Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Saturday, July 24, 2021
Can Physics Be Too Speculative?
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
Imagination . . .
Multiverses, dark matter, string theory, fifth forces, . . .
Have physicists gone too far in their speculations?
. . . where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience.
. . . . Dark matter is an example of a research program that used to be progressive
but has become degenerative.
. . . guessing a specific particle from rather unspecific observations of its gravitational pull
has an infinitesimal chance of working.
Theories for the early universe or fifth forces suffer from a similar problem.
They do not explain any existing observations. Instead, they make the existing
– very well working – theories more complicated without solving any problem.
Multiverse research concerns itself with postulating the existence of entities
that are unobservable in principle. This isn’t scientific and should have no place in physics.
The origin of the problem seems to be that many physicists are Platonists – they believe
that their math is real, rather than just a description of reality.
But Platonism is a philosophy and shouldn’t be mistaken for science.
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/ ... 34hNJUSs7k
----------
Can Physics Be Too Speculative?
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
Imagination . . .
Multiverses, dark matter, string theory, fifth forces, . . .
Have physicists gone too far in their speculations?
. . . where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience.
. . . . Dark matter is an example of a research program that used to be progressive
but has become degenerative.
. . . guessing a specific particle from rather unspecific observations of its gravitational pull
has an infinitesimal chance of working.
Theories for the early universe or fifth forces suffer from a similar problem.
They do not explain any existing observations. Instead, they make the existing
– very well working – theories more complicated without solving any problem.
Multiverse research concerns itself with postulating the existence of entities
that are unobservable in principle. This isn’t scientific and should have no place in physics.
The origin of the problem seems to be that many physicists are Platonists – they believe
that their math is real, rather than just a description of reality.
But Platonism is a philosophy and shouldn’t be mistaken for science.
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/ ... 34hNJUSs7k
----------
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
I don't know if it's "too speculative," but it has a tendency to "take mathematics as primary (ontologically)" and then to reify mathematics.
A lot of the stuff that you're referring to is a result of how one gets the correct (predictive) answers mathematically, under current theoretical paradigms (current theoretical models). This really just tells us something about how to manipulate mathematical ideas so that they're correlated to observations. But there's a tendency (and to an extent a necessity when it comes to interesting the general public and securing funding) to want to talk in terms of metaphors about the observable/external world regarding what the world might be like under a platonic interpretation of mathematics where mathematics is ontologically primary (which unfortunately a lot of scientists believe is literally the case).
A lot of the stuff that you're referring to is a result of how one gets the correct (predictive) answers mathematically, under current theoretical paradigms (current theoretical models). This really just tells us something about how to manipulate mathematical ideas so that they're correlated to observations. But there's a tendency (and to an extent a necessity when it comes to interesting the general public and securing funding) to want to talk in terms of metaphors about the observable/external world regarding what the world might be like under a platonic interpretation of mathematics where mathematics is ontologically primary (which unfortunately a lot of scientists believe is literally the case).
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Sorry,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:15 am I don't know if it's "too speculative," but it has a tendency to "take mathematics as primary (ontologically)" and then to reify mathematics.
A lot of the stuff that you're referring to is a result of how one gets the correct (predictive) answers mathematically,
under current theoretical paradigms (current theoretical models). This really just tells us something about
how to manipulate mathematical ideas so that they're correlated to observations.
But there's a tendency (and to an extent a necessity when it comes to interesting the general public
and securing funding) to want to talk in terms of metaphors about the observable/external world
regarding what the world might be like under a platonic interpretation of mathematics where mathematics
is ontologically primary (which unfortunately a lot of scientists believe is literally the case).
What is "ontological primary mathematics"?
In terms of metaphors Bible was written, not Physics
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Well a lot goes by the name science today which is not science at all, and most of that pseudo-science is definitely speculative or even pure fiction.socrat44 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:02 am Saturday, July 24, 2021
Can Physics Be Too Speculative?
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
Imagination . . .
Multiverses, dark matter, string theory, fifth forces, . . .
Have physicists gone too far in their speculations?
. . . where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience.
. . . . Dark matter is an example of a research program that used to be progressive
but has become degenerative.
. . . guessing a specific particle from rather unspecific observations of its gravitational pull
has an infinitesimal chance of working.
Theories for the early universe or fifth forces suffer from a similar problem.
They do not explain any existing observations. Instead, they make the existing
– very well working – theories more complicated without solving any problem.
Multiverse research concerns itself with postulating the existence of entities
that are unobservable in principle. This isn’t scientific and should have no place in physics.
The origin of the problem seems to be that many physicists are Platonists – they believe
that their math is real, rather than just a description of reality.
But Platonism is a philosophy and shouldn’t be mistaken for science.
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/ ... 34hNJUSs7k
----------
I'm not at all surprised at the response to your good article, and it is good. You've definitly stepped on too many toes that have a vested interest in what goes by the name science to day.
I found this post especially interesting because it reflects almost exactly a discussion I had earlier on another thread regarding the history of science and philosophy. Your right about Platonism. You might be suprised that Pythagorism has the same problem.
Excellent article!I refer to that as the Pythogorean fallacy and it has forever since plagued and corrupted both philosophy and science. Mathematics is nothing more than a human invented method of identifying and describing those aspects of reality that can be counted or measured. Mathematical, "rules," have no efficiency to make anything happen, they are merely the recognition of what is, not the cause of what is. The same mistake is made today by those who point to scientific principles as the reason why things are what they are. The scientific principles do not cause or mold reality, they only describe it.To Pythagoreans, the pleasing sounds of a harmonious scale were however of secondary importance – a by-product of the fact that the ‘limiting things’, the mathematical rules, were applied appropriately. The main purpose of the Pythagoreans’ intellectual endeavour was to discover and contemplate these mathematical rules that they believed governed the world, so that they could lead well-ordered, harmonious lives.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
The very first line in Hossenfelder's blogpost is this:socrat44 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:02 am Saturday, July 24, 2021
Can Physics Be Too Speculative?
/ Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder /
------------
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/ ... 34hNJUSs7k
----------
"Imagination and creativity are the heart of science."
However, Sabine Hossenfelder is not only a self-proclaimed "superdeterminist," but she also strongly insists that there is no such thing as "free will."
In regards to superdeterminism, according to Wiki:
My point is that if according to superdeterminism, every action and event is predetermined, then I cannot help but wonder how "imagination and creativity" fits-in with Sabine's philosophy, especially if there is nothing in possession of "free will" that can do the imagining and the creating?Wiki wrote: In the 1980s, John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
----------------
Kudos to Sabine (a world renowned theoretical physicist) for creating a blog where she allows us riff-raff to post comments on threads (not unlike here) and she will sometimes respond. Indeed, I have gotten into several arguments* with her in the last couple of years.
*(By "arguments" I mean I write something critical of her hardcore materialism and she tells me how confused she thinks I am. )
(P.S., uwot, if by chance you are reading this, if you haven't already done so, then you might enjoy participating in some of the conversations over there.)
_______
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Can "ontological primary mathematics" be the Imaginary Part of Quantum Mechanics?socrat44 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:18 pmSorry,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:15 am I don't know if it's "too speculative," but it has a tendency to "take mathematics as primary (ontologically)" and then to reify mathematics.
A lot of the stuff that you're referring to is a result of how one gets the correct (predictive) answers mathematically,
under current theoretical paradigms (current theoretical models). This really just tells us something about
how to manipulate mathematical ideas so that they're correlated to observations.
But there's a tendency (and to an extent a necessity when it comes to interesting the general public
and securing funding) to want to talk in terms of metaphors about the observable/external world
regarding what the world might be like under a platonic interpretation of mathematics where mathematics
is ontologically primary (which unfortunately a lot of scientists believe is literally the case).
What is "ontological primary mathematics"?
In terms of metaphors Bible was written, not Physics
#
Physicists Prove That the Imaginary Part of Quantum Mechanics Really Exists!
By Faculty of Physics University of Warsaw on Apr 27, 2021
https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-pro ... KGkIFzeblE
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
First, do you know what ontology is?socrat44 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:18 pmSorry,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:15 am I don't know if it's "too speculative," but it has a tendency to "take mathematics as primary (ontologically)" and then to reify mathematics.
A lot of the stuff that you're referring to is a result of how one gets the correct (predictive) answers mathematically,
under current theoretical paradigms (current theoretical models). This really just tells us something about
how to manipulate mathematical ideas so that they're correlated to observations.
But there's a tendency (and to an extent a necessity when it comes to interesting the general public
and securing funding) to want to talk in terms of metaphors about the observable/external world
regarding what the world might be like under a platonic interpretation of mathematics where mathematics
is ontologically primary (which unfortunately a lot of scientists believe is literally the case).
What is "ontological primary mathematics"?
In terms of metaphors Bible was written, not Physics
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
This is either an ignorant question, or a question intended to deceive.
To be is to be the value of a bound variable.--W.V.Quine
The error is in placing a question-mark at the end of that English expression when you should've put a full stop.
Not "What is ontology?" but ""What" is ontology.". It's an assignment.
Ontology IS the "what".
what = ontology.
The question "Do you know what ontology is?" triggers a rift in perspective. It's an ontological question about ontology! It's meta-ontology.
The correct quesion is "Do you know that what is ontology?" and the anwer is "Yes, I know that."
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
ontological - existential - metaphysical - phenomenological - philosophical - supernatural - transcendentalTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:05 amFirst, do you know what ontology is?socrat44 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:18 pmSorry,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:15 am I don't know if it's "too speculative," but it has a tendency to "take mathematics as primary (ontologically)" and then to reify mathematics.
A lot of the stuff that you're referring to is a result of how one gets the correct (predictive) answers mathematically,
under current theoretical paradigms (current theoretical models). This really just tells us something about
how to manipulate mathematical ideas so that they're correlated to observations.
But there's a tendency (and to an extent a necessity when it comes to interesting the general public
and securing funding) to want to talk in terms of metaphors about the observable/external world
regarding what the world might be like under a platonic interpretation of mathematics where mathematics
is ontologically primary (which unfortunately a lot of scientists believe is literally the case).
What is "ontological primary mathematics"?
In terms of metaphors Bible was written, not Physics
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ontological
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
socrat44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:36 pmontological - existential - metaphysical - phenomenological - philosophical - supernatural - transcendental
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ontological
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
I'm asking if you're familiar with the field at all, not if you can look up the word and list some synonyms for it per a thesaurus. The reason I'm asking is so I have an idea where to begin an explanation so it will hopefully make some sense to you.socrat44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:36 pmontological - existential - metaphysical - phenomenological - philosophical - supernatural - transcendental
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ontological
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Superdeterminism is the same thing as the simulation hypothesis. Which Sabine rejects.
It's the same thing as a belief in God.
Sabine doesn't know her Metaphysics from her physics. Or, at the very least - she doesn't talk about it in fear of losing her reputaiton.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Sorry,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:15 am I don't know if it's "too speculative," but it has a tendency
to "take mathematics as primary (ontologically)" and then to reify mathematics.
What is "mathematics as primary (ontologically)" ?
=========
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Superdeterminism is the only logical position duh
you're an idiot
you're an idiot