Science and Realism

[kyser_soze]

That is, of course, a splendid example of how we could follow the "scientific method" and still come out with crap. Science is as much about looking at things in the right way as it is collecting facts and putting them into a system.

But it wasn't a conclusion arrived at through what we would view as being scientific method was it? It was a confirmatory view of a theological viewpoint influenced by a fashion for revering even more ancient knowledge and was analysed by discussion, not investigation. As soon as Copernicus actually sat down and methodically worked it through in a method we'd recognise as scientific the terracentric view crumbled.

 

[Knotted]

Positivism + soft-relativism / ethics of authenticity = lots and lots and lots of freedom for capitalism to function.

Not sure that's quite right. Does capitalism even want to be free? It spends of a lot of time restricting itself in order to mimick the 'free market'.

On my desk at work, under my name is list of attitudes that I'm supposed to have. I'm not at work and happily I can't remember them all. However 'supportive' is one. 'Caring' is another. 'Responsible' is a third. The ethic is 'let's all get along and work towards a common goal'. Proffesional values ie. act in such a way as to ensure the smooth running of things. Judgements are for those above you.

From everything you've just said you're very much on the same page as him. Do you have access to a university library? If so you could try getting your hands on Andrew Collier's Critical Realism. It's like Bhaskar but, well, readable. I find Bhaskar readable, it just takes absolutely fucking ages. He's such an interesting thinker I've found you can get a lot of him even if reading him in small chunks. His grasp of the historical antinomies of western philosophy is utterly stunning, it's just that (a) he's crap at expressing them (b) he's an extremely pretensious man.

I don't have access to a university library. This is the thing I miss the most about academic life. While I was 'studying' for my degrees in maths I spent all of my time in the library reading about history, economics and philosophy. Actually I did read quite a lot of maths as well, but it was rarely relevant to anything I was supposed to be doing. University libraries are wonderful places.

 

[bluestreak]

e=mc^2 is the theory which currently best approximates reality as we can perceive it. It is nothing to do with truth and it certainly is not eternal.

Is it? Then culture is to blame because I was taught it was a mathematical equation which showed how something worked and that it will be correct until such a time as we learn enough to supplement it.

 

[Knotted]

But it wasn't a conclusion arrived at through what we would view as being scientific method was it? It was a confirmatory view of a theological viewpoint influenced by a fashion for revering even more ancient knowledge and was analysed by discussion, not investigation. As soon as Copernicus actually sat down and methodically worked it through in a method we'd recognise as scientific the terracentric view crumbled.

Actually Copernicus was wrong. The sun is not the centre of the solar system. The centre of mass of the solar system is the centre of the solar system if anything deserves that title. And that's not a thing, its an abstraction.

But the geocentric view is just as scientific in terms of scientific methodology. It can fit the facts. If this is all you care about then it is as good as the heliocentric view.

What's more important, though, is firstly the elegance of the heliocentric view. And secondly and still more importantly the heliocentric view leads to further insights such as Newton's theory of gravity or Galilean relativity. Its not just that the theory works as it is but where the theory's going that's important.

 

[8ball]

Is it? Then culture is to blame because I was taught it was a mathematical equation which showed how something worked and that it will be correct until such a time as we learn enough to supplement it.

We already have equations that surplant it but they are needlessly complex for most nuclear phyics-type calculations.

 

[gurrier]

Is it? Then culture is to blame because I was taught it was a mathematical equation which showed how something worked and that it will be correct until such a time as we learn enough to supplement it.

It's not whether it is a mathematical equation that's important. e=mc^2 is a model of the relationship between mass and energy in the actually existing universe. It can only be a theory because we could always find some special case where it doesn't hold. 1+1 = 2 is a relation in a mathematical space which is derivable from axioms - it has nothing to do with the universe - therefore we can prove it's truth from our axioms.

 

[8ball]

1+1=2 is nothing to do with the universe?

 

[bluestreak]

so sometimes e does NOT equal mc squared?

and numbers and the inherent and inflexible nature thereof are not universal facts?

 

[8ball]

so sometimes e does NOT equal mc squared?

E tends to be pretty damn close to m * (c squared) for most situations.

 

[gurrier]

1+1=2 is nothing to do with the universe?

It's a relation in a pure mathematical space. There are all sorts of situations where it maps onto things in the universe, such as when you are counting apples or oranges, but lots of others where it doesn't. For example, you take one man and one woman and you turn around a few years later and there's a whole legion of little buggers.

 

[8ball]

Where is this pure mathematical space, exactly?

 

[gurrier]

Where is this pure mathematical space, exactly?

It's an abstract universe where a set of axioms are defined as being true - without having to be proven - axioms which are then used in order to derive other proofs. Mathematical reasoning basically starts from the sentence: "imagine there was a universe where the following laws (axioms) were true..."

 

[8ball]

You didn't say where it was.

 

[gurrier]

You didn't say where it was.

I did.

Refer to the word "abstract".

Incidentally, it's just standard set theory expressed in the normal terminology. It's not at all a good target of ridicule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_natural_numbers

 

[8ball]

I did.

Dint.

