Mr. Laymen Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate section of the Forum for this kind of question, I wasn't sure where it should go. I'm wondering if there is a single scientific subject that is specifically focused on the study of "all things" and how they appear to us, on a fundamental level? Like I see biology, or physics, etc... as specific fields of study, but is there any field that encompasses all of the common subjects to understand "a bigger picture", of existence in general? If so what is it called, or what would be the closest thing to something like that...if anything at all?
Mr. Laymen Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 What is metaphysics Alex? Ah, so that's what that means. Thank you. What is metaphysics Alex? Okay to build on that then, because I didn't find a Metaphysics section on this forum... Is there a science of Metaphysics? or is it strictly Philosophy? Or something else?
Acme Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Ah, so that's what that means. Thank you. Okay to build on that then, because I didn't find a Metaphysics section on this forum... Is there a science of Metaphysics? or is it strictly Philosophy? Or something else? You're welcome. I'd say metaphysics goes in the philosophy section of the forum and that science is a branch of metaphysics in the category of empiricism. However, there is much ado over such classifications and no definitive answer. In that regard I'd say metaphysics is strictly philosophy.
Mr. Laymen Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 You're welcome. I'd say metaphysics goes in the philosophy section of the forum and that science is a branch of metaphysics in the category of empiricism. However, there is much ado over such classifications and no definitive answer. In that regard I'd say metaphysics is strictly philosophy. So does that mean in that regard, there is no specific scientific study of "existences' entirety", that there is only a philosophical study of that? If that is the case, is there a science of philosophy that in turn would or could possibly validate metaphysics as legitimate science?
Acme Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 So does that mean in that regard, there is no specific scientific study of "existences' entirety", that there is only a philosophical study of that? If that is the case, is there a science of philosophy that in turn would or could possibly validate metaphysics as legitimate science? If by "existences' entirety" you mean the physical universe then I'd say cosmology is the study you are asking about. Be patient and I expect others will offer their take on your question. Heck, some may even argue over my answer.
StringJunky Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 So does that mean in that regard, there is no specific scientific study of "existences' entirety", that there is only a philosophical study of that? If that is the case, is there a science of philosophy that in turn would or could possibly validate metaphysics as legitimate science? I would concur with acme that metaphysics is philosophy and it can't be a science because it's analytical methods and conclusions are purely qualitative, whereas science is primarily quantitative, relying very much on numerical analysis.
pavelcherepan Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 So does that mean in that regard, there is no specific scientific study of "existences' entirety", that there is only a philosophical study of that? If that is the case, is there a science of philosophy that in turn would or could possibly validate metaphysics as legitimate science? A precursor to modern-day physics was "Natural philosophy" (it was called that at the time of Newton, for example) implying that it studies everything the nature has to offer, so in my mind generally Physics would be the one you need.
Mr. Laymen Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 I would concur with acme that metaphysics is philosophy and it can't be a science because it's analytical methods and conclusions are purely qualitative, whereas science is primarily quantitative, relying very much on numerical analysis. Isn't, "numerical analysis", an analysis of numerical qualities? I don't think I understand the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative" very well, I'll look those up. It just seems that a numerical value is a quality. But I'm probably confusing myself with words. A precursor to modern-day physics was "Natural philosophy" (it was called that at the time of Newton, for example) implying that it studies everything the nature has to offer, so in my mind generally Physics would be the one you need. Can one scientifically study similarities between other science subjects, like comparing characteristics of biological phenomena to mathematical phenomena? Could that be done scientifically under the lens of Physics?
pavelcherepan Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Can one scientifically study similarities between other science subjects, like comparing characteristics of biological phenomena to mathematical phenomena? Could that be done scientifically under the lens of Physics? Richard Feynman in his lectures sure seems to think so 1
ajb Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 It just seems that a numerical value is a quality. But I'm probably confusing myself with words. To be physics you need to be able to make predictions that can be, at least in principle, tested by observations and experiments. To do this properly you need to come up with things we can measure and so the need for numerical quantities is essential. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of 'existence and being'. Although related to physics, and both can profit for interaction, metaphysics is non-empirical and so is not a science. Can one scientifically study similarities between other science subjects, like comparing characteristics of biological phenomena to mathematical phenomena? Could that be done scientifically under the lens of Physics? Comparing natural phenomena with mathematical models is what physics is all about. 1
Mr. Laymen Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 Richard Feynman in his lectures sure seems to think so His words sound intense and exciting when I read them, especially the ending! That's a good read, Thanks! To be physics you need to be able to make predictions that can be, at least in principle, tested by observations and experiments. To do this properly you need to come up with things we can measure and so the need for numerical quantities is essential. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of 'existence and being'. Although related to physics, and both can profit for interaction, metaphysics is non-empirical and so is not a science. Comparing natural phenomena with mathematical models is what physics is all about. That makes perfect sense, and is a pretty clear definition if I might say so. Thanks, and thanks to everyone else.
