Philosophers, Physicists and Cranks

[Acleron]

Yes, it's just an opinion. Einsteins own opinion.
He also read a lot more than Kant.

Here are some others:

So he was widely read and in what we call science and mathematics these days, although in those days it was called philosophy. And if Einstein's opinion is a quote from authority type of argument, just remember where he went wrong in his own fields.

 

[Skwinty]

So he was widely read and in what we call science and mathematics these days, although in those days it was called philosophy. And if Einstein's opinion is a quote from authority type of argument, just remember where he went wrong in his own fields.

I venture that the majority of scientists today would love to be credited with Einsteins mistakes.

 

[Acleron]

I venture that the majority of scientists today would love to be credited with Einsteins mistakes.

Assuredly, but we are still left with the opinion that Einstein was a better scientist for having read philosophy. Feynman, most assuredly, distrusted philosophers and was still a genius as a physicist. Ben and Sol's comments are very instructive about this, philosophers have no meaningful input into science for the reasons they gave. As science progresses, the grey areas in which philosophers can operate become smaller and smaller. The scientists have taken their ground.

 

[Skwinty]

Assuredly, but we are still left with the opinion that Einstein was a better scientist for having read philosophy. Feynman, most assuredly, distrusted philosophers and was still a genius as a physicist. Ben and Sol's comments are very instructive about this, philosophers have no meaningful input into science for the reasons they gave. As science progresses, the grey areas in which philosophers can operate become smaller and smaller. The scientists have taken their ground.

Yes, you , Sol and Ben Are correct in your assessment. That is why I quoted in post number 1. "the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations: for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches."

It still strikes me that although todays scientist's no longer study philosophy, they are still philosophers.

"Sometimes, however, the very foundations of science become shaky. This happened twice in Einstein’s lifetime: relativity and quantum theory. Then the physicist himself is forced to become a philosopher through a critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations’. Every true theorist is a ‘tamed metaphysicist’. For, as Einstein observed, science without philosophy is a muddle. And philosophy without science is an empty scheme"

 

[Skwinty]

Surely your joking about Mr Feynman

Not really, according to Freeman Dyson, Feynman was all genius, all buffoon as Feynman was a notorious prankster.

This is also what Dyson said about Einstein and Feynman

"
Great scientists come in two varieties, which Isaiah Berlin, quoting the seventh-century-BC poet Archilochus, called foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes know many tricks, hedgehogs only one. Foxes are interested in everything, and move easily from one problem to another. Hedgehogs are interested only in a few problems which they consider fundamental, and stick with the same problems for years or decades. Most of the great discoveries are made by hedgehogs, most of the little discoveries by foxes. Science needs both hedgehogs and foxes for its healthy growth, hedgehogs to dig deep into the nature of things, foxes to explore the complicated details of our marvelous universe. Albert Einstein was a hedgehog; Richard Feynman was a fox."

Einstein espoused philosophy, Feynman distrusted philosophy.

 

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Acleron
Surely your joking about Mr Feynman

Not really, according to Freeman Dyson, Feynman was all genius, all buffoon as Feynman was a notorious prankster.

If you weren't, I was, see Feynman's bibliography

And just because he had a sense of humour, doesn't detract from his insights one iota.

 

[Skwinty]

If you weren't, I was, see Feynman's bibliography

And just because he had a sense of humour, doesn't detract from his insights one iota.

I guess that refers to the all genius bit

 

[Skwinty]

One more Einstein quote

"If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achievements. For to the discoverer in that field, the constructions of his imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as the creations of his thoughts but as given realities. (Einstein 1933)"

 

[Skwinty]

Martin Gardner has written quite a few articles .

Heres what he says about :

"There has never been a physics theory which answered these sorts of questions. Galileo didn't do it, nor Newton, nor Einstein, nor Planck. All we've ever gotten from physics, to a pretty good approximation, is equations-of-motion. "

Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed.

 

[ben m]

Heres what he says about :

Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed.

Either (a) he's profoundly mistaken, or (b) he's referring to the distinctions between (existing, mainstream) quantum interpretations. More on (b): modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically "many worlds", in principle require you to (in principle) be able to write a wavefunction for an entire conscious brain; this wavefunction has to include "the consciousness" as easily as it includes "the neurochemistry". If there's something weird/mystical/what-the-bleep-ish about consciousness, or if there's something fundamental about quantum "decoherence", this can be imagined to to be impossible. Fair enough. This is still treating QM as an equation describing how matter behaves, just with "the brain" as the particular matter in question.

