Einstein: Philosophy versus Empiricism

[skwinty (Steve)]

Philosophy of science in todays curriculum of physicists is all but gone.
It seems that the philosophical approach is the exception rather than the rule. Physicists of today see thousands of trees but no forests.
The independence which is created by philosophical insight is the difference between the artisan and the seeker of truth.
Logical empiricism changes science into engineering whereas creative free thinking cannot be replaced by algorithms for building and testing theories.
Einstein believed that when theories are tested they should be tested as a whole and not by fixing one of the variables as this makes the variable selection arbitrary.

Logical empiricism soon turns to orthodoxy which leads to a Kantian revival.
The basis of this is in
1. Critique of Pure Reason
2. Critique of Practical Reason
3. Critique of Judgement.

Kant believed that Euclidean geometry was true a priori to our organisation of our experience of external objects.

On the other side the philosophical approach has some of it's basis in the following works.

1. Critique of Pure Experience....Richard Avenarius
2. What are the numbers and what should the numbers be...Richard Dedekind
3. Treatise of Human Nature....David Hume
4. Analysis of Sensations and the relation of the physical to the psychical....Ernst Mach
5. A System of Logic....John Stuart Mill
6. The Grammar of Science....Karl Pearson
7. Science and Hypothesis.....Henri Poincare

When Einstein, his wife and Hubble went to Mt Wilson, Einsteins wife asked Hubble what the telescope was used for, she was to that it was to determine the shape of the universe. She replied " My husband does that on the back of an old envelope"

Years before Hubble detected cosmic expansion Einstein had developed General Relativity which could explain cosmic expansion. General Relativity describes the birth, expansion, life and death of the universe and therein lies the difference

[Kokatha man]

Hi skwinty - I noze wot yers uptos: yer jist conflatin dem udder freds togethers ('cludin wun wot woz band) to gits dat ol' ball rollin agins!

Anyways, Im agree-in' wif da sentiments. 'Cordin to meez, dem artisans choppin down dem trees t' sees wots dem made of - I reckons dem empa-thingies ain't got much empathies in 'em: tis only dem artist/philosophers who seeks da real truths; but den agin, I'm bi-arsed!

Darryl.

[skwinty (Steve)]

No pulling the wool over your philosphical eyes hey Darryl.
When we gonna see some of your art then!
Better not be a study of fruit in a bowl!

[skwinty (Steve)]

Lots of views and no replies! Silence gives consent?
I must admit I expected a few dissenting voices

[Alchemy (Clive)]

Originally Posted by skwinty

Lots of views and no replies! Silence gives consent?
I must admit I expected a few dissenting voices

at the risk of looking dumb , i have no idea what you are trying to convey.
it would appear so does everyone else.

cheers clive.

[skwinty (Steve)]

It was a reference to a quote by Plato that all could be deduced from an armchair. Some people believe this to be false and felt that sophisticated tests and measurements are required to determine all, hence philosophy versus empiricism.
Also as Darryl pointed out I was trying to revive a thread by xelasnave about this topic when certain individuals launched into each other and subsequently the thread was locked.
I found this to be a great pity as I enjoyed the exchange of opinions about the more esoteric scientific ideas and notions

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

at the risk of looking dumb , i have no idea what you are trying to convey.
it would appear so does everyone else.

cheers clive.

Whilst respecting your own viewpoint Clive, I don't think that "no responses" reflects a forum full of either "non-thinking" or "philosophy-challenged/inarticulate" members: personally I think it's a great topic to get your teeth into as long as we don't let personal egotism hijack our conversations. Bert raised an interesting point in his (I think) "heroes" thread response that would have some relevance re Steve's (this) thread.

As for me, I'm sorry skwint, but I'm mentally fatigued with paperwork and writing for my supper at the moment to contribute - can't even get the energy to drag my gear up on my lookout to do some obbing at the mo: but at least I'm taking some breaks between keyboard banging and going through accounts etc to design some new gear and my mini-observatory (a glorified box on rollers just big enough to contain either scope that I can just roll off and start obbing with at the drop of a hat.....)

Hopefully that'll provide my eyes and heart with some solace for my star-gazing habits whilst other things take up most of my time!

Cheers, Darryl.

