Barry looks almost identical to the way he looked circa 1996 when he taught me Formal Logic at Rutgers. Same type of shoes, pants, t-shirt, and shirt. Only maybe a few extra wrinkles. Such a great teacher. One of my favorites. Other great teachers I had there were Tim Maudlin and Colin McGinn. It would be great if you have Barry over many times again, and get to many-minds and more physics.
Dude, why did you waste your time on this crap? You could have learned in undergrad physics that "Reality is the totality of all irreversible energy exchanges.". To a physicist this is kindergarten stuff today. Philosophers have simply not caught up with the last 100 years of science, that's all there is to this bullshit.
Philosophy finally getting the respect its deserves, science can't afford to ignore us any longer! Cuz sciences problems aren't of quantity or quality of empirical data, it's of fundemental structure and interpretation, epistemologically and ontologically. preferably to me that it includes both Substance and Subject.
Name one actual development in physics that has come from philosophy of science? As a physicist, I am not aware of any. Nice talks, but no actual progress in the field of physics.
@@christianfarina3056 Philosophy shaped physics by grounding it in logic and big ideas. Bacon pushed inductive reasoning, which gave us the scientific method, and Kant’s ideas on space and time influenced Einstein’s theory of relativity. Without those, physics wouldn’t be what it is today.
Maybe a weird comment, but there's one moment in this interview where you, Robinson, seem to worry about whether you're doing a good job -- and I think you were doing great. If that's any comfort to you then that'd be awesome, but also I just think it's true.
Seemingly, Barry did his best to brush off the question but might have done better to state that Marx was a journalist and an analyst of the socio-economic situation of his times rather than what might now be called a "scientist". The placatory diversion of the anecdote about Barry's wife's experiences in the Soviet satellite Hungary did Barry no favours to my mind because I am pretty sure that Marx would not have approved of the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin or the modus operandi of the Soviet Union. I am reminded of Richard Wolff's talk on this channel where he describes the effect of the Cold War on American academics when it came to discussing Marx - which amounted to guilt by (any) association and therefore was, and perhaps still is effectively taboo. Seemingly despite the Soviet Union's fall more than a quarter of a century ago and despite America's embrace of Communist China and its standards (through a myriad imports) the old ideological reflexes remain.
Man Im getting old, never thought an ipad kid would give me phil of sci lessons! Thank you though, it was very informative and reminded me of my own classes!
Let's not too broadly apply the idea of "pursuit." There are gradations to the level of pursuing ideas and given a certain level of bandwidth to pursue them a practical decision must be made in what to pursue most fervently, which means deprioritization must occur. The elephant in the room in this regard is enormous.
The way one prioritizes in this context though is by accepting that there are explanations that apply to more things than others, in the physical sciences the most global of these theories is QM as it succeeds to encompass and explain most phenomena and understood forces. Once you have such an explanation you can pursue the particulars that would naturally follow therefore streamlining the process and cutting down on what would be unnecessary exploration further down the line. I'm personally quite excited for string theory and other candidates for the ultimate explanation in regards to the universe, but I do wonder about when and how we get there and how fast everything will unfold after that moment, hopefully not so fast we shoot ourselves in the foot if E=mc^2 and the 20th century were any indication.
@@inplainview1 @inplainview1 They will if one proves to be true. Quite a lot of thinking to be done... sometimes I wonder where things would have gone if Einstein lived for but a few years longer.
Was Barry aware of the title of this video prior to being Interviewed? I ask because, the title begs the question: what is the utility of the philosophy of science, and therefore the opportunity to justify public funding of such an activity and assumption based physics such as string-theory and cosmology.
25:30 If scientific realism is merely "trying to figure out what the world is really like," then what is with the trend of academics using scientific realism to refer to hidden variable theories? For example, it is often stated that Bell's theorem calls into question "local realism." If scientific realism is merely "trying to figure out what the world is really like," then it would make no sense to say that Bell's theorem calls into question realism, local or otherwise. It would be more accurate to say it calls into question local hidden variable theories, but the presence or absence of hidden variables would not be intrinsically bound in the notion of "realism." If there are no hidden variables, then that would just be "what the world is really like," and thus quantum mechanics could be local and scientifically realist.
Hence the popularity of the Many Worlds theory. Creation multiverses at the wave collapse is the most direct interpretation of quantum, avoiding the issues of the Copenhagen interpretation
No mention of Kuhn? I mean, what is string theory? Is it a pseudo science, or is it a science. Well, it seems like pre-paradigmatic science with a twist that it can't be tested atm.
String theory is the unitary representation theory of the symmetries of the Riemannian manifold of general relativity, just like quantum field theory is the unitary representation theory of Poincare symmetry on a flat spacetime. If you don't know this, then you don't have a dog in this race. Please stay silent because you are making a fool of yourself right now. ;-)
@lepidoptera9337 you're so thoughtful. Thanks for kindly helping me not make a fool of myself. How does what you said have anything to do with what I said?
@@davidbutler9323 You asked what string theory is. String theory is a trivial extension of quantum field theory. Trivial in the sense of how it's defined, certainly not trivial in the consequences of that definition. Whatever it may seem to you, to a physicist who has spent a few minutes thinking about it it's an utterly necessary mathematical puzzle. If we can't solve this toy puzzle, then we can't hope to solve the actual puzzle, either.
@@lepidoptera9337 I didn't actually ask what string theory was. I was reflecting the question they posed in their discussion of string theory. Did you watch the video? You're still not addressing my point about string theory being pre-paradigmatic in Kuhn's sense though. In fact, your response - calling it both a 'trivial extension' and an 'utterly necessary puzzle' - actually demonstrates some of the paradigmatic uncertainty I was talking about. The fact that physicists still debate its fundamental nature and role is exactly what makes it pre-paradigmatic. This has nothing to do with whether it's mathematically rigorous or necessary - pre-paradigmatic science can be both of those things.
Nice episode. I have one issue though. At around 50:28 Barry quips about asking Leonard Suskind about time reversibility of microphysics and contrasts that with what we observe in our world...ice cubes do not form out of warm water etc. Well, I would first question Barry if the concept of reverse flow of time makes sense at all. I do really think that the simple example given - film of elastic billiard balls shown forward and reverse - is a very appealing and intuitive example, but is misleading. In that example when the film is run backwards, the time is flowing still in the forward direction. I mean in general time simply flows from before event to after event, and generally speaking more precise way to say it is causing event to effective event. That is it. The notion of forward is like the notion of up which makes sense intuitively and thus the notions of reverse and down make sense. But as we know up and down only work on the surface of the earth. IN deep space there is no up or down. Similarly time flows from before event to after event which we casually call forward and are then mislead to think reverse flowing time makes sense. Tim Maudlin has it right. Time only flows in one direction. We can casually call is forward but we therefore cannot insist on reverse flowing time. And then Barry's question to Leonard turn on Barry. Also Barry later discusses fundamental laws and not fundamental laws. So it means he understands that distinction, so the difference in microphysics and what we observe falls in the same category. Thermodynamics or statistical mechanics is not a fundamental level of physics. Yes, even in physics there are level of fundamental and not fundamental. Also we do know perfectly cubicle crystals of salt do form in the right conditions. Diamonds are also very regular structure. Thus it is not as if in the universe we see around us - even for non living things - there are more structured forms that do get created. So big deal. In a nutshell - to say that micro-physics is time reversible is a mistake. A more correct way to say is that micro-physics is velocity reversible. Also the statistical mechanical laws are the victims of coarse graining and our lack of computational and memory power to know about microstates. We are not Laplace's demons. That is why we think second laws of thermodynamics is a law. Stephen Wolfram talks about it. Stephen calls coarse graining computational irreducibility and explains thermodynamics in those terms. He has a viewpoint that we observe the universe the way we do because what he call - "because the kinds of (computationally bounded) observers we are". Which is another way of saying - we are not Laplace's demon. Actually would love to hear what Barry, David and Time have to say about the above discussion.
Coordinate time would be for a scientific realist (the one that can go backward and forwards) (Barry Loewer), while enthropic time (the one that always goes forward) would be for a constructive empiricist (Bas van Fraassen) I guess. Interesting to see who will win that debate in the end!
When I was a kid I instinctively would always ask what is my personal philosophy of living- why do people go to school just to have jobs or why teacher always undergoes an algorithmic process of teaching regurtitating facts rather than giving a space for creativity or when I first read a textbook in biology; what's the underlying philosophy behind this. I don't know if I was asking for the methodologies, credibility or its implications from the more fundamental questions like what is life? I feel like I was always dissatisfied with any answers from everybody around my household when asking such questions it seems like it is always open-ended with differing views. Likewise suddenly just by existing with the mind just can't stop thinking about everything I see from the internet I invented a whole "new" paradox which I called "Physiognomic fallacy" which another variety of composition fallacy like why are people have this certain kind of prejudice towards a minority of group that significantly different from the social convention? Why do a fully tattooed person from eye-head to toe get looked down by most people like there's a chance that they could get assaulted or killed? When, throughout history significantly ordinary people are the ones who most likely killed another human being. Therefore we should be scared of everybody now since the chances are telling me I could end up as what this simple logical inference is telling me especially when dealing with the law of large numbers like dying in a car crash is more likely than dying in a plane crash since cars are more common and you could never see an airplane traffic from sky or else it could be terrifying! But then I stumbled upon a pig-headed chainsaw psychopathic killer on a loose that could definitely kill you therefore it would be instinctively safe to assume that you run. Anyway whether skepticism, egotism or whatnot when I read these philosophical concepts I cannot help but to think that these are basically what's happening to people or society and in fact it was too obvious and implicit that nobody seems to think more deeply about it. Indeed, I got caught off guard that they actually wrote so many arguments that I never seemed to predict that actually happening to me or I could have been doing now. Nor, do people simply ask the most basic assumptions that could be lost in the iceberg like "why do people live?" without immediately being ostracized by society on how ridiculous the question is. Like why do people suddenly be born and just [think] I mean they never unless they hit teenager *angst* or started reading Kierkgaard that they could just live when they could ponder if living is even worthwhile? It seems like philosophical questions are indeed normative at most levels since science can tell you what causes but cannot exactly tell you how or even why something is actually possible? Since linguists can certainly tell you about how speech is produced by larynx but this is not particularly helpful for a singer who discovered a whole music genre that he most likely developed through the process of creativity and experience. This is just a shallow conception, I guess philosophy is about questioning and challenging the most basic assumptions about the world since these kinds of questions are so implicit that when you start thinking about it- it is actually worth a Nobel prize when you developed a whole systematic and very logical or even empirical attempts to solve it. Like Libet winning the Nobel prize in physiology because of his scientific experiment about free will.
I had a really cool experience concerning Hilary Putnam. I did an internship 2016 At Harvard under Ned Hall. That was the year he passed around spring break. I was working on some of his work the year prior and told the office admin about it and how I was down about it. Well she told me that in the fall (after the curators came and took from his office for an exhibit for him) they would let the graduate students go and take from his personal library. I wouldn’t be there in the fall so she got permission for me to go in and pick 6 books that she would hold for me until the fall. 2 of them were taken by curators. But I got first dibs and ended up with a book by Dennett, Fodor, and churchland with dedications from each to Hilary. I also got Hilary’s copy of Word and Object.
Susskind cannot use the argument of the multiverse because String Theory only works with a negative cosmological constant, while the in physical universe, the value of the constant can only be zero or positive.
The processes of the brain leading to consciousness are probably hidden to the brain in the sense that we cant se the nuts and bolts in it, like we can look at our legs and understand how they get us somewhere. But I feel pretty sure that if we could not see our legs and how they interacted with the world to get us places, we would have this mystical feeling about that also. Like, how on earth did I just get to the grocery store??? I was just thinking about doing it and then it happened. Weird stuff!
I think of it like a camera trying to film itself in a mirror. The consciousness "sensor" is trying to "record" itself and you just get circular logic to explain anything (hall of mirrors). Not the best metaphor but I think it communicates how our "equipment" has limitations like anything else when you turn it on itself. For example using a tape measure to measure the length of your tape measure, or drilling a hole in your drill with your drill, or sawing the handle of your saw with your saw. Creative folks can probably think of ways to do all that - but they would be indirect methods.
Hi Robinson, nice interview! I've read on Little Red Book (ins in China) that you're looking for someone based in China to help localizing the podcast content and developing podcast channel in China. I'd love to apply for the job if it's still open, and I really believe I'm a great fit for it. I hope to have the opportunity to share my resume and speak with you further about it. Thank you. Jia
Thermodynamics expresses pressures within space.. photons express heat.. so in my opinion, temperature is one way to verify orientation in soace.. moreover, pressure systems tend on earth to create currents or patterns .. zoom out to Haley’s comet. Its trajectory- how does its trajectory (and maybe I’m wrong) remain the same passing earth every 75 years.. is it an orbit? Or is it a frozen mass in a “current “ moving between electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields? Riddle me this.. what if gravity is actually a strong force - it’s just so spread out that it appears or registers as weak as inflation / entropy increases only to once again strengthen its “force” as the universe contracts.. our ways of measuring gravity may not have accounted for red shift and the sheer expansion of the cosmos… my prediction- gravity is strong and there is a boundary of the universe .. further .. it’s a battery … and although it experiences entropy (so do hertz waves at increments) when stars collide or black holes collide- that’s an increase in energy.. yet, the energy is still recycled thus the university is not flat but is of a shape that enables the conservation of energy. The phrase neither created nor destroyed- no one has mentioned that.. because I’m not sure it’s true. That’s where chemistry comes in.. physics is the movement, chemistry is the “fuel” for a lack of a better word.
Ca 9:49 on astrology; Yes, it’s… NOT science, not some idea _anyone_ should “sell” or exploit, follow as something divine or determination… I agree…! Then… Such “silly systems” can (should) only point inwards, maybe as a “starter” for later metaphysical and meta cognitive questioning. Questions, no answers - why would that be a thing? Well, that’s what this interview points to. Reductive thinking (as in science, rationality, logic…) has this foggy mirror image - context, holistics, emotions, intuition, creativity… all these fluffy, irrational or “mad” coincidental opposites. The ability to transcend - be attentive back-and-forth between the knowable and… that other holistic fluff - seeds epistemology, expanding science. E.g. Darwin used the word “beauty” on every other page of “The descent of Man…”…? Pure rationality, not quite… Quite a few academics across fields seem to converge on how general philosophy has been “rooted out” of academia. To me, they are critiquing modernity itself, our idea of pure rationality in every human endeavour - also, what I hear in Loewer’s narrative. But yes, it’s my bias - not to be _trusted,_ right…? 🙄
Speaking of Marxism, get the Marxist philosopher Soren Mau on this podcast!! Young philosopher doing a post doc and has a great book developing Marxist theory called Mute Compulsion
There are no universally accepted definitions of science, the scientific method & philosophy of science, that are all something that changes over time & cultures.
@@lepidoptera9337 That's just one definition. Next time study more diverse writings about the philosophy of science. Moreover, most contemporary scientists would define science as trying to describe, understand & ultimately explain & predict the object of study by using the scientific method. However, like with science itself, there is no universal agreement among the philosophers of science about what the scientific method is.
This person has no real understanding of Marxism; instead of addressing the question, he deflected by referencing his wife's experience, all while claiming to have plenty to contribute.
Philosophers... they're great about gesticulating about "Science." How about coming to scientists, with some kind of possibly testable hypothesis. Most scientists, that's kind of their bag. So you ask them... "what about the arrow of time?" They say..."what about the arrow off time?" Philosophers, they really got those dumb scientists this time. Right? Gets... old. Why don't scientists think about these untestable hypotheses more?
What about it? It's trivial. The arrow of time exists because there is always more "over there" than there is "right here". That's why energy spreads out and that is what clocks do: they allow us to measure how energy spreads out. Gee whizz... that was hard, wasn't it? I could teach this to a smart kindergartener and have an afternoon left over to read Winnie-the-Pooh with him. ;-)
Principalities who deceiveth and murderers exalted themselves above sitteth in high places unseen nor seen. Looking at the little Lad holding a BASKET of BREAD and a FISH? Who's that so poor ruler governments nor nations resting upon HIS SHOULDER?
Unto all who have been fed? Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD these arrogance exalted themselves above Thee? Can't stop eating Thy FOOD. Why students? Lord ye freely give yet have a "reason" why? Indeed. So ye may know them? Fill in the blank! Likewise as Thy Lord so patience!
Robinson, as for philosophy of maths, Cantor is all wrong accoeding to Wildburger, who has proved foundations of real numbers cannot be defined. But Reimann showed how 'infinity' can be defined in 'complex analysis'- in which stereographic transformation shows where the two infinities resides. As for S philosophy of science Barry Loewer right identifies symmetry breaking holds the key to a theory of everything.
@@lepidoptera9337 No one is disputing that the real numbers work fine, the complex numbers work even finer. What Wildeburger contest is that fundamental definition isn't possible, proved by Cauchy. Cantor's infinity is proved by brute force, so mathematical logic by Russel, Hilbert and Godel doesn't add up.
What a disappointment!! Prof Loewer seems to think he is 'too cool for school' and provides awful answers! He even doesn't give arguments and oversimplifies everything. For instance he makes it seem that philosophers that don't agree with scientific realism are just plain stupid!! What a creep! So far away in quality and intellectual honesty from Tim Mudlin and David Albert!!!
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
No one even says anti weight gain enough I will defy gravity & space. Or that eating deterministic objects emerging complex values should be defined 1st person when we explain how we excersize variation bad and good back into the greater system at large one and the same that qauntom tells us is uniform . Phylosphy of time is man made evolutionary currents we swim against everyday that has a distinct line of measure congruent with alphabetical exodus married to indo European language Jesus christ salvational unification is crucified upon very specifically ( God inspired biblically our & historical references & dialectical vision minds eye 4th demension umbrella term. telling you it's not the same as xyz thermodynamical passage of fathertime . Only when you get the tool to probe uniformity of substrate all you can do is define gravity like weight loss. Atmosphere, magnetic core of earth, mass discplament of space by product gravity of all the sum of its parts.
@@cmo5150 Perhaps, research on event horizons and black hole singularities, using giant human brains like Hawking? Little empirical research there, fortunately ;-) Galileo did experiments first like Edison.
Barry looks like he should have a saxophone in this video.
He looks like he should have a restraining order.
@EricDMMiller whats wrong with you
@@EricDMMiller lol
hahahaha
with a great raspy old jazz voice
This podcast is on fireeeee! 🔥🔥🔥 thank you so much Robinson! ❤
Barry looks almost identical to the way he looked circa 1996 when he taught me Formal Logic at Rutgers. Same type of shoes, pants, t-shirt, and shirt. Only maybe a few extra wrinkles. Such a great teacher. One of my favorites. Other great teachers I had there were Tim Maudlin and Colin McGinn. It would be great if you have Barry over many times again, and get to many-minds and more physics.
Dude, why did you waste your time on this crap? You could have learned in undergrad physics that "Reality is the totality of all irreversible energy exchanges.". To a physicist this is kindergarten stuff today. Philosophers have simply not caught up with the last 100 years of science, that's all there is to this bullshit.
David, Tim and now Barry. Christmas came early.
Santa Clause in sunglasses does not make Christmas.
Philosophy finally getting the respect its deserves, science can't afford to ignore us any longer!
Cuz sciences problems aren't of quantity or quality of empirical data, it's of fundemental structure and interpretation, epistemologically and ontologically.
preferably to me that it includes both Substance and Subject.
go back to sleep ....
Name one actual development in physics that has come from philosophy of science? As a physicist, I am not aware of any. Nice talks, but no actual progress in the field of physics.
@@christianfarina3056 lmao there’s no way you said that and claim to be a physicist
@shafsteryellow sure.
@@christianfarina3056 Philosophy shaped physics by grounding it in logic and big ideas. Bacon pushed inductive reasoning, which gave us the scientific method, and Kant’s ideas on space and time influenced Einstein’s theory of relativity. Without those, physics wouldn’t be what it is today.
What a great birthday gift! Thanks Robinson!!!
Love this podcast. Great episode!
Maybe a weird comment, but there's one moment in this interview where you, Robinson, seem to worry about whether you're doing a good job -- and I think you were doing great. If that's any comfort to you then that'd be awesome, but also I just think it's true.
"I'm afraid I have a lot to say about that" - Proceeded to say nothing about Marx.
Turning the bust upside down, says it all, I think
Seemingly, Barry did his best to brush off the question but might have done better to state that Marx was a journalist and an analyst of the socio-economic situation of his times rather than what might now be called a "scientist". The placatory diversion of the anecdote about Barry's wife's experiences in the Soviet satellite Hungary did Barry no favours to my mind because I am pretty sure that Marx would not have approved of the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin or the modus operandi of the Soviet Union. I am reminded of Richard Wolff's talk on this channel where he describes the effect of the Cold War on American academics when it came to discussing Marx - which amounted to guilt by (any) association and therefore was, and perhaps still is effectively taboo. Seemingly despite the Soviet Union's fall more than a quarter of a century ago and despite America's embrace of Communist China and its standards (through a myriad imports) the old ideological reflexes remain.
Excellent! Thanks Podcat and crew!!!
I loved this episode! Than you!
Robinson, Nima, Lex and Theo ... unlikely interviewers ... also the best. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Fantastic episode!
Man Im getting old, never thought an ipad kid would give me phil of sci lessons!
Thank you though, it was very informative and reminded me of my own classes!
Wonderful interview
Keep watch!
Let's not too broadly apply the idea of "pursuit." There are gradations to the level of pursuing ideas and given a certain level of bandwidth to pursue them a practical decision must be made in what to pursue most fervently, which means deprioritization must occur.
The elephant in the room in this regard is enormous.
The way one prioritizes in this context though is by accepting that there are explanations that apply to more things than others, in the physical sciences the most global of these theories is QM as it succeeds to encompass and explain most phenomena and understood forces. Once you have such an explanation you can pursue the particulars that would naturally follow therefore streamlining the process and cutting down on what would be unnecessary exploration further down the line.
I'm personally quite excited for string theory and other candidates for the ultimate explanation in regards to the universe, but I do wonder about when and how we get there and how fast everything will unfold after that moment, hopefully not so fast we shoot ourselves in the foot if E=mc^2 and the 20th century were any indication.
@chaosfuel3027 Given everything, it's time for "the other candidates" to step forward.
@@inplainview1 @inplainview1 They will if one proves to be true. Quite a lot of thinking to be done... sometimes I wonder where things would have gone if Einstein lived for but a few years longer.
If you could do Bas C. van Fraassen again , but in person that would be awesome
Was Barry aware of the title of this video prior to being Interviewed? I ask because, the title begs the question: what is the utility of the philosophy of science, and therefore the opportunity to justify public funding of such an activity and assumption based physics such as string-theory and cosmology.
What is the utility of education? It doesn't make you look like an uneducated idiot. ;-)
Is like unfamiliar ways of speaking unto many but yet indeed! Clear as water unto Whom belongs?
25:30 If scientific realism is merely "trying to figure out what the world is really like," then what is with the trend of academics using scientific realism to refer to hidden variable theories? For example, it is often stated that Bell's theorem calls into question "local realism." If scientific realism is merely "trying to figure out what the world is really like," then it would make no sense to say that Bell's theorem calls into question realism, local or otherwise. It would be more accurate to say it calls into question local hidden variable theories, but the presence or absence of hidden variables would not be intrinsically bound in the notion of "realism." If there are no hidden variables, then that would just be "what the world is really like," and thus quantum mechanics could be local and scientifically realist.
Hence the popularity of the Many Worlds theory. Creation multiverses at the wave collapse is the most direct interpretation of quantum, avoiding the issues of the Copenhagen interpretation
No mention of Kuhn? I mean, what is string theory? Is it a pseudo science, or is it a science. Well, it seems like pre-paradigmatic science with a twist that it can't be tested atm.
String theory is the unitary representation theory of the symmetries of the Riemannian manifold of general relativity, just like quantum field theory is the unitary representation theory of Poincare symmetry on a flat spacetime. If you don't know this, then you don't have a dog in this race. Please stay silent because you are making a fool of yourself right now. ;-)
@lepidoptera9337 you're so thoughtful. Thanks for kindly helping me not make a fool of myself. How does what you said have anything to do with what I said?
Maybe read kuhn before speaking, because it seems like you're the one making a fool of yourself. @lepidoptera9337
@@davidbutler9323 You asked what string theory is. String theory is a trivial extension of quantum field theory. Trivial in the sense of how it's defined, certainly not trivial in the consequences of that definition. Whatever it may seem to you, to a physicist who has spent a few minutes thinking about it it's an utterly necessary mathematical puzzle. If we can't solve this toy puzzle, then we can't hope to solve the actual puzzle, either.
@@lepidoptera9337 I didn't actually ask what string theory was. I was reflecting the question they posed in their discussion of string theory. Did you watch the video? You're still not addressing my point about string theory being pre-paradigmatic in Kuhn's sense though. In fact, your response - calling it both a 'trivial extension' and an 'utterly necessary puzzle' - actually demonstrates some of the paradigmatic uncertainty I was talking about. The fact that physicists still debate its fundamental nature and role is exactly what makes it pre-paradigmatic. This has nothing to do with whether it's mathematically rigorous or necessary - pre-paradigmatic science can be both of those things.
Nice episode.
I have one issue though. At around 50:28 Barry quips about asking Leonard Suskind about time reversibility of microphysics and contrasts that with what we observe in our world...ice cubes do not form out of warm water etc. Well, I would first question Barry if the concept of reverse flow of time makes sense at all. I do really think that the simple example given - film of elastic billiard balls shown forward and reverse - is a very appealing and intuitive example, but is misleading. In that example when the film is run backwards, the time is flowing still in the forward direction. I mean in general time simply flows from before event to after event, and generally speaking more precise way to say it is causing event to effective event. That is it. The notion of forward is like the notion of up which makes sense intuitively and thus the notions of reverse and down make sense. But as we know up and down only work on the surface of the earth. IN deep space there is no up or down. Similarly time flows from before event to after event which we casually call forward and are then mislead to think reverse flowing time makes sense. Tim Maudlin has it right. Time only flows in one direction. We can casually call is forward but we therefore cannot insist on reverse flowing time. And then Barry's question to Leonard turn on Barry. Also Barry later discusses fundamental laws and not fundamental laws. So it means he understands that distinction, so the difference in microphysics and what we observe falls in the same category. Thermodynamics or statistical mechanics is not a fundamental level of physics. Yes, even in physics there are level of fundamental and not fundamental. Also we do know perfectly cubicle crystals of salt do form in the right conditions. Diamonds are also very regular structure. Thus it is not as if in the universe we see around us - even for non living things - there are more structured forms that do get created. So big deal. In a nutshell - to say that micro-physics is time reversible is a mistake. A more correct way to say is that micro-physics is velocity reversible. Also the statistical mechanical laws are the victims of coarse graining and our lack of computational and memory power to know about microstates. We are not Laplace's demons. That is why we think second laws of thermodynamics is a law. Stephen Wolfram talks about it. Stephen calls coarse graining computational irreducibility and explains thermodynamics in those terms. He has a viewpoint that we observe the universe the way we do because what he call - "because the kinds of (computationally bounded) observers we are". Which is another way of saying - we are not Laplace's demon. Actually would love to hear what Barry, David and Time have to say about the above discussion.
Coordinate time would be for a scientific realist (the one that can go backward and forwards) (Barry Loewer), while enthropic time (the one that always goes forward) would be for a constructive empiricist (Bas van Fraassen) I guess. Interesting to see who will win that debate in the end!
Wow, you got all these classifications for different flavors of crazy. It's amazing. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Yeah really don't know what got into me, sometimes I glitch
“I’m not going tell you that story.”
“Are you sure?”
*Tells the story*
please do an episode with hartmut rosa
When I was a kid I instinctively would always ask what is my personal philosophy of living- why do people go to school just to have jobs or why teacher always undergoes an algorithmic process of teaching regurtitating facts rather than giving a space for creativity or when I first read a textbook in biology; what's the underlying philosophy behind this. I don't know if I was asking for the methodologies, credibility or its implications from the more fundamental questions like what is life? I feel like I was always dissatisfied with any answers from everybody around my household when asking such questions it seems like it is always open-ended with differing views. Likewise suddenly just by existing with the mind just can't stop thinking about everything I see from the internet I invented a whole "new" paradox which I called "Physiognomic fallacy" which another variety of composition fallacy like why are people have this certain kind of prejudice towards a minority of group that significantly different from the social convention? Why do a fully tattooed person from eye-head to toe get looked down by most people like there's a chance that they could get assaulted or killed? When, throughout history significantly ordinary people are the ones who most likely killed another human being. Therefore we should be scared of everybody now since the chances are telling me I could end up as what this simple logical inference is telling me especially when dealing with the law of large numbers like dying in a car crash is more likely than dying in a plane crash since cars are more common and you could never see an airplane traffic from sky or else it could be terrifying! But then I stumbled upon a pig-headed chainsaw psychopathic killer on a loose that could definitely kill you therefore it would be instinctively safe to assume that you run. Anyway whether skepticism, egotism or whatnot when I read these philosophical concepts I cannot help but to think that these are basically what's happening to people or society and in fact it was too obvious and implicit that nobody seems to think more deeply about it. Indeed, I got caught off guard that they actually wrote so many arguments that I never seemed to predict that actually happening to me or I could have been doing now. Nor, do people simply ask the most basic assumptions that could be lost in the iceberg like "why do people live?" without immediately being ostracized by society on how ridiculous the question is. Like why do people suddenly be born and just [think] I mean they never unless they hit teenager *angst* or started reading Kierkgaard that they could just live when they could ponder if living is even worthwhile? It seems like philosophical questions are indeed normative at most levels since science can tell you what causes but cannot exactly tell you how or even why something is actually possible? Since linguists can certainly tell you about how speech is produced by larynx but this is not particularly helpful for a singer who discovered a whole music genre that he most likely developed through the process of creativity and experience. This is just a shallow conception, I guess philosophy is about questioning and challenging the most basic assumptions about the world since these kinds of questions are so implicit that when you start thinking about it- it is actually worth a Nobel prize when you developed a whole systematic and very logical or even empirical attempts to solve it. Like Libet winning the Nobel prize in physiology because of his scientific experiment about free will.
What?
I had a really cool experience concerning Hilary Putnam.
I did an internship 2016 At Harvard under Ned Hall.
That was the year he passed around spring break.
I was working on some of his work the year prior and told the office admin about it and how I was down about it.
Well she told me that in the fall (after the curators came and took from his office for an exhibit for him) they would let the graduate students go and take from his personal library.
I wouldn’t be there in the fall so she got permission for me to go in and pick 6 books that she would hold for me until the fall. 2 of them were taken by curators. But I got first dibs and ended up with a book by Dennett, Fodor, and churchland with dedications from each to Hilary. I also got Hilary’s copy of Word and Object.
Cool story, bro. ;-)
"Kant held a Kantian view". Now that I can 100% agree with.
Susskind cannot use the argument of the multiverse because String Theory only works with a negative cosmological constant, while the in physical universe, the value of the constant can only be zero or positive.
Did you pill that turd out of your own rear? ;-)
What is pitch darkness upon the deep without form and void?
The processes of the brain leading to consciousness are probably hidden to the brain in the sense that we cant se the nuts and bolts in it, like we can look at our legs and understand how they get us somewhere. But I feel pretty sure that if we could not see our legs and how they interacted with the world to get us places, we would have this mystical feeling about that also. Like, how on earth did I just get to the grocery store??? I was just thinking about doing it and then it happened. Weird stuff!
I think of it like a camera trying to film itself in a mirror. The consciousness "sensor" is trying to "record" itself and you just get circular logic to explain anything (hall of mirrors). Not the best metaphor but I think it communicates how our "equipment" has limitations like anything else when you turn it on itself. For example using a tape measure to measure the length of your tape measure, or drilling a hole in your drill with your drill, or sawing the handle of your saw with your saw. Creative folks can probably think of ways to do all that - but they would be indirect methods.
How does the mentaculus differ from the fictional character Harry Seldon‘s psychohistory?
As a little child born "i" longing to learn!
Shared "i" Am come forth!
Lisa Piccirillo would be an insightful interview
So many ads bruh
Use brave browser 🦁
Day and Night come forth! Lord ye holding with Thy Hands! Now, ABLE to be seen!
Hi Robinson, nice interview! I've read on Little Red Book (ins in China) that you're looking for someone based in China to help localizing the podcast content and developing podcast channel in China. I'd love to apply for the job if it's still open, and I really believe I'm a great fit for it. I hope to have the opportunity to share my resume and speak with you further about it.
Thank you.
Jia
Unto all who have an ear let them hear!
Why students? Lord shared ears! Indeed
Thermodynamics expresses pressures within space.. photons express heat.. so in my opinion, temperature is one way to verify orientation in soace.. moreover, pressure systems tend on earth to create currents or patterns .. zoom out to Haley’s comet. Its trajectory- how does its trajectory (and maybe I’m wrong) remain the same passing earth every 75 years.. is it an orbit? Or is it a frozen mass in a “current “ moving between electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields? Riddle me this.. what if gravity is actually a strong force - it’s just so spread out that it appears or registers as weak as inflation / entropy increases only to once again strengthen its “force” as the universe contracts.. our ways of measuring gravity may not have accounted for red shift and the sheer expansion of the cosmos… my prediction- gravity is strong and there is a boundary of the universe .. further .. it’s a battery … and although it experiences entropy (so do hertz waves at increments) when stars collide or black holes collide- that’s an increase in energy.. yet, the energy is still recycled thus the university is not flat but is of a shape that enables the conservation of energy. The phrase neither created nor destroyed- no one has mentioned that.. because I’m not sure it’s true. That’s where chemistry comes in.. physics is the movement, chemistry is the “fuel” for a lack of a better word.
If there is not a world wide drought H2O is here to stay! Yay! Best philosophical argument ever. Take that, strings!
Unfamiliar ways of speaking unto many! Yet, utterance knows belongs?
Where else corrections belongs unto thee all old minds?
Remembering thy youth!
5:40
Science is just natural philosophy, dude.
No, it's not. Science is the rational explanation of nature. It does not have the slightest bit of philosophy in it.
Astrologists claim there are 7 planets. That is a full stop for me :-D
Astrologists claim... You could have stopped here 😀
Principalities remember thy feet resting upon in front!
Who is? Yet is not? Yet is?
Remember thy youth in front!
Pitch darkness recognize HIM NOT?
Your videos on Gaza and Palestine are great !
He debunked himself at 0:30 seconds and goes uhhhh crap change analogy
Ca 9:49 on astrology; Yes, it’s… NOT science, not some idea _anyone_ should “sell” or exploit, follow as something divine or determination… I agree…!
Then… Such “silly systems” can (should) only point inwards, maybe as a “starter” for later metaphysical and meta cognitive questioning. Questions, no answers - why would that be a thing?
Well, that’s what this interview points to. Reductive thinking (as in science, rationality, logic…) has this foggy mirror image - context, holistics, emotions, intuition, creativity… all these fluffy, irrational or “mad” coincidental opposites.
The ability to transcend - be attentive back-and-forth between the knowable and… that other holistic fluff - seeds epistemology, expanding science.
E.g. Darwin used the word “beauty” on every other page of “The descent of Man…”…? Pure rationality, not quite…
Quite a few academics across fields seem to converge on how general philosophy has been “rooted out” of academia.
To me, they are critiquing modernity itself, our idea of pure rationality in every human endeavour - also, what I hear in Loewer’s narrative.
But yes, it’s my bias - not to be _trusted,_ right…? 🙄
Why does he wear sunglasses?
If not! Fill in the blank!
Man,dwell into the culture of science . What does curiosity mean and why are you curious?
Speaking of Marxism, get the Marxist philosopher Soren Mau on this podcast!! Young philosopher doing a post doc and has a great book developing Marxist theory called Mute Compulsion
Watch mr wizard science
Remember thy shared "i" Am creatures!
There are no universally accepted definitions of science, the scientific method & philosophy of science, that are all something that changes over time & cultures.
Science is the rational description of nature. NEXT! (And next time please pay more attention in middle school!). ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 That's just one definition. Next time study more diverse writings about the philosophy of science. Moreover, most contemporary scientists would define science as trying to describe, understand & ultimately explain & predict the object of study by using the scientific method. However, like with science itself, there is no universal agreement among the philosophers of science about what the scientific method is.
@@tarmotyyri6733 That is the definition. Whatever else might be in your head is simply bullshit. :-)
Shared "i" Am will say, remember all thy Mouths Shared! Becareful! Thy intent, based, foundation in front!
We see ice forming all the time.
This person has no real understanding of Marxism; instead of addressing the question, he deflected by referencing his wife's experience, all while claiming to have plenty to contribute.
Phrenology, bumps on your head and their meaning is better because astrology could have meaning for some people and hurt them.
Here's the lesson: Never give an interview with dark glasses, crappy shoes, and a college-dorm appropiate shirt.
While the little child born "i" documents sent forth ye holding not yet consuming thee?
Philosophers... they're great about gesticulating about "Science." How about coming to scientists, with some kind of possibly testable hypothesis. Most scientists, that's kind of their bag. So you ask them... "what about the arrow of time?" They say..."what about the arrow off time?" Philosophers, they really got those dumb scientists this time. Right? Gets... old. Why don't scientists think about these untestable hypotheses more?
What about it? It's trivial. The arrow of time exists because there is always more "over there" than there is "right here". That's why energy spreads out and that is what clocks do: they allow us to measure how energy spreads out. Gee whizz... that was hard, wasn't it? I could teach this to a smart kindergartener and have an afternoon left over to read Winnie-the-Pooh with him. ;-)
To enslaved to oppressed Time principalities who deceiveth as puppets, pawns, nor tumbleweeds!
Hosts Meeks will say, Loving with PATIENCE is like LONG SUFFERING to carry on the world HIS FOOTSTOOL SUFFERING!
Nevertheless ye prefer "who am I"? Knew? Yet chose amnesia in front?
Principalities who deceiveth and murderers exalted themselves above sitteth in high places unseen nor seen. Looking at the little Lad holding a BASKET of BREAD and a FISH? Who's that so poor ruler governments nor nations resting upon HIS SHOULDER?
Interview Leonard Sax, he has criticized Judith butlers arguments about gender. And interview Scott Horton, he is a critic of us foreign policy.
Felt unnatural. And then I noticed the tablet.
Unto all who have been fed? Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD these arrogance exalted themselves above Thee? Can't stop eating Thy FOOD. Why students? Lord ye freely give yet have a "reason" why? Indeed. So ye may know them? Fill in the blank! Likewise as Thy Lord so patience!
These principalities who deceiveth showering with riches intent to take the little Lad "i" belongs!
Robinson, as for philosophy of maths, Cantor is all wrong accoeding to Wildburger, who has proved foundations of real numbers cannot be defined. But Reimann showed how 'infinity' can be defined in 'complex analysis'- in which stereographic transformation shows where the two infinities resides. As for S philosophy of science Barry Loewer right identifies symmetry breaking holds the key to a theory of everything.
For something that can not be defined the real numbers work astonishingly well. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Not real numbers, but complex numbers can be defined only.
@@sonarbangla8711 And still the real numbers work just fine. How come? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 No one is disputing that the real numbers work fine, the complex numbers work even finer. What Wildeburger contest is that fundamental definition isn't possible, proved by Cauchy. Cantor's infinity is proved by brute force, so mathematical logic by Russel, Hilbert and Godel doesn't add up.
@@sonarbangla8711 Goedel never said anything about the real numbers. What's up with the binge drinking? ;-)
What a disappointment!! Prof Loewer seems to think he is 'too cool for school' and provides awful answers! He even doesn't give arguments and oversimplifies everything. For instance he makes it seem that philosophers that don't agree with scientific realism are just plain stupid!! What a creep! So far away in quality and intellectual honesty from Tim Mudlin and David Albert!!!
Remember all thy Mouths are shared mouths!
Please please please please do barry and slavoj together!
Little taste of power!
Philosophy of Science in America is woefully behind the times. Latour and Rorty are what should be being read on this topic.
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
America is behind the times, so you recommend philosophers who have been out of date for decades.
💯
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
philosophy of science will never catch up because people refuse to let go of indirect realism despite it being founded upon incredibly weak arguments and filled with internal contradictions, which these internal contradictions are almost always just ignored and swept aside, saying things like, "we don't have to worry about that because maybe we will come up with a solution some day," and yet they never do, but then they try to apply this internally contradictory worldview to everything and then are surprised when it runs into even further contradictions down the line, such as being incapable of giving an account of the ontology of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics.
What is God and science? Is like shared "i" Am come forth!
No one even says anti weight gain enough I will defy gravity & space.
Or that eating deterministic objects emerging complex values should be defined 1st person when we explain how we excersize variation bad and good back into the greater system at large one and the same that qauntom tells us is uniform .
Phylosphy of time is man made evolutionary currents we swim against everyday that has a distinct line of measure congruent with alphabetical exodus married to indo European language Jesus christ salvational unification is crucified upon very specifically ( God inspired biblically our & historical references & dialectical vision minds eye 4th demension umbrella term.
telling you it's not the same as xyz thermodynamical passage of fathertime .
Only when you get the tool to probe uniformity of substrate all you can do is define gravity like weight loss.
Atmosphere, magnetic core of earth, mass discplament of space by product gravity of all the sum of its parts.
Come remind and comfort unto a little child born "i" longing to learn? The Son sitteth! Yes, including my OLIVE?
Come recorrect thy SON?
Empirical first, rational second. Preferably both. Otherwise, it is activist hoax.
Tell me you’ve never read philosophy of science without telling me
@@cmo5150 Perhaps, research on event horizons and black hole singularities, using giant human brains like Hawking? Little empirical research there, fortunately ;-) Galileo did experiments first like Edison.
@@williambranch4283 What's up with the binge drinking, though? :-)
When you're too good at philosophy but not good at science.
😂😂😂
Nevertheless will be the opposite!
another pointless philosopher ...yawn
interesting philosopher or interesting character, first 30m suggest the latter.