More on(a): it's possible that Gardner has fallen into an old trap: "Consciousness is weird and we don't understand it. What could be responsible? It must be something else weird that we don't understand. Um ... spacetime? no. Quantum mechanics? Sounds good!" I don't know any physicists or neuroscientists who would agree with him on that.

 

[Skwinty]

modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically "many worlds", in principle require you to (in principle) be able to write a wavefunction for an entire conscious brain; this wavefunction has to include "the consciousness" as easily as it includes "the neurochemistry". If there's something weird/mystical/what-the-bleep-ish about consciousness, or if there's something fundamental about quantum "decoherence", this can be imagined to to be impossible. Fair enough. This is still treating QM as an equation describing how matter behaves, just with "the brain" as the particular matter in question.

Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed.
I see two ways here.
1. The fundamentals of human conciousness is undiscoverable
2. It is discoverable only if a new physics mechanism is made available.
I suspect he refers to quantum mechanics as this is the best we have to offer at the moment.
As far as the "many worlds" interpretation is concerned, this presents somewhat of a philosophical and moral dilemma. There would be no reason to strive for improvement in any sphere as there would always be something better elsewhere. Where these other Universes are is any ones guess.
On the other hand, the standard model of cosmology shows exactly where these other universes are.
So, being that the standard model incorporates quantum theory and inflation, one of them must be wrong.
So either quantum theory is wrong or inlation is wrong..Or there are many me's and you's in many different worlds in many different universes.To my puny mind and imagination, the idea of many worlds is insane. (thank god for decoherence)
So who is wrong, the cosmologists with inflation, the physicists with quantum theory or my puny human brain that can't cope with the many worlds and all possible histories.
Talk about a conundrum wrapped in an enigma

 

[godless dave]

The point I wanted to make was that Einstein maintained that having a philosophical approach and mind made him a better physicist.

OK, point taken. Now that poses two further questions: Was Einstein right about it making him a better scientist? If so, are scientists today using a philosophical approach?

From your posts in the "Null Physics" thread I assume you would answer "no" to the second question, but at least in that thread you did not demonstrate that this was the case.

 

[godless dave]

Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed.
I see two ways here.
1. The fundamentals of human conciousness is undiscoverable
2. It is discoverable only if a new physics mechanism is made available.

This mistake here is assuming the consciousness is explained by physics in any significant way.

As far as the "many worlds" interpretation is concerned, this presents somewhat of a philosophical and moral dilemma. There would be no reason to strive for improvement in any sphere as there would always be something better elsewhere.

That doesn't follow at all.

Where these other Universes are is any ones guess.
On the other hand, the standard model of cosmology shows exactly where these other universes are.
So, being that the standard model incorporates quantum theory and inflation, one of them must be wrong.
So either quantum theory is wrong or inflation is wrong.

Huh? Quantum theory and inflation don't conflict, nor do either of them conflict with nor depend on the many worlds hypothesis.

Or there are many me's and you's in many different worlds in many different universes.

The many worlds hypothesis postulates that there are other universes. It most emphatically does not postulate that those universes necessarily have life, let alone human life, let alone human life that is in any way similar to life on earth.

You're confusing the many worlds hypothesis with a Larry Niven story.

So who is wrong, the cosmologists with inflation, the physicists with quantum theory or my puny human brain that can't cope with the many worlds and all possible histories.

Whether a human brain can cope with something has no bearing on its reality. Regardless, cosmic inflation does not in any way conflict with quantum theory and I don't understand why you think it does.

Talk about a conundrum wrapped in an enigma

Only for you.

 

[Skwinty]

OK, point taken. Now that poses two further questions: Was Einstein right about it making him a better scientist? If so, are scientists today using a philosophical approach?

From your posts in the "Null Physics" thread I assume you would answer "no" to the second question, but at least in that thread you did not demonstrate that this was the case.

