What is qualia?

[Dubious]

However Newton established a methodology for science which is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions.

You mean the "scientific method" and in what way is it flawed, though admittedly nothing is perfect.

Newton assumed that the mathematical representation of an observation was synonymous with truth...

Does it matter whether or not he made those assumptions aside from the fact that anything is true to the extent that it works? Is there another method besides math for formulating one's observations? Tycho Brahe recorded a great many of those but depended on Kepler's mathematical talents to give it structure. Do you have an alternative?

There are as many different interpretations of these mathematical models are there physicists to invent them, and these stories are changing day by day. However these stories all have one thing in common. Not a single one of them makes the slightest lick of sense.

"Not a single one of them"? You sure about that? Obviously there remains much confusion based on the complexities confronted and yet the models relating to Quantum Theory, as I've just discovered recently, are even better confirmed than Relativity. There should be no surprise in this since most modern technologies depend on the mathematical models of Quantum Theory being thoroughly operational. If those models don't make sense we would have preempted most of the progress made in the last 70 years so obviously that part is very well understood. Far less understood is WHY it works that way, its so-called underpinnings which depend on lower more abstract layers comprising the Quantum world.

If you presented the kind of statements you make to an actual physics forum where ONLY physics and NOT philosophy is discussed there would be almost no lead-time between entering the front door and being shown the exit sign.

[Obvious Leo]

You mean the "scientific method" and in what way is it flawed, though admittedly nothing is perfect.

Actually it was Ptolemy who framed the methodology for physics, not Newton, although Newton is generally credited with it. It's a methodology which only a mathematician could have dreamed up so it's unsurprising that Newton went along with it. It is a breathtakingly simple method which I'll briefly summarise.

1. We make an observation and then we make some assumptions about the nature of this observation.
2. We take careful measurements and then perform various calculations to model our assumptions mathematically.
3. If subsequent observations conflict with our model we then perform yet more intricate calculations until they comply, leaving our original assumptions intact.

Forcing reality to comply with our assumptions by brute mathematical bullying kept the Ptolemaic cosmology alive for over a millennium but it is to be hoped that the Newtonian paradigm can be dispensed with within a lesser time frame. However Newton has certainly left a lasting legacy. 21st century physics is a mathematical extravaganza of spectacular virtuosity which would surely make Ptolemy weep tears of joy. The fact that its models describe a universe which makes no sense could only add to his emotional frisson.

Does it matter whether or not he made those assumptions aside from the fact that anything is true to the extent that it works?

There's no denying that physics works. In fact physics can only be defined as "what works" but what works can make no truth statement about the ontological provenance of the model. It would be quite possible to send a mission to Mars by using Ptolemy's epicycles if we wanted to. I shudder to think what the mathematics would look like but there is no valid reason why it couldn't be done.

Is there another method besides math for formulating one's observations?

Not that I know of. All I'm saying is that we should be cautious about whatever we conclude from the mathematics because the mathematics can only model our assumptions. Kant would say that our cognition of the object can only confirm our cognition of the object, which is insufficient for truth.

If you presented the kind of statements you make to an actual physics forum where ONLY physics and NOT philosophy is discussed there would be almost no lead-time between entering the front door and being shown the exit sign.

Don't I know it! Physics is very precious of its eternal verities and the bloke who dares utter the word "metaphysics" is the bloke who farted in the elevator. They all move over to the far side of the room and hope he'll go away. I've been working in this field for many years, Dubious, and I'm well aware of the fact that they don't like my kind.

[Dubious]

Forcing reality to comply with our assumptions by brute mathematical bullying kept the Ptolemaic cosmology alive for over a millennium but it is to be hoped that the Newtonian paradigm can be dispensed with within a lesser time frame.

I think you underestimate the Churches' roll in wanting to keep it alive for that long. Anyone attempting to change the order of the Cosmos would have made you the guest of honor in an auto–da–fé barbecue.

[Obvious Leo]

I am by no means underestimating the role of the church in Newton's paradigm for physics. In fact in my opinion it was central to it because Newton's
is inescapably an Intelligent Design model. Newton made no bones about the fact that physics was all about modelling the mind of god and he meant this absolutely literally because he swallowed the Aquinas crap hook, line and sinker, as did Descartes. Newton's universe was an artefact of the mind of god, just as the official apologist to the papal court had defined it.

[Obvious Leo]

Anyone attempting to change the order of the Cosmos would have made you the guest of honor in an auto–da–fé barbecue.