[avandonk]

skwinty skwinty skwinty don't you realise unless your application for a grant to do scientific research promises untold wealth in a very short time for your benefactors you have no hope of any support.

If you even mention anything as esoteric as philosophy you will be labeled as a nut or worse. The word unsound comes to mind!

Here are two examples.
1.
This proposal is to stop (pick your disease or problem) by eliminating all social and environmental causes before we embark on only uselessly treating the resultant symptoms.

2.
With mass screening of many compounds and nanotechnology and many other expensive methods we will produce a cure that will bring many benefits for the organisation in a healthy cash flow that will never cease as the problem is still really there so we can treat the symptoms in perpetuity untill ...

Which alternative proposal sounds emminently logical to the members of the board (who generally know stuff all about anything, let alone science or philosophy)?

That is why scientists seem to fall into this mold. They need to eat as well.

You are quite correct mere philosophy barely rates a mention, as that it asks us all to question what is really going on.

No method on its own can give us insight into how things tick. Sitting in an armchair just thinking without any empirical guideposts will leave you none the wiser. Deluded maybe but not wiser.

As Kokatha man (Darryl) said a very interesting book by Douglas Hofstadter goes into these questions to try to understand how a self referential system can exist and still be logical. It can't (Godels Theorem) as there will always be contradictions or paradoxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...Escher%2C_Bach

Einstein was very disturbed by quantum mechanics especially action at a distance or quantum entanglement. I personally think that the fact that at a fundamental level that the Universe is a sea boiling with uncertainty and only a localised experiment can force the system to a logical picture for only that locality and observer does not exclude all other possibilities.

Words are puny devices for conveying ideas. That is why we have art and music. It is curious is it not that all 'primitive' human societies conveyed their store of knowledge by art and music.

I should stop now.

Bert

[skwinty (Steve)]

Hello Bert
Yes, the sad state of physicists today being motivated by money rather than truth is a sad indictment of modern society in general.
As to the stigma attached to the philosophy of science, I dont believe that it applied to Einstein as such.
I maintain that physicists of his calibre are few and far between today.
Stephen Hawkins is one of them and offhand no others stand out.Einsteins ability to think outside of the box and his non conformance to the standards of the time were in my opinion his greatest assets.
All of his revelations came from the "armchair" and the laboratory of his mind.
Sure , he had reservations about the quantum theory and to quote "The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it gets"
Schrodingers equations postulate that objects are represented by probability waves that extend throughout space and contain all possibilities.
BUT, it only measures the probabilities of those possibilties and not the outcome of the possibilities.
ie the cat is dead OR alive and not The cat is dead AND alive. We just dont know until we look.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle was not the final word on nature according to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. The EPR stated that either quantum theory is incomplete or the left hand particle disturbs the right hand particle regardless of locality.
Einstein took exception to this as it implied that the disturbance was faster than light. This didnt agree with Einsteins "reality".
Bohr replied that it all depended on what you mean by reality.
Most physicists agreed with Bohr and used quantum theory to build nuclear bombs.
Great for your political and financial resume.
There was a general consensus that Einstein did not understand quantum theory.
In later years this feeling changed.
Tests at CERN and UCLA did prove the quantum theory rather than Einsteins reality. However scientist cannot even agree on the definitions of "Locality and Reality"
The practicalities of "Spooky action at a distance" is limited and so far may only have potential in quantum computers and cryptography.
I agree with your sentiments regarding puny words.
Einstein would think in pictures and then attempt to translate into words.
Art and music are great conveyors of thought and emotion yet cannot imo convey scientific knowledge through the ages without the use of words and science.
Perhaps , I too should now put a cork in it until later.

[skwinty (Steve)]

Originally Posted by Kokatha man

As for me, I'm sorry skwint, but I'm mentally fatigued with paperwork and writing for my supper at the moment to contribute

No problem Darryl, all good things come to those who wait

[avandonk]

I have seen the results of the experiments. Would you believe protons diffracting with themselves in the classic double slit interference experiment.
This implies the proton went through both slits ie it was some sort of wave function.

It gets more scary as it has now been done with Buckyballs ie C60 or 60 Carbon atoms. When they do it with a lab rat I will start to believe in the Matrix!

As I said just because something works locally and this includes the observer that does not mean this is how things behave when you are not looking!