Well that depends as some physicists believe that philosophy has no bearing on science at all and some physicists to some degree believe that philosophy has some value.
I believe that Einstein was right about the philosophy improving his abilities as a physicist as he expresses that in his own words,but then I'm no great dalmuti wahmbulance driver who understands and knows all. As far as the Null Physics posts were concerned, the only reason philosophy came into was that Witt was stressing the WHY question, which most physicists say doesn't concern physics.
I will consider your next post tomorrow as it's bedtime now.

 

[ben m]

I think Witt was stressing the "why" question because it looked like a safe place to retreat when defeated on "what". "Why" is easier, and vaguer, and no one can tell you whether you're right or wrong.

And it seems that you're confusing a list of different things in your quantum/inflation/consciousness post. The existence of "consciousness" is currently a mystery, but so are inter-species interactions in guy bacteria; so are the statistical properties of glassy materials. There is no evidence whatsoever that "consciousness" is anything other than a complex-systems puzzle, in which the system happens to be neurons and neurotransmitters and so on. The fact that neuroscience, gut bacteria, and foundational quantum mechanics all contain puzzles does not imply that those puzzles are interdependent.

There is no conflict between quantum mechanics and inflation, pending a specific model (perhaps unachievable) for the inflaton field. There is no conflict between many-worlds/Copenhagen/etc., which are different interpretations of QM with exactly the same observables---and by "exactly", I'm including inflatons and whatever else. You may be confusing "many-worlds" with the "multiverse", "string landscapes", or "baby universes" or something else. Sorry, all wholly unrelated.

And one more baffling comment:

There would be no reason to strive for improvement in any sphere as there would always be something better elsewhere.

which, perhaps, illustrates that your notion of "philosophy" leans away from the kind of stuff Einstein thought about and towards the sort of thing Feynman made fun of. You've just implies that the only possible reason to strive for improvement is the chance that your improvement will lead to something superlative---specifically, superlative not just in some limited sphere-of-infuence, but across the Universe---even more specifically, superlative across all possible Universes including causally disconnected ones. And you don't like many-worlds quantum mechanics because it makes such superlatives impossible to actually achieve, and therefore invalidates the only possible goal of striving.

Wow. Seriously, post #71 is a word salad on all counts. Want to take a mulligan and try again?

 

[INRM]

First of all, it's just an opinion that Einstein's ability as a scientist was improved by having studied Kant, after all we don't have the control, an Einstein who didn't study Kant.

In either case, I think people who are more prone to ask "can we?" than "should we?" need to be complemented by people who ask "should we?" at least as much as the other person asks "can we".

 

[The Man]

Einstein espoused philosophy, Feynman distrusted philosophy.

Does that not dispel the concept that philosophy alters ones ability as a physicist, since they were both great physicist yet diametrically opposed as to the significance of philosophy (in physics)?

I venture that the majority of scientists today would love to be credited with Einstein’s mistakes

Certainly about Einstein’s mistake about being wrong including his cosmological constant, which turns out to be a fundamental aspect of modern cosmology, I would have to agree. Making mistakes is one way of learning something new, whether it is from Einstein’s mistakes or your own.

Philosophical reasons are why Einstein opposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Due to those specific opposing thought experiments, proposed by Einstein, that Bohr needed to address, this helped develop the very interpretation that Einstein opposed (and perhaps the other interpretations of quantum physics). So your philosophical approaches might make someone else a better physicist. If Einstein had developed a confirmable interpretation of quantum physics based on his philosophical reasoning then I might capitulate to your assertion. Otherwise, it is just the opposition of philosophers that makes better physicist. As for philosopher physicist one must decide which takes priority, what you think (philosophy) or what is evidenced (physics). In opposing the indeterminate (or probabilistic) nature of quantum physics Einstein helped develop the ERP experiment, which when preformed confirmed the very aspect (“spooky action at a distance”) which he opposed.

For physicists the “why” is “how” once you determine how something happens, why it happens is just a consequence of how it might happen. As for the more philosophical reasons of “why”, well I’ll leave that to the more dedicated philosophers.

As for myself, I am more a physicist then a philosopher, but I understand the importance of both and the need to keep both those aspects of my personality separate.