 

[8ball]

Mathematical reasoning basically starts from the sentence: "imagine there was a universe where the following laws (axioms) were true..."

Godel's theorem?

 

[Knotted]

I'm enjoying mixing fact and value.

Is anyone here an atheist? I am.

Why are we atheist? Do we believe there is little evidence for God? Do we believe that the belief in God is irrational?

If you do then you are kidding yourself. If you were motivated to believe you would work out a way to believe or (more likely) you would listen to somebody else who had worked out a way. To say that there is no reason to believe in God you are pitting yourself against the collected imagination of humanity. You are going to loose that argument.

The reason that there is no God is that religion is rubbish. One line proof.

 

[8ball]

The reason that there is no God is that religion is rubbish.

But what about the holidays

 

[gurrier]

Godel's theorem?

Don't go there dude

In any case it doesn't impact upon what I'm saying, unless you are trying to put forward the minority viewpoint that number theory is as fundamental as set theory and that the domain of number theory is inseperable from our universe. It would be a tall order though.

 

[Knotted]

But what about the holidays

I haven't thought this through...

(opportunity to use new smiley!)

If any godlike being is listening, could we get a 'raise a single eyebrow smiley'? I would never have to use words again.

 

[8ball]

One reply from me and already you're praying.

I expected more from you, Knotted

 

[Knotted]

Don't go there dude

In any case it doesn't impact upon what I'm saying, unless you are trying to put forward the minority viewpoint that number theory is as fundamental as set theory and that the domain of number theory is inseperable from our universe. It would be a tall order though.

(Its almost just right)

 

[Knotted]

One reply from me and already you're praying.

I expected more from you, Knotted

Its not that I'm praying, its just that I've gone zen. I know I'm right but I don't want to talk about it. Talking about it would be rubbish.

You should meditate on that.

 

[8ball]

Don't go there dude

In any case it doesn't impact upon what I'm saying, unless you are trying to put forward the minority viewpoint that number theory is as fundamental as set theory and that the domain of number theory is inseperable from our universe. It would be a tall order though.

We had an 'Are numbers real?' thread a while back - did you have a go on that?

Anyway, we were sort of talking about how many of the constants and 'physical laws' can change under certain conditions.

So, given a different kind of universe, couldn't the rules of logic and maths also vary? You can build novel (and weird) logic into a simulation, why not a universe? Or do all conceivable universes contain the same set of natural numbers?

Etc.

?

 

[Jonti]

do all conceivable universes contain the same set of natural numbers?

*conceives hard*

Yep, as far as I can tell

 

[8ball]

I can conceive of some that don't.

They're not very impressive, though.

 

[gurrier]

We had an 'Are numbers real?' thread a while back - did you have a go on that?

Anyway, we were sort of talking about how many of the constants and 'physical laws' can change under certain conditions.

So, given a different kind of universe, couldn't the rules of logic and maths also vary? You can build novel (and weird) logic into a simulation, why not a universe? Or do all conceivable universes contain the same set of natural numbers??

Natural numbers are so deeply embedded in our reasoning that it's pretty hard to conceive of them as not having some sort of absoluteness. However, notwithstanding Godel, I find the arguments of the set theoretic types to be compelling*. That is, that you could have a universe built on whatever axioms you want, including ones that defined 1+1 = 2, except on tuesdays when 1+1=3. However, the 'universe' refered to isn't a physical one. In set theory, a universe is just the set of all the things that you are reasoning over and there is no implication at all that there is any mapping at all onto a physical universe (a la the multiverse interpretation of QM).

* It's compelling nature is due to a) its elegance and simplicity b) its conceptual difficulty meaning that you just have to trust the maths.

 

[8ball]

Yeah, I wasn't using the term 'universe' in the set theory sense, just in the 'normal' sense. Sort of.

 

[Knotted]

Natural numbers are so deeply embedded in our reasoning that it's pretty hard to conceive of them as not having some sort of absoluteness. However, notwithstanding Godel, I find the arguments of the set theoretic types to be compelling*. That is, that you could have a universe built on whatever axioms you want, including ones that defined 1+1 = 2, except on tuesdays when 1+1=3. However, the 'universe' refered to isn't a physical one. In set theory, a universe is just the set of all the things that you are reasoning over and there is no implication at all that there is any mapping at all onto a physical universe (a la the multiverse interpretation of QM).

* It's compelling nature is due to a) its elegance and simplicity b) its conceptual difficulty meaning that you just have to trust the maths.

I don't agree that our notion of number has much to do with the way the universe is. I think for a similar reason not all creatures with eyes have a common ancestor with eyes. Sometimes there are just good ways to go about things.

Complex numbers are crucial in quantum mechanics but were invented centuries before QM was a twinkle in Planck's eye. We did not derive the concept of imaginery numbers by observing them in nature.

In fact we don't observe numbers in nature at all. We utilise numerical machinery, but there is no fixed way of doing this.

That's my point of view on this question today (it will probably change tommorrow). The number system is good machinery, its not accidental and its not something mysterious in nature.

 

[8ball]

I'm curious about your use of the word 'accidental' at the end there . .