If we ever get qbit computers into reality it is even scarier as a 40 qbit computer supposedly can describe the Universe. I still maintain that the Universe is a quantum computer and the human brain derives its complexity or conciousness from this inherent capability as it also derives its computational power from some deeply embedded quantum states. What are all these fibrils that seem to do nothing doing inside our brains. Most physicists will tell you that low temperatures are needed to have quantum coherence. I vaguely remember chemists saying the same thing until biological enzymes were finally discovered that worked at body temperatures!.

The other scary thing is that we do not control ourselves. There is a ghost in our machinery that really runs things. We just think it was what we wanted to do.

It is for the younger ones to work all this out.

Bert

[skwinty (Steve)]

Well, if its possible for protons and bucky balls, then its possible for rats.
However, how do you isolate a rat from its surrounds.
As Zeilinger the buckyball man says "The border between classical and quantum phenomena is just a matter of money"
Obviously lots of it.
Now the problem with quantum computers is the maintenance of coherence within the system.
According to Wolfram, the inventor of the programming language Mathematica, the program required to create the universe is quite simple and only consists of a few lines of machine code.
Run this little program and repeat for 14 billion years. this program would be similar to a "cellular automaton"
To get back to Einstein.
He always said that the preferred theory was the one that resulted in the simplest mathematical proof.
The shortcoming of equation based physics is its inability to cope with complexity.
Look at the sacrifices made in string theory to reduce the mathematical complexities.
All these fantastic theories, a product of the laboratory of the mind waiting for empirical validation. May take a little time.
A quote from Eddington " We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after the other to account for its origin. At last we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo, it is our own"
Yes it is for the younger generation to resolve these issues, but I see no reason for the older generation to not die trying.

[skwinty (Steve)]

Some quotes relating to the subject matter of this thread.

Mark Twain
Spectrum analysis enabled the astronomer to tell when a star was advancing head on, and when it was going the other way. This was regarded as very precious. Why the astronomer wanted to know, is not stated; nor what he could sell out for, when he did know. An astronomer's notions about preciousness were loose. They were not much regarded by practical men, and seldom excited a broker.
- "The Secret History of Eddypus"

Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then you can borrow money of them.
- "As Concerns Interpreting the Deity"

A scientist will never show any kindness for a theory which he did not start himself.
- A Tramp Abroad

The scientist. He will spend thirty years in building up a mountain range of facts with the intent to prove a certain theory; then he is so happy in his achievement that as a rule he overlooks the main chief fact of all--that his accumulation proves an entirely different thing.
- "The Bee" essay

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Life on the Mississippi, chapter 17, 1883.

Dylan Thomas (1914--1953)
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Frank Zappa (1940--1993)
The Very Big Stupid is a thing which breeds by eating The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D department.

[Kokatha man]

Skwint, just posting to let you know that whilst I'm not contributing to this post 'cos of other commitments; I'm still enjoying your soliloquies that seem to combine both the research references and philosophical conjectures of various people: or is this a window on the split personality of the scientist/philosopher in you coming to the fore ?!?

Keep it rolling - at least if you start taking offence at your own postings and get "locked" for personal invective you'll only have yourself to blame!?!

I am enjoying the posts; some of it re-awakening past reading or musings, and some adding to my "must follow up this reference etc."

Cheers, Darryl.

[skwinty (Steve)]

hi Darryl
At home I am surrounded by females.
The only other male is one of the dogs, so I do talk a lot about scientific things to myself so a split personality is definately on the cards.
It does get boring because no matter what the topic, I always win the argument.
Thats why I tend to persist with these posting as I do get intelligent and differing opinions on the topics that fascinate me.
The IIS forum sure bearts talking to females, dogs, trees, the stars and myself.
No insult to the ladies, its just the ones surrounding me are not interested in science, technology and astronomy

[omnivorr]

Hi Guys, ..I won't spoil it this time..

You are getting way out of my league, but may I make a couple of simple points..

All empirical evidence is subject to interpretation.. whether post-factum, mere observation.. or by design, experiment/measure...

do the frogs bring the rain by their chorus, or merely celebrate its impending arrival?

A cup might be a utilitarian 'datum' to one mind, a Holy vessel to another,.. it may be art or kitsch, ..half full or half empty... ...a cup is what context makes it.. without being upright in a gravitational field as we expect, its functional 'cup' identity may be subverted.. similarly any form of impirical evidence merely 'holds water' within a set of specific contexts of "ideals" framed by the mind contemplating it.

Concensus is the nearest to absolute we'll ever achieve.. and dominant concensus is not necessarily always the best concensus.. vis history.

Cheers
Russ

[skwinty (Steve)]

Hi Russ
You are correct in your observations. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The main point when considering empirical data is: Are the predictions set forth in the theory shown to be true or not in practice? Sure these data may be open to interpretation, but if the theory sets its predictions unequivically then the data must also be unequivical and thus not open to misinterpretation.
All in all a daunting task and hence the stringent peer review requirements for any serious science.

[Kokatha man]

But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a “quantum bounce,” where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering.


http://adms.physorg.com/openads/www/...&cb=022404df43
http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/1122346.gif
Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours. Their study will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

“The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang,” Singh told PhysOrg.com. “It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours.”

The finding builds on previous research, with some important differences. Last year, Penn State physicist Martin Bojowald used a simplified version of LQG to show that a universe “on the other side” of the bounce could have existed. However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.”

But Corichi and Singh have modified the simplified LQG theory further by approximating a key equation called the quantum constraint. Using their version, called sLQG, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce.

“This means that the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours,” Singh said. “The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.”

There you are skwint - the above is taken from a link in programmer's "bouncing universes" in today's General chat section of IIS forum.

I thought it might be a nice addition to your thread - the emboldened text is mine: these 2 guys get my vote - I do so like "nice" theorists and theories!?!:whistl e:

Cheers, Darryl.

[skwinty (Steve)]

Hi Darryl
Very interesting read. It seems to me that this theory takes Stephen Hawkings Big bang Big crunch and the bouncing universe a few steps further.
There has been general consensus however, that the laws of
physics and mathematics break down at the point of singularity. So these laws must be very resilient to survive through the point of infinite mass in zero volume space. That is I suppose the beauty of mathematics.
Perhaps the wormhole and multi verse theories could gather momentum now although there are no real tests for their validity.
However the possibility of all our theories, even those which have passed rigorous testing and review, could plainly and simply be wrong!

I attended a lecture last night by Prof Peter Dunsby from the department of applied mathematics at UCT and they are talking about modifying Einsteins theory of gravity as it appears to influence the distribution of baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy. It seems that the quest to prove Einstein wrong will never diminish.

Einstein himself considered the cosmological constant his biggest blunder, but yet today it is the flavour of the week. I think Einstein was being a bit hard on himself though, as his equations showed the universe to be accelerating or decellerating but observation showed a static universe hence his cosmological constant to keep the equations reflecting observation.
It was only in 1929 that Hubble actually measured the expansion of the universe.

I am hoping that when my turn comes to vacate this world, that all these issues become clear.

[avandonk]

Could I just say that the boundary between science and philosophy is totally arbitrary. It is a continuum.

Just as the 'real' world has these strange states called macro level and quantum level and the boundary seems indistinct, I am sure we are looking at a totally analogous situation.

We reflect the real situation of our reality because we are a part of it. Self referential systems have inherent paradoxes and I think that is how our Universe overcomes this is by being very fuzzy at the micro and yet reflect this fuzziness at the really macro ie Galaxy clusters and clusters of Galaxies and so on. This comes full circle?

The fact that I can even begin to communicate these ideas over a vast distance compared to even our immediate ancestors tells me that we live in relatively enlightened times.

What really scares me how many charletans are gaining credence by placing drivel in front of the many!

I think Kokatha man is very interesting as he incisive and does not preach as I hope I do not.

Now to get to the theories that you have both put forward.

Conjecture is a first start. Without experimental evidence it is still mere conjecture.

Bouncing Universes whilst being beyond real comprehension should not be ruled out. I am all for new life as long as I get a bit myself.

As far as the laws of Physics surviving a pan dimensional disaster of Biblical proportions? I am still trying to work out the current one.

By the way Biblical meant the whole of Palestine and Arabia?

When we fully understand Gravity we may know.

The large Hadron Collider may give us a glimmer of understanding.

Bert