I won't deny that I'm rather pleased that burning heretics at the stake is no longer fashionable. I'd have been a goner years ago.

[Dubious]

There's no doubt that Newton had one foot in the medieval period. The belief in God during that long period would be beyond the comprehension of any so-called fanatic believer even in these times. Everything from macro to micro did not merely "seem" it "was" all God inflected. If you lived then and affirmed that God does not exist you would have been considered literally insane which disqualified you from being a heretic. You posed no danger to the status quo since you were insane. The authorities either left you alone or committed you to a medieval version of a lunatic asylum.

This was a level of belief we can hardly comprehend and virtually everything was "designed" and incorporated into that belief. For Newton "modelling the mind of god" was not intentional or separate from anything else that was going on. It was completely natural! The term, "Intelligent Design" would have seemed like an oxymoron to him.

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot judge him or others - including Leibniz - by any standard prevalent today without distortion - even though it wasn't quite as extreme in their time as prior. Their Weltanschauung had very little in common with ours making most comparisons very misleading.

[Obvious Leo]

There's no doubt that Newton had one foot in the medieval period. The belief in God during that long period would be beyond the comprehension of any so-called fanatic believer even in these times. Everything from macro to micro did not merely "seem" it "was" all God inflected. If you lived then and affirmed that God does not exist you would have been considered literally insane which disqualified you from being a heretic. You posed no danger to the status quo since you were insane. The authorities either left you alone or committed you to a medieval version of a lunatic asylum.

This was a level of belief we can hardly comprehend and virtually everything was "designed" and incorporated into that belief. For Newton "modelling the mind of god" was not intentional or separate from anything else that was going on. It was completely natural! The term, "Intelligent Design" would have seemed like an oxymoron to him.

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot judge him or others - including Leibniz - by any standard prevalent today without distortion - even though it wasn't quite as extreme in their time as prior. Their Weltanschauung had very little in common with ours making most comparisons very misleading.

To understand the works of a man one must understand the mind of the man and to understand the mind of the man one must understand the cultural milieu in which the mind evolved and operated. I'm delighted to encounter someone with some insights into this truly bizarre historical era. You're quite right. However weird we might imagine this society to have been this couldn't possibly be as weird as it truly was.

[Ginkgo]

I am by no means underestimating the role of the church in Newton's paradigm for physics. In fact in my opinion it was central to it because Newton's
is inescapably an Intelligent Design model. Newton made no bones about the fact that physics was all about modelling the mind of god and he meant this absolutely literally because he swallowed the Aquinas crap hook, line and sinker, as did Descartes. Newton's universe was an artefact of the mind of god, just as the official apologist to the papal court had defined it.

Leo, can you show me where intelligent design appears in Newtonian mechanics?

[Obvious Leo]

Leo, can you show me where intelligent design appears in Newtonian mechanics?

It doesn't appear in the mechanics. It appears in the paradigm. Newton's universe is predicated on a created entity which came into existence at a finite point in time ( which he was able to nominate to the very day!) complete with a suite of immutable and timeless physical laws. No explanation for the origin of these laws is possible, even in principle, and this remains the case until the present day. In other words Newton's universe is insufficient to its own existence because it can only be explained in terms of a transcendent cause. The spacetime paradigm which is currently used is merely a nuanced embellishment on Newton's and not a replacement for it, a point which Einstein and others took pains to stress. It cannot be explained other than in terms of a transcendent cause either, although there are a few fringe-dwellers in the field who prefer the idea of a monstrous cosmic accident.

[Ginkgo]

Leo, can you show me where intelligent design appears in Newtonian mechanics?

It doesn't appear in the mechanics. It appears in the paradigm. Newton's universe is predicated on a created entity which came into existence at a finite point in time ( which he was able to nominate to the very day!) complete with a suite of immutable and timeless physical laws. No explanation for the origin of these laws is possible, even in principle, and this remains the case until the present day. In other words Newton's universe is insufficient to its own existence because it can only be explained in terms of a transcendent cause. The spacetime paradigm which is currently used is merely a nuanced embellishment on Newton's and not a replacement for it, a point which Einstein and others took pains to stress. It cannot be explained other than in terms of a transcendent cause either, although there are a few fringe-dwellers in the field who prefer the idea of a monstrous cosmic accident.

True. If given the opportunity, Newton would have agreed with Einstein when he said, "God does not play dice". We now know that God not only plays dice, he throws it in places where we cannot see. Sorry, but I cannot remember the source of this quote.

Nonetheless, in terms of science, we need to distinguish the types of paradigms we are talking about. So are we talking about religious paradigms or scientific paradigms? Perhaps a conflation of the two?

[Obvious Leo]

Nonetheless, in terms of science, we need to distinguish the types of paradigms we are talking about. So are we talking about religious paradigms or scientific paradigms? Perhaps a conflation of the two?

This is quite an interesting question because theists in physics are very thin on the ground which leaves them groping rather aimlessly for their transcendent cause. Currently the multiverse is the preferred option but this explains nothing and still leaves its own origin unexplained. Shoving their explanations beyond the reach of scientific enquiry is obviously something the physicists learned from the theists but any half-wit knows that an explanation which explains everything is an explanation which explains nothing. Eventually they may simply have to concede that our universe is non-Newtonian but old habits die hard.

[Ginkgo]

Nonetheless, in terms of science, we need to distinguish the types of paradigms we are talking about. So are we talking about religious paradigms or scientific paradigms? Perhaps a conflation of the two?

This is quite an interesting question because theists in physics are very thin on the ground which leaves them groping rather aimlessly for their transcendent cause. Currently the multiverse is the preferred option but this explains nothing and still leaves its own origin unexplained. Shoving their explanations beyond the reach of scientific enquiry is obviously something the physicists learned from the theists but any half-wit knows that an explanation which explains everything is an explanation which explains nothing. Eventually they may simply have to concede that our universe is non-Newtonian but old habits die hard.

I guess we would have to say in a similar fashion string theory, quantum loop gravity and dynamic triangulation have been inspired by theists.

[Wyman]

Leo, can you show me where intelligent design appears in Newtonian mechanics?

It doesn't appear in the mechanics. It appears in the paradigm. Newton's universe is predicated on a created entity which came into existence at a finite point in time ( which he was able to nominate to the very day!) complete with a suite of immutable and timeless physical laws. No explanation for the origin of these laws is possible, even in principle, and this remains the case until the present day. In other words Newton's universe is insufficient to its own existence because it can only be explained in terms of a transcendent cause. The spacetime paradigm which is currently used is merely a nuanced embellishment on Newton's and not a replacement for it, a point which Einstein and others took pains to stress. It cannot be explained other than in terms of a transcendent cause either, although there are a few fringe-dwellers in the field who prefer the idea of a monstrous cosmic accident.

Your characterization of the problems inherent in relating mathematical models to that which they model are well taken (aside from certain rhetorical flourishes that gets everyone's hackles up a bit). But, going the other way, denying a 'real' connection between theory and reality (rather than the model merely modeling a model) also has its problems.

One way to see it is to ask why future observations can be predicted by mathematical deductions? When Einstein made certain assumptions - e.g. that gravity is equivalent to acceleration in general relativity or that the speed of light is constant for all observers and time is not absolute - he then deduced consequences from these assumptions. The question is, why would it be the case that 'reality' somehow abides by laws logically deduced from other laws? Even if we're absolutely confident that the assumptions of a theory are correct, what right do we have to expect future observations to conform to theorems, not yet observed, but logically deduced from those assumptions? Why should Einstein have been confident that if his assumptions were true (assume absolute certainty that they were), the theorems deduced from those assumptions would be verified by future observations - e.g, the bending of light around the sun?

[Obvious Leo]

Wyman. Never once have I disputed the predictive authority of these models. All I'm disputing is their explanatory authority because mathematical physics is tautolagous. The models are based on observation and are thus designed to predict future observations and in this respect modern physics is no different from the Ptolemaic cosmology. It works. However just because it works this doesn't mean that the subjective narrative we choose to explain our observations is validated.

[Ginkgo]

Wyman. Never once have I disputed the predictive authority of these models. All I'm disputing is their explanatory authority because mathematical physics is tautolagous. The models are based on observation and are thus designed to predict future observations and in this respect modern physics is no different from the Ptolemaic cosmology. It works. However just because it works this doesn't mean that the subjective narrative we choose to explain our observations is validated.

I find this a very surprising statement. We now know that Ptolemaic theory did not work because celestial spheres turned out to be a pseudo-problem. The mathematics and subsequent observations leading up to Newton pointed to this fact.

You seem to be suggesting that modern science is somehow a renascent of Platonic, Aristotelian and Ptolemaic metaphysics.