you about whether philosophy is necessary, but I would be proving myself right by engaging in a philosophical discussion with you about it in the first place.

 

in post-modern discourse analysis this would be a highly debated point. You might be interested in foucauldian work on discourse - ie the Archaeology of Knowledge. It is a bit weird and disjointed in places - but a great, if difficult, read.

It's not a question of whether it's a good read or not. Texts contain concepts and ideas that can be applied. Once you apply them, you can see whether they add any value to your analysis. This is as true of Foucault's work as it is of Einstein's, Newton's, or Feynman's.

 

The post-modern conception of the discourse as a normative structure designed to trammel knowledge, exclude exterior interference, protect and promote those within the discourse, and control access to, use of and understanding of information/knowledge is, of course, exemplified by the refusal of the scientific establishment to recognize non-scientific critiques.

I'm not sure what you're reading or why you're discussing it here. Are you saying that you're purely interested in excluding people from your discourse?

 

The fact that the philosophical model fits observation, does not mean that it has validity or predictive power; because firstly it is a philosophical model and not a scientific one (and yes I realise this is recursive) and secondly because it is not really a model but more a non-disinterested charactature.

It is not necessary to classify a model to subject it to critical rigor. However, subjecting anything to critical rigor in any way requires some level of philosophizing. Don't think of philosophy as a canonical discourse defined by a disciplinary, etc. That is "P"hilosophy. I'm just talking about the application of reason and logic, whether in the form of math or other language. It comes down to making valid arguments that hold up to critical scrutiny. Simply trying to assert validity by excluding people from criticize you doesn't strengthen your arguments or evidence for anything.

 

 

 

 

No, you don't...I think this is perfectly clear judging by your responses. Personally I think the seminal field theory is Maxwell's equations, which is really a collection of equations already proved by others. It is a blinding result of vector calculus, and I'm stumped by how such a bunch of simple equations can explain (through application) the workings of EM, but they do, and they do it very well...it gets more complicated when studying materials et.c

 

With all due respect lemur, you are asking 'big' questions, without the background to understand the responses. This is fine to a point, but it is increasingly annoying when you try to convince your audience that you do understand these concepts. I am not being rude

 

I am more than happy to run you through the basics of GR, if you fancy it...QFT is not my field (ha!) but I'm happy to explain what a field theory actually is...nobody knows what a quantum field theory actually 'is', and anyone who claims otherwise, is talking bullshit.

I don't think it is possible for many people to think logically without equations once they become accustomed to thinking in terms of equations. So if you can't relate to how I think without math, how can you evaluate my knowledge, reasoning, and how I apply logic? All you seem to know is that the math works for you and I don't know it, therefore my knowledge must be incapable of conceiving of anything relevant. All you're really doing here is discussing your impressions about me and about the nature of scientific theory as you understand it, but I really don't think you have any basis for proving anything about your point. All you can do is say that you know something I don't know, therefore you must be right and I must be wrong. Am I wrong and there's more to your reasoning than this?

[DrRocket]

 

I don't think it is possible for many people to think logically without equations once they become accustomed to thinking in terms of equations. So if you can't relate to how I think without math, how can you evaluate my knowledge, reasoning, and how I apply logic? All you seem to know is that the math works for you and I don't know it, therefore my knowledge must be incapable of conceiving of anything relevant. All you're really doing here is discussing your impressions about me and about the nature of scientific theory as you understand it, but I really don't think you have any basis for proving anything about your point. All you can do is say that you know something I don't know, therefore you must be right and I must be wrong. Am I wrong and there's more to your reasoning than this?

 

Very very little of mathematics involves equations.

 

Very very little of what you have presented is logical.

 

The language in which physics is expressed is mathematics. If you don't speak the language you are scientifically illiterate. It is illogical to believe that you can begin to understand a subject as large as physics if you are illiterate in the language in which it is formulated and recorded.

[cos]

The language in which physics is expressed is mathematics. If you don't speak the language you are scientifically illiterate. It is illogical to believe that you can begin to understand a subject as large as physics if you are illiterate in the language in which it is formulated and recorded.

Einstein stated - "As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

 

Having been unable to 'see' his work in Maxwell's mathematical interpretation Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking if would be possible for him to be able to express his conclusions in common language - "...would it not be a good thing if mathematicians...were to give us the results in this popular, useful, working state, as well as that which is their own and proper to them?"

 

Mathematics is obviously an extremely important tool however it should not be allowed to take precedence over everyday language.

[mississippichem]

But it is cumbersome even to express something as simple as compound interest in everyday language.

[DrRocket]

Einstein stated - "As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

 

Mathematics, per se, has nothing to do with reality. The tie between reality and mathematics is science, particularly physics. It is possible to construct many mathematically consistent models. The degree to which they do or do not describe nature is the province of science.

 

Einstein was right. But his statement does not support your thesis.

 

 

Having been unable to 'see' his work in Maxwell's mathematical interpretation Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking if would be possible for him to be able to express his conclusions in common language - "...would it not be a good thing if mathematicians...were to give us the results in this popular, useful, working state, as well as that which is their own and proper to them?"

 

Not surprising. Faraday was notably weak as a theoretician and in mathematics. "Faraday's law" is subject to much misuse and misinterpretation when not understood in the mathematical context of Maxwell's equations. See the discussion in volume two of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, sections 17-1 and 17-2.

 

"Maxwell's equations" by the way were actually codified and put in the form usually seen by Heviside, not Maxwell.

 

 

Mathematics is obviously an extremely important tool however it should not be allowed to take precedence over everyday language.

 

Everyday language is not sufficiently precise to allow clear and accurate statements of scientific principle. Statements of the necessary accuracy are in fact mathematical, no matter what specific words are used. Mathematics is NOT just equations.

 

Everyday language and "common sense" have been proved to be woefully inadequate. You have no choice but to use the language of physics if you wish to either understand the subject or to communicate clearly regarding it. That language is mathematics. It takes precedence over everyday language of necessity, just as French takes precedence over Navajo in the study of French literature.

Edited June 6, 2011 by DrRocket