Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 am

uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
Einstein, for example, speculated on the cause of gravity; that's what spacetime is.
And speculation without a testable hypothesis is as useful as The Bible. But GR is a bad example to make your case.
Relativity - that is things are relative TO each other. And the relationship is clearly defined. So you can always measure one thing in respect to another to yield prediction.

See further.
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
Collisions mostly, actual and potential.
Any time you have a relationship between two inter-dependent variables and you can measure both then you necessarily have a transfer function!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_function

If you have a transfer function - you have prediction! Because causality.
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
You are no more or less attributing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe implied by the observable red shift, than you are attributing the Earth going round the Sun because it is following a geodesic. It's completely superfluous from an instrumentalist point of view and many physicists don't bother. Others do.
Uh what? I am not attributing anything TO red shift! I am USING it to measure the expansion. It's just a metric.

To the question of "how do you measure dark energy" - you said "red shift". I countered with "that is how you measure the universe's expansion". If you are using red shift (universe expansion) to measure dark energy that is a proxy-measure! You are necessarily implying a direct relationship (e.g causality) between the universe's expansion and dark matter, so show me a transfer function.

Irrespective of your verbal tango - measuring ANYTHING is an instrumentalist point of view! Because all measurement predict at least one thing - a human experience.
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
The thing that dark energy is invoked to explain is the apparent acceleration of the expansion. There is a lot of measuring to be done before it is clear whether any constants are involved.
You are still talking about explanation. I am still talking about prediction. A variable that is accelerating can still be described as a limit function of time. No dark energy necessary. You just have to sample a few datapoints to establish a trend.
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
Where do you know of that e doesn't equal mcc?
Strawman. BECAUSE e = mcc, you can predict energy in terms of mass and mass in terms of energy. e = mcc IS the transfer function!

Predict redshift in terms of something else. Show me a transfer function.
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
Ask me if I ever propose to test the cause of a constant.
Do I have to? You don't have a transfer function.

uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
I disagree
Overruled. Until you present a test/transfer function.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:06 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
Einstein, for example, speculated on the cause of gravity; that's what spacetime is.
And speculation without a testable hypothesis is as useful as The Bible.
Indeed, but Einstein derived GR from his speculation that spacetime is a substance that is warped by mass/energy. You cannot test that directly, but the field equations have been tested and found to be very accurate.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
You are no more or less attributing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe implied by the observable red shift, than you are attributing the Earth going round the Sun because it is following a geodesic. It's completely superfluous from an instrumentalist point of view and many physicists don't bother. Others do.
Uh what? I am not attributing anything TO red shift! I am USING it to measure the expansion. It's just a metric.
My apologies. That should have read:
You are no more or less attributing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe implied by the observable red shift to dark energy, than you are attributing the Earth going round the Sun because it is following a geodesic. It's completely superfluous from an instrumentalist point of view and many physicists don't bother. Others do.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:06 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
Einstein, for example, speculated on the cause of gravity; that's what spacetime is.
And speculation without a testable hypothesis is as useful as The Bible.
Indeed, but Einstein derived GR from his speculation that spacetime is a substance that is warped by mass/energy. You cannot test that directly, but the field equations have been tested and found to be very accurate.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:56 pm
You are no more or less attributing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe implied by the observable red shift, than you are attributing the Earth going round the Sun because it is following a geodesic. It's completely superfluous from an instrumentalist point of view and many physicists don't bother. Others do.
Uh what? I am not attributing anything TO red shift! I am USING it to measure the expansion. It's just a metric.
My apologies. That should have read:
You are no more or less attributing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe implied by the observable red shift to dark energy, than you are attributing the Earth going round the Sun because it is following a geodesic. It's completely superfluous from an instrumentalist point of view and many physicists don't bother. Others do.
Either way. The field equations are transfer functions. And we can conceptualise/measure mass and energy. So you have prediction.

What is dark energy “wrapped” by?

Alas - we have veered too far off course into specifics.

We were discussing the dualism of “observation” across GR and QFT and how any choice (decision/ambiguity) is inseparable from subjective human values and leaves the door open for interpretation.

And without a mechanism for making such decisions - we are no better off than rolling a dice.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:30 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
Either way. The field equations are transfer functions. And we can conceptualise/measure mass and energy. So you have prediction.
And we can "conceptualise/measure" dark energy in exactly the same way.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
What is dark energy “wrapped” by?
I can only make sense of this if I assume it was a typo and that you meant 'warped'. In which case; it's the same thing that warps spacetime. It's all in the blog: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
Alas - we have veered too far off course into specifics.