Mr. Laymen Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 https://xkcd.com/435/ Actually, I'm confused again...sorry. So Physics requires Math as a foundation? Why is math not the "backbone" of the other sciences then, instead of Physics? Is it that physics and math are almost the same thing, but one is an abstraction of the other which is physical? Or something else? Sorry this may seem like a dumb question.
pavelcherepan Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Actually, I'm confused again...sorry. So Physics requires Math as a foundation? Why is math not the "backbone" of the other sciences then, instead of Physics? Is it that physics and math are almost the same thing, but one is an abstraction of the other which is physical? Or something else? Sorry this may seem like a dumb question. Physics studies objective reality, while mathematics focuses on abstract problems that may or may not be relevant to the real life. For example, if in physics (or any natural science) theory must be supported by experimental data, in mathematics it only has to be logical and consistent, no experiment is required. A lot of people, including Feynman in the link I attached above, describe mathematics as a 'language' of science, which in my mind is a good analogy. And since it's a language, nowadays pretty much any science uses maths to some extent. Also, it's unclear which one, physics or maths, takes priority, because if in old times mathematics advanced more or less on its own, but since probably 17th century most of the major advances in maths are due to the need to mathematically explain more and more complicated physical phenomena. Edited March 25, 2015 by pavelcherepan
Mr. Laymen Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) metaphysics is non-empirical and so is not a science. I bet I'd never have wanted to ask this question if the term "science" was just called "empirical data", or something that can't be as easily misinterpreted, by me at least Perhaps the word "science" implies additional descriptions making it more complicated than "empirical data" alone... Or maybe its just a simpler word. Physics studies objective reality, while mathematics focuses on abstract problems that may or may not be relevant to the real life. For example, if in physics (or any natural science) theory must be supported by experimental data, in mathematics it only has to be logical and consistent, no experiment is required. A lot of people, including Feynman in the link I attached above, describe mathematics as a 'language' of science, which in my mind is a good analogy. But aren't terms like "objective" and "real" strictly philosophical terms? Is math not actually a science then? If its dictated by logic alone and no experiments, isn't that similar to the description of philosophy? Edited March 25, 2015 by Mr. Laymen
pavelcherepan Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Is math not actually a science then? If its dictated by logic alone and no experiments, isn't that similar to the description of philosophy? Not a 'natural science', yes. The question whether it's a science or not is being debated: Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as the scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences. With your other question: But aren't terms like "objective" and "real" strictly philosophical terms? I'll paraphrase. Physics studies any natural phenomena that can be observed with any senses that humans have at their disposal. Note: even if a phenomenon can't be observed naturally with normal senses (e.g. X-Ray) technology is used to convert the input into something perceivable by a human being. How does that sound? Edited March 25, 2015 by pavelcherepan 1
Mr. Laymen Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 That's really interesting about math. Thank you for the explanation. I had no idea it was in a state of conflict regarding accurate definitions or general consensus of what it really is. I feel like I have a bunch of math focused questions now. I'll go visit the math section and see if I can find similar topics. Like what are the" exceptions to rules", or specific conflicts preventing a complete agreement of what math is exactly. It seems especially interesting if it is the "language of physics", which in turn is humanities most accurate understanding of existences' entirety. Thanks again! Haha, my search went from metaphysics to metamathematics... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics I've never heard of this stuff. It's like "meta" is a prefix for describing self... Haha! It actually is... I'm dumb.
pavelcherepan Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I had no idea it was in a state of conflict regarding accurate definitions or general consensus of what it really is. I feel like I have a bunch of math focused questions now. I'll go visit the math section and see if I can find similar topics. Like what are the" exceptions to rules", or specific conflicts preventing a complete agreement of what math is exactly. It seems especially interesting if it is the "language of physics", which in turn is humanities most accurate understanding of existences' entirety. I don't think that it's really a conflict, rather an uneventful, slow-going and probably pointless debate, because it really depends on what definition of "science" you use, for example: Wikipedia: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[2]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Since mathematical predictions are untestable without involving natural sciences, it's not a science. Encyclopaedia Britannica: Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528756/science Mathematics by itself is not concerned with physical world and involves no experimentation, hence not a science. But (same source): In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws. In this sense it's a science. From Google thesaurus (3rd definition): a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject. So in a broad sense mathematics is indeed a science, since it collects and organizes knowledge on a particular subject, yet it has very little to do with scientific method and is not a science in a sense that most other sciences are. I'm not sure if this debate can ever be resolved without some drastic change.
Mr. Laymen Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 So in a broad sense mathematics is indeed a science, since it collects and organizes knowledge on a particular subject, yet it has very little to do with scientific method and is not a science in a sense that most other sciences are. I'm not sure if this debate can ever be resolved without some drastic change. Is there a specific focus of study on this topic of debate, or starting point to read about it that you know of? I don't even know how to define this topic... "unresolved foundations"? I stumbled on this as a starting point maybe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems
ajb Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) So Physics requires Math as a foundation? Yes. Why is math not the "backbone" of the other sciences then, instead of Physics? Well it is, but maybe not so 'openly'. Any experiment requires planning and then the results need to be analysed. So all sciences use basic mathematics, probability, error analysis and statistics. Is it that physics and math are almost the same thing, but one is an abstraction of the other which is physical? Or something else? Sorry this may seem like a dumb question. This is a deep question with, I think, no real explanation. We know that basic mathematics is needed, we also know that a lot of fundamental mathematics ideas have their roots in physics, but why high brow abstract mathematics has been so fruitful in physics is just not known. It maybe a philosophical question than has no real answer. You should read Eugene Wigner "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." I think a quick google will give you the document. Allied to that are the ideas of Tegmark and his mathematical Universe. The idea is that all mathematics can be realised in the Universe. Perhaps the word "science" implies additional descriptions making it more complicated than "empirical data" alone... Or maybe its just a simpler word. Science is then the art of looking for pattens in this empirical data. Is math not actually a science then? If its dictated by logic alone and no experiments, isn't that similar to the description of philosophy? People debate about this all the time; is mathematics a science or not? Opinions differ. I say that it is a science as it does follow a modified version of the scientific principal. Moreover, in order to have non-trivial and interesting structures one cannot simply make up the rules as you go along. There does seems some wider structure 'out there' that we are somehow exploring. The experiments are in the form of examples, which should always lead the research. Haha, my search went from metaphysics to metamathematics... So metamathematics is based on statements about mathematics rather than statements in mathematics. Is there a specific focus of study on this topic of debate, or starting point to read about it that you know of? I don't even know how to define this topic... "unresolved foundations"? There are topics like foundational mathematics, proof theory, universal algebra, logic and category theory. All these to some extent are interested in the basic structures of mathematics. Most of these are outside my real area of expertise, I use a little category theory but I am not interested in foundational questions as a rule. Edited March 25, 2015 by ajb 1
Strange Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I bet I'd never have wanted to ask this question if the term "science" was just called "empirical data", or something that can't be as easily misinterpreted, by me at least Perhaps the word "science" implies additional descriptions making it more complicated than "empirical data" alone... Or maybe its just a simpler word. Science is more than just the data, though. It is the process of using that data to build models that describe the world. Those models are tested by using them to make predictions and then testing those against observation or evidence. The models are mathematical; they must be in order to be useful and in order to produce testable, quantitative predictions. But aren't terms like "objective" and "real" strictly philosophical terms? The definition of those is a very deep question. Most scientists, I suspect, don't care. And, in fact, it doesn't really matter. Science builds models and makes predictions. It does that about the world we observe and so it doesn't really matter (to science) whether there is any underlying "reality" or not. Ultimately, the test is that science works.
Mr. Laymen Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Any experiment requires planning and then the results need to be analysed. So all sciences use basic mathematics, probability, error analysis and statistics. Science is then the art of looking fro pattens in this empirical data. I say that it is a science as it does follow a modified version of the scientific principal. Moreover, in order to have non-trivial and interesting structures one cannot simply make up the rules as you go along. There does seems some wider structure 'out there' that we are somehow exploring. There are topics like foundational mathematics, proof theory, universal algebra, logic and category theory. All these to some extent are interested in the basic structures of mathematics. Would it be possible or make sense to analyze "unresolved foundations" as a category across a wide spectrum of subjects or fields, to look for similar structural patterns or characteristics between what seems to be, "foundational" (I don't know a better word), and/or "unresolved & foundational" categories within each subject, assuming there are such categories available to analyze? Could that concept (if it makes any sense) be developed into (if its not already) a legitimate scientific study that could relate to the title of the thread?
ajb Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Would it be possible or make sense to analyze "unresolved foundations" as a category across a wide spectrum of subjects or fields, to look for similar structural patterns or characteristics between what seems to be, "foundational" (I don't know a better word), and/or "unresolved & foundational" categories within each subject, assuming there are such categories available to analyze? You mean the foundations all science? The problem is that different branches of science start from different starting places. In essence one could call physics the foundation of all science, which itself is interwoven with mathematics. The closest I can really think of as an answer to your question would be the 'philosophy of science'; asking about the scientific method, what it means and how we can modify it for today's science. Edited March 25, 2015 by ajb
pavelcherepan Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) You mean the foundations all science? The problem is that different branches of science start from different starting places. In essence one could call physics the foundation of all science, which itself is interwoven with mathematics. The closest I can really think of as an answer to your question would be the 'philosophy of science'; asking about the scientific method, what it means and how we can modify it for today's science. Could it be logic? I mean, every science is based on some sort of logical conclusions, on ability to find connections between a cause and effect, which is then written in mathematical form. Edited March 25, 2015 by pavelcherepan
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now