I guess I've been a natural philosopher my entire life as well though I suspect you're older, better trained, and less old school than I. Really I always considered myself a scientist but have only recently come to understand that my "science" is more like phoilosophy and very very similar to ancient or animal language based science. Some of my earliest memories are in trying to understand the nature of thought. "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" and "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" are the two most inflential works for me. What do I know though, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" also had a large effect on me. In recent times I believe I have discovered the ancient language based on my "interpretation" of the Pyramid Texts ("Ritual of Ascension"?).Obvious Leo wrote:Don't be shy. Evolution towards informational complexity is the fundamental self-organising principle of the universe and the fact that almost nobody in science understands the metaphysical implications of this is regrettable because it means Newton was wrong and our universe is not a created entity. However its deeper metaphysical implications go to the very nature of determinism. It means that our universe is both entirely deterministic at every scale and utterly unpredictable on any scale.cladking wrote: (I can't bring myself to say "evolution").
You are too generous. I've been a philosopher of physics all my life and in my opinion the metaphysical underpinning of western science was first shattered by Aquinas and his Platonist bullshit. Descartes, Newton and Bacon then went on to develop this bullshit into a high art form but because it was so successful at modelling observations the bullshit was able to masquerade as truth. Planck, Einstein, Bohr et.al. then tried to do the impossible by putting lipstick on a pig, which was a futile exercise since the entire conceptual paradigm was bogus from the outset. Physics hasn't made a lick of sense ever since and it never bloody well will for as long as it attempts to model reality as a collection of objects moving in space. Reality is no such thing.cladking wrote:The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place as technology catches up with theory and applied science is stuck in the 19th century.
Reality is a sequence of events occurring in time which the observer MODELS AS a collection of objects moving in space. The distinction is not a trivial one.
You have a lower opinion of modern science than I. Certainly there are severe flaws in its underpinnings and you make very valid points but these flaws can be self correcting to some extent because scientists are individuals. While science may seek "laws" individual scientists are merely seeking the repeating patterns and forces which seen to apply in nature. I believe these fundamental flaws will limit the ability of the tool known as science to progress at some point and we seem to agree this point was passed a century ago. Perhaps I simply haven't thought this out to the degree you have.
It's interesting we've arrived at such similar points. But progress has always shown up at multiple points and it probably won't be too long until several people almost simultaneously can use this knowledge in some way to make progress. Or perhaps it's the philosophical considerations alone that give rise to something new.