We were discussing the dualism of “observation” across GR and QFT and how any choice (decision/ambiguity) is inseparable from subjective human values and leaves the door open for interpretation.
Well, that's just a feature of the theory dependence of observation, which is a feature of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a feature of this thread, which is about writing articles for the magazine that supports this forum.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
And without a mechanism for making such decisions - we are no better off than rolling a dice.
Right. Which is one reason why people do science.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:30 am
And we can "conceptualise/measure" dark energy in exactly the same way.
It isn't exactly the same way because you have no transfer function ;)
You can make testable predictions with GR.
You can't make such with dark energy.

Hypotheses non fingo!
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
Right. Which is one reason why people do science.
Yes, but science stakes its hold on 'objectivity'. Things are true irrespective if you believe them or not.

And the fine print that is never mentioned: IF you accept the pre-suppositions of the methodology ;)
So you have unified all the different frameworks/paradigms/approaches into the word 'science'.

What is the unification criterion? What is common across all things that we call 'science'?

The point I am making all along that every CHOICE you make (in methodology, approach, goals, etc.) can be reduced down to a yes/no choice somewhere. What computer scientists call a decision problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem).

And until you can EXPLAIN the reason/algorithm/approach for making the choice. You can never claim that science is 'objective' or 'free of subjective judgment'.

And the question stands: WHY do you do science?

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:30 am
And we can "conceptualise/measure" dark energy in exactly the same way.
It isn't exactly the same way because you have no transfer function ;)
You can make testable predictions with GR.
You can't make such with dark energy.

Hypotheses non fingo!
String Theory. Loop Quantum Gravity. Brans-Dicke. Pressuron. ete etc. It's only Newton, whoever actually said 'Shut up and calculate' and as many scientists who agree with them that don't fingo hypotheses. The density of dark energy is currently reckoned to be about 7 × 10 to the −30 g/cm cubed. No doubt that will be refined in the light of future measurements, which will lead to predictions which can then be tested.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
...but science stakes its hold on 'objectivity'. Things are true irrespective if you believe them or not.
Of observations. Falling objects on Earth accelerate at 9.8mss or they don't. You can make up any story you like for why that might be the case.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am
And the fine print that is never mentioned: IF you accept the pre-suppositions of the methodology ;)
So you have unified all the different frameworks/paradigms/approaches into the word 'science'.

What is the unification criterion? What is common across all things that we call 'science'?
The point of the original post is that there is no defining feature common to all science.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am
The point I am making all along that every CHOICE you make (in methodology, approach, goals, etc.) can be reduced down to a yes/no choice somewhere. What computer scientists call a decision problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem).
So I gather, but computer science is not a model for all science.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am
And until you can EXPLAIN the reason/algorithm/approach for making the choice. You can never claim that science is 'objective' or 'free of subjective judgment'.
Right. And one of the claims that I made in the original article is that science is not 'objective'.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am
And the question stands: WHY do you do science?
Some for curiosity. Some for control. Others for whatever idiosyncratic reason moves them.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:18 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
Of observations. Falling objects on Earth accelerate at 9.8mss or they don't. You can make up any story you like for why that might be the case.
You need to address the dualistic nature of 'observation' in the QFT vs GR contexts.
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
The point of the original post is that there is no defining feature common to all science.
I believe there is. Human experience. I DO science - all day. Every day. Subconsciously.
I generate/test hypotheses. And I validate them through my actions. I update my models as they are falsified (I make errors).
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
So I gather, but computer science is not a model for all science.
Yes, but it IS a model for ALL decision-making.
And all science is done by humans. Who make decisions.
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
Right. And one of the claims that I made in the original article is that science is not 'objective'.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:41 am
And the question stands: WHY do you do science?
Some for curiosity. Some for control. Others for whatever idiosyncratic reason moves them.
And so it is misguided ;)

I think there is a collective, SOCIAL reason to guide science. Our long-term survival. The "control" aspect. ESPECIALLY since science is funded with OUR taxes.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:31 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:18 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am
Of observations. Falling objects on Earth accelerate at 9.8mss or they don't. You can make up any story you like for why that might be the case.
You need to address the dualistic nature of 'observation' in the QFT vs GR contexts.
OK. What's the problem?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:35 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:31 am
OK. What's the problem?
Go to this post earlier in the thread:
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:38 pm
...
TL;DR The word 'observation' implies passive, onlooker approach to science. Which is true in GR.
In QFT we are actively interacting with the phenomena under observation so that we can measure them.

One is passive one is active.

The implication is that in QFT we aren't observing nature. We are observing the effects of us INTERACTING with nature.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:35 am
TL;DR
Then why challenge?
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:35 am
The word 'observation' implies passive, onlooker approach to science. Which is true in GR.
Well, that's basically true as far as watching planets orbiting the Sun, but how do measure time dilation?
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:35 am
In QFT we are actively interacting with the phenomena under observation so that we can measure them.