 

[Skwinty]

"The many-worlds interpretation or MWI (also known as relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or many worlds), is an interpretation of
quantum mechanics. Many-worlds denies the objective reality of wavefunction collapse, instead explaining the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse with the mechanism of quantum decoherence.
Many-worlds claims to resolve all the "paradoxes" of quantum theory since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, this means that, in some
sense, there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe (but doesn't) does happen in another universe."
Having defined many worlds interpretation, then it is not unreasonable to expect that whatever happens on earth, something better happens elsewhere.
Larry Nivens book "All the Myriad Ways" was based on this interpretation of Quantum Theory.
Given the finite number of protons (as an example) in the observable universe, there must be a finite number of arrangements these protons can assume.
Apply this in an infinite number of universes , then surely this implies the possibility of duplicates of our observable universe with all its connotations , including life.
As to why physics should provide the answer to conciousness, as Ben said , physics deals with matter and the brain is but matter and the processes of conciousness must surely be represented in the wave
functions of that matter .
Then, if MWI denies the collapse of the wave function, the wave function and all its possibilities must exist.
Now as Richard Feynman said " I can safely say that no-one understands Quantum Physics" then the gamut of Quantum Theory interpretations must surely be an enigma to every one and not the select few.
Also, I implied that either quantum theory or inflation or MWI is wrong.
I doubt whether quantum theory or inflation is wrong, even though inflation is a bolt on solution to the big bang theory. So perhaps MWI is wrong.
I dont know and I suspect that neither do you.

 

[Skwinty]

Does that not dispel the concept that philosophy alters ones ability as a physicist, since they were both great physicist yet diametrically opposed as to the significance of philosophy (in physics)?

Philosophical reasons are why Einstein opposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Due to those specific opposing thought experiments, proposed by Einstein, that Bohr needed to address, this helped develop the very interpretation that Einstein opposed (and perhaps the other interpretations of quantum physics). So your philosophical approaches might make someone else a better physicist. If Einstein had developed a confirmable interpretation of quantum physics based on his philosophical reasoning then I might capitulate to your assertion. Otherwise, it is just the opposition of philosophers that makes better physicist. As for philosopher physicist one must decide which takes priority, what you think (philosophy) or what is evidenced (physics). In opposing the indeterminate (or probabilistic) nature of quantum physics Einstein helped develop the ERP experiment, which when preformed confirmed the very aspect (“spooky action at a distance”) which he opposed.

For physicists the “why” is “how” once you determine how something happens, why it happens is just a consequence of how it might happen. As for the more philosophical reasons of “why”, well I’ll leave that to the more dedicated philosophers.

As for myself, I am more a physicist then a philosopher, but I understand the importance of both and the need to keep both those aspects of my personality separate.

Well as I said in an earlier post, Freeman Dyson likened Einstein to a hedgehog and Feynman to a fox. Hedgehogs make big discoveries and foxes lots of little ones.

Remember that Einstein later accepted the quantum theory.
Bohr's argument was also flawed in that it used classical observers to measure quantum events.

Einstein also distanced himself from the EPR as he felt the main point was buried in excessive formalism.

As to philosophy and physics Einstein also said "People prefer chopping wood as it shows immiediate results"

 

[The Man]

Well as I said in an earlier post, Freeman Dyson likened Einstein to a hedgehog and Feynman to a fox. Hedgehogs make big discoveries and foxes lots of little ones.

What, QED (Quantum Electro dynamics) and the calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is not a “big discovery”? Not only that, but the subsequent development of QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics) establishing the current standard model of particle physics. Associate them to whatever mammal you (or Dyson) might choose, but the facts are that both Einstein and Feynman revolutionized modern physics

Remember that Einstein later accepted the quantum theory.

Well, it seems he was more a physicist then a philosopher.

Bohr's argument was also flawed in that it used classical observers to measure quantum events.

Arguments may be flawed but evidence is more compelling, you only read what I am typing now due to our understanding of quantum physics, that makes your computer, the one I am typing this on now and the host computer for this forum, possible.

Einstein also distanced himself from the EPR as he felt the main point was buried in excessive formalism.

Apparently, not far enough, that “spooky action at a distance” still got him.

As to philosophy and physics Einstein also said "People prefer chopping wood as it shows immiediate results"

Hell, I enjoy chopping wood, at least for exercise, and wish I still had a fireplace to use it in. What people prefer or what gives them instant gratification might have more bearing on philosophy then it does physics, although physics is still involved, even in the chopping of wood.