One is passive one is active.
It depends on the experiment. If you want to find out whether you can create Higgs Boson as a test of the Higgs field, you have to fire hadrons at each other. If on the other hand, you are investigating Brownian motion, for example, you are no more influencing a trajectory than you do the path of planets by watching them.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:35 am
The implication is that in QFT we aren't observing nature. We are observing the effects of us INTERACTING with nature.
Again, it depends on the experiment.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
Then why challenge?

Meaning - a TL;DR of MY own post A summary. Before you click on it.

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
Well, that's basically true as far as watching planets orbiting the Sun, but how do measure time dilation?
It has been demonstrated at human scale. With clocks just inches apart of each other.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scienc ... u-age.html
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
It depends on the experiment. If you want to find out whether you can create Higgs Boson as a test of the Higgs field, you have to fire hadrons at each other. If on the other hand, you are investigating Brownian motion, for example, you are no more influencing a trajectory than you do the path of planets by watching them.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:35 am
The implication is that in QFT we aren't observing nature. We are observing the effects of us INTERACTING with nature.
Again, it depends on the experiment.
Of course, but my point stands - some experiments are not passive. They are interactive. And so the whole notion of 'control' a.k.a static reference frame against which to interpret your results disappears. Because the moment you interact with the experiment - an open system makes.

And we know not what to use as a "static reference frame" for in dynamic systems that we. We don't know what 'normal' means because the only constant IS change! So we use some state of system equilibrium as baseline for normal. Which is exactly what the Quantum Xeno Paradox might be.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:22 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
Then why challenge?

Meaning - a TL;DR of MY own post A summary. Before you click on it.
One of the things that some people who have developed a particular narrative assume is that if someone disagrees with them, it is because they haven't read all of it. Actually, I did read that post, but I admit that I don't read everything in all the links you post. But this is the pot calling the kettle black, unless of course you have read everything I have posted and linked to.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
Well, that's basically true as far as watching planets orbiting the Sun, but how do measure time dilation?
It has been demonstrated at human scale. With clocks just inches apart of each other.
Right. And who put the clocks in those positions? Page 48 for Hafele-Keating for example: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
...my point stands - some experiments are not passive. They are interactive.
So we agree then.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:24 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:22 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
Then why challenge?

Meaning - a TL;DR of MY own post A summary. Before you click on it.
One of the things that some people who have developed a particular narrative assume is that if someone disagrees with them, it is because they haven't read all of it. Actually, I did read that post, but I admit that I don't read everything in all the links you post. But this is the pot calling the kettle black, unless of course you have read everything I have posted and linked to.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 am
Well, that's basically true as far as watching planets orbiting the Sun, but how do measure time dilation?
It has been demonstrated at human scale. With clocks just inches apart of each other.
Right. And who put the clocks in those positions? Page 48 for Hafele-Keating for example: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
...my point stands - some experiments are not passive. They are interactive.
So we agree then.
I am not sure what we are agreeing on?

If science is to lay any claim on “objectivity” there can be no room for interpretation.
Certainly not in the methodology itself!

Otherwise anything goes! Which is true I while strong to some answers, but NOT when you have to verify their correctness.

So can we at least standardize “observation”?

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by uwot » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:40 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
...my point stands - some experiments are not passive. They are interactive.
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:22 am
So we agree then.
I am not sure what we are agreeing on?
That some experiments are passive, and some interactive.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
If science is to lay any claim on “objectivity” there can be no room for interpretation.
I addressed that only a couple of hours ago:
uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:30 am
Well, that's just a feature of the theory dependence of observation, which is a feature of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a feature of this thread, which is about writing articles for the magazine that supports this forum.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:21 am
And without a mechanism for making such decisions - we are no better off than rolling a dice.
Right. Which is one reason why people do science.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:08 am
Certainly not in the methodology itself!

Otherwise anything goes! Which is true I while strong to some answers, but NOT when you have to verify their correctness.

So can we at least standardize “observation”?
That's all covered in the OP that was too long for you to read.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Philosophy of science-the first two and a half millennia.

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:45 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:40 am
That's all covered in the OP that was too long for you to read.
As was my 2-line explanation that my "TL;DR" wasn't referring to your post. I was using it to mean "summary of my post".

I read your OP. It doesn't cover it sufficiently as far as I am concerned.
Because if you concede to allowing for interpretation in science then you must concede it no different to religion.

Yes, science is subjective. But by agreeing to some fundamentals (SI units) we INVENT objectivity. A reference frame against which we consistently interpret our results. Should we invent "observation" too then ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests