I read some Einstein's texts about philosophy (especially philosophy of science and epistemology) and was surprised by his enthusiasm about philosophy and necessity of it for real physicist as a seeker of truth not just artisan/specialist. Little quote by Albert Einstein: "When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this." I also think about the mathematicians who were also philosophers and vice-versa: Wittgenstein, Russell, Whitehead, Husserl, Bolzano. And those are not just analytic philosophers. The historical relation between mathematics and philosophy, especially through their common discipline of Logic is also very interesting with subsequent separation of these two disciplines: mathematics' more specialization/isolation and philosophy tying itself more with linguistics/ philology after WW2.
How do you guys know that physics emerged from philosophy and not craftsmanship? The physics of Aristotle was absolute garbage, and it genuinely hindered progress in this field. Archimedes *built* stuff, like siege engines. Galileo wasn't classically trained, he didn't know or cared much for philosophy, yet his equations of motion keep on working. He *built* stuff too. Physics existed before Kuhn and Popper. Somehow.
@@bakters It's not necessary (even not possible) for something to start in its perfect form at the beginning itself. Instead, it will evolve over the period. Likewise, hypothetically speaking, though the physics of early age was not accurate, those thoughts were the seed of the modern physics you study today; those thoughts gave the fuel to start thinking about this university. By the was, who told you only their understanding of nature was wrong! Are you really so confident that our modern physics doesn't have such (garbage) theories and ideologies too? Even today, the thought experiments have their own place in modern physics too. And that's a form of philosophy per se. The Kuhn-Popper debate itself was a philosophical debate. Though, physics was there even before them, it was as a part of philosophy itself.
@@livetolearn2014 " *It's not necessary (even not possible) for something to start in its perfect form* " What's wrong with Archimedes' Law? What's wrong with the sieve or Eratostenes? What's wrong with Pythagoras' theorem? " *the physics of early age was not accurate* " The philosophy of Aristotle was garbage, but the actual physics was fine. They didn't know much of it, but what they knew, was correct. " *those thoughts gave the fuel to start thinking* ' I challenge this view, you are supposed to show examples where it obviously did work like that. I'll give you another philosophical nonsense, which hampered physics. Very early on there was a debate, if matter and space are corpuscular in nature, or continuous. The *incorrect* view won an overwhelming victory, to the point that no works of the strongest corpuscular philosopher, Democritus, survived. Nobody read him, nobody bothered to copy his books. As a result, even during the *early XXth century* most physicists didn't believe that the world is corpuscular. Chemists knew different, for quite some time too, but not the physicists. Thankfully, Einstein was one of the few, who did not read enough ancient philosophy to poison his mind. " *Are you really so confident that our modern physics doesn't have such (garbage) theories and ideologies too?* " In science, if something works, it keeps on working forever. While I'm sure some of our current theories are incorrect, maybe wrong on a fundamental level, yet they still *work* , just like Ptolemaic epicycles, which also didn't stop working. And since you can always work with a working theory, there is hope for progress. Copernicus might happen in the future. And even if not, we can still use what we have, just like the ancients, who built lots of antikytheras, based on those silly epicycles. In comparison - Aristotle is pure garbage. You can't improve upon it. All you can do is reject him.
To earn an architect degree one has to be a full capable civil engineer first. To be a good scientist he must excel in all these: apparatus, design of experiment, execution, observation, decipher data, interpretation, comprehension AND guided by philosophy - first. None scientist qualify that after Michael Faraday.
All sciences, including physics, are rooted in philosophy. For a long time all the special branches of science were referred to as "natural philosophy." While philosophy has nothing to say about physics per se, it does have veto power over physics whenever existence itself comes up.
Logic is a branch of philosophy. Before going into science, you have to presuppose the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. Like if I didn’t presuppose the law of non-contradiction, I could just say that the earth is flat AND round at the same time. No amount of scientific evidence could convince me otherwise as it presupposes the law of non-contradiction. Science presupposes logic and therefore, presupposes philosophy. Sorry if I am having trouble articulating my thoughts I am very tired. Philosophy, particularly logic, provides a framework that underlies the principles we use to make sense of the world before delving into specific fields like science.
@@andsalomoni if you took your own medicine titch you might not be no more than some insignificant little clerk/shopgirl, but you are, so clearly you don't.
A big problem is that doctorate studies lead to a doctorate in philosophy (PhD) but do not teach philosophy. Every doctorate program should include a handful of basic philosophy courses. I was always puzzled that as graduare studest in science we were practicing a philosophy subdiscipline but did not formally study philosophy.
Not that I am anyone to listen to but when I was a physics student undergrad I took a philosophy 100 course as an optional gen Ed. I still to this day remember most of the lessons I learned in that class on how one argues for something. I remember even more than from my physics courses. We learned some poignant stuff.
@@johnshilacky2728 I took Philosophy in my first year at University as well as Physics, Statistics, Linear Algebra and Calculus. I really liked what I was taught about logic and logical fallacies.Philosophy really should be a part of Physics training for the other topics like Ethics and Metaphysics as well.
The idea of truth for itself, not depending on its usefulness and pratical purposes is one of the pillars of Western philosophy since the Greek philosophers. The shift towards applied sciences is one of the many ovens of the decline of Europe...
Carver Mead's talks seen on TH-cam suggest to me that all is not lost in American physics. His "general relativity bashing" and arguments for variable speed of light and Mach's Principle seem to me what Herr Unzicker might appreciate. Carver's background is largely in engineering of electronics. I understand the gulf that separates the thinking of scientists and engineers, having myself given talks to JPL scientists who seemed puzzled when I applied simple thermal analysis to planetary bodies.
The speaker is discussing the dismissal of philosophy by physicists and how it has affected physics as a discipline, leading to a crisis. They argue that many of the greatest physicists of the past, such as Einstein and Schroedinger, engaged with philosophical questions as part of their work, but this changed after World War II with a focus on technology and applications. The difference in culture between American and European science is cited as a key factor, with the former prioritizing usefulness and individual thinkers, while the latter values understanding fundamental questions and large-scale experiments. The lack of understanding and will to understand fundamental questions has resulted in a multi-parameter enterprise such as the standard model, with over 100 free parameters. The speaker concludes that the crisis in physics can only be resolved by a return to philosophical inquiry and a deeper understanding of fundamental questions. The speaker emphasizes the need for intercultural dialogue and the importance of philosophers in addressing these fundamental questions. The measurement problem is cited as one of these fundamental questions.
❤ Excellent topic, Eric. Thanks. Without philosophy we are intuitively and intellectually blinded, next we are out of touch in reality. All we can do is to invent new physics.
Why are you - yes *you* titch, " intellectually blinded" without philosophy- which means the love of wisdom; what is wisdom? How exactly do you experience this blindness from which you - yes *you* titch, say you suffer?
The people asking the questions were a bit hard to hear. Did the last person make a comment about how there is a lot of discussion of fundamental principles in the foundations and philosophy of physics? And what about the guy before? It sounds like he made some kind of joke but I couldn’t understand any of it. Also, if I may ask mr. Unzicker, what parts of Hegel have you read? Because, considering his desire for a completely presuppositionless system of philosophy/science, where nothing can be taken for granted, I imagine the philosophy of nature could be very insightful. If not for its positive claims, at least in order to see what is essential, or what the grounding principles of space and time are. And therefore what one should expect to leave behind if they want to base it on different mathematical forms like you do.
Hi Sir, this is a brilliant speech, I am reading the transcript now, thank you. Have you spoken with Roger Spurr? It would be great if you could, he has studied many ancient texts and found evidence to support it (evidence from elegant experiments and tests).
Exactly something i was thinking about ! there is a serious lack of philosophical foundation in academia, teaching etc. hinging on the "shut up and calculate" paradigm
Atheist evangelism is part of it, Dawkins and Hawking, both philosophers who deny philosophy, both have done more philosophy than actual science. I did Physics and Philosophy at Oxford 1992 - 1997, there were five of us. All emerges from philosophy, as a separate discipline emerges what is left in philosophy becomes more and more esoteric, physics is finding itself in this position later but hasn't noticed yet
It feels almost dystopian, the continual fragmentation and obscurity these disciplines undergo...It’s as if creativity has foregone all of it and I’m not sure that a return to fundamental questions can incite a sufficiently large paradigm shift when even philosophy is as much a victim. Does this have anything to do with science becoming a standardized process, a business model for more tech revolutions? Universities tend to have the most technically qualified students, however, they might cordon off a handful of supremely creative persons in search of technical excellence; but I’m only speculating.
If we feel insecure in science and not willing to pass it to a next more capable physicist, start building your defending castle. With what? Concrete and heavy duty rebars. What? Quantum field and heavy duty mathematics. Castle? CERN
It’s crazy how some physics lecturers mock philosophical questions during class and say things like that’s philosophy and not physics. It’s almost like they don’t know what science truly is and are using some kind of algorithmic approach to publish papers and do research rather than truly thinking.
its the difference between "seeing" and doing, it possible that if you do enough symbolic manipulations of physically verified theories that you get a false illusion of being a having understood it. Nobody wants to sit at a place, be quiet and reflect because thats what philosophy is, a meditation on thought.
@@delq it’s possible that over time the amount of information grew larger and larger such that an average modern academic does not have time to think through all the foundations. but this issue we’re describing has been present since the beginning of science so it might also be an innate condition
Hi Sir, your talks have captivated me. I did my Honours thesis on QED corrections for high-energy Caesium ion transitions. I want to do a PhD in fundamental physics but my fears about physics are the same as yours. Can I email you some questions about what questions I should aim to answer in my PhD to make real progress in theoretical physics?
Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email. I am afraid however that my answers will not beneficial for your PhD :-) Regarding QED, read Consa's papers. (there is also another video)
@@livetolearn2014 " *real physics, not the mainstream physics* " Remember that Ptolemy was so useful, that they laboriously built an incredibly complex machines that worked according to his model. Those machines were carried on enough ships, that we managed to find one in a wreck. What are the odds of that? Close to zero, so building those machines was likely a small industry. His model *did work* !
Ha! We didn't get far before I am compelled to comment. "Constants" of nature? For your consideration: The constants are adjusted in order to support the illusion of Reality which is created on the fly by our observations. Overall, a crisis in physics is an exciting time.
If that were the case, language would have zero referents, which is the catastrophic contradiction that immediately stops all deductions and inductions permanently. It is the scenario that is literally not thinkable. It is the lack of philosophical training that makes such elementary mistakes -- akin to 2+2=0 -- seem plausible. Untrained speculation is merely stringing words together without grammatical sense. This is the primary source of all error in today's academy, with extraordinarily destructive far reaching downstream consequences in public policy, theoretical physics, etc.
@@johannpopper1493 But it is thinkable. Reality is procedurally generated by our observations. It is not necessary to generate that which we cannot perceive, therefore it is no generated. However, once we improve our ability to perceive, for instance by inventing a microscope or sum such instrument, we perceive more and more must be generated in order sustain the illusion of reality. The Constants of nature are being constantly adjusted to support our observations. Consider gravity, for example. An elephant is the largest land animal because that is the largest that can be feasible under present gravitational strengths. But we know that the fossil record has much bigger animals, and flying dinosaurs as tall as giraffes. These creatures couldn't exist today. Big G has changed drastically. Consider too the various numbers that have to be just perfect for us to have this conversation. What other explanation do we have for this amazing coincidence other than the many-worlds conjecture. Physics evidence supports the procedurally generated reality; it leads to better physics. (PS. Have you seen the amazing FEDex guy who walks along self-assembling nano-tubes to deliver nutrient to the mitochondria. Obviously pure fabrication)
When asked to sign a "standard contract" a person should be on their guard. I think we have three "standard" models in physics. Herr Unzicker might characterize these models as religions to big-money physics. One of these models requires "dark matter", an ethereal concept (pun intended) that seems ridiculous to me on its face. Occam's Razor implies that Milgrom's hypothesis explaining galactic rotation without the dark matter has enough grains of truth that updated physics can be developed.
The list of differences between Europeans and Americans was a piece of art. I really appreciated skepticism, as it was deleted from culture for a very long time.
the World Wars caused an extinction event across all industries. in France one of the responses was to found Nicolas Bourbaki to help secure the future of mathematics, understanding that the people they had left weren't fully equipped to execute the task, but doing nothing was definitely a worse option. they grew to take themselves too seriously, but the initial effort and the fruits of their labor are absolutely worthy of admiration. in America, Kuhn just claimed that it was a 'revolution', not seeing the devastation for what it was, and sadly virtually everyone just accepted his analysis. but note that even most his historic examples of previous 'revolutions' were actually very similar, with for instance Newton et al. being allowed to rise to prominence because of the devastation caused by the English Civil War. note that Kuhn got his grad degrees immediately after WWII, right around the same time as other prominent figures like Chomsky, Gell-Mann, Feynman, Lakatos, and even a few conservatives like Feyerabend who were perceived as radicals during this repopulation event and into the present.
I appreciate very much Kuhn's analysis that I think applies more generally, to just after WWII. I also appreciate, at least to considerable degree, Chomsky, Lakatos and Fyerabend. About Feynman and Gell-Man, I have made videos...
@@TheMachian Please stop using that image of nuclear mushroom cloud, it's obviously BAD CGI made in the image of a clown, use a real image - these are much more beautiful.
However great are the advances which physics may make, not the smallest step towards metaphysics is thereby taken, just as a plane can never obtain cubical content by being indefinitely extended… even if one wandered through all the planets and fixed stars, one would thereby have made no step in metaphysics. It is rather the case that the greatest advances of physics will make the need of metaphysics ever more felt. - Schopenhauer
Great subject and interestingly presented. But I must make this remark: Classicaly educated Einstein was very philosophically inclined. However, he may be one of the first modern physicists to bash philosophers: "I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori" A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1923.
What is wrong with physics (in my humble opinion) is that it considers only the objective / material part of reality and denies or sidelines the subjective / experiential dimension. Of course the objective / material is physics' realm, but must be seen and considered in context. Reality is a unified whole, a proposition which I think is hard to challenge. Of course you can simply deny the existence of half of it, but that leads to problems, with which you Dr. Unzicker are engaging. Great talk, keep at it, and thank you.
Aristotle was the original philosophical physicist. One should just read Aristotle's treatise on motion to understand this. This Aristotle's lineage continued with Rudjer Boskovic, Wittgenstein, Mach, Tesla. Tesla produced sketches of his dynamic gravitation theory which was based on luminous ether. He pronounced that time is an illusion, which shattered physics right there. He proposed the notion of flow of entropy as a true fundamental substitute for time. He did not produce equations but he did not produce them in his engineering work comprised from 600 patents either. Nowadays, some scientists in the free world rewrite equations with time removed. And finally, we have Smolin and events as the fundamental concepts. And we have Penrose CCC. And not to forget Sartre. Basically, we have 9 fundamental concepts with which we can model the "spaceworld": Context is the top abstract entity. It provides context to the following 9 fundamental entities: Event, Location, Observer, Arrangement, Information, Classification, Resource, Rule, Intention Aristotle was the world's first systems modeler but philosophy and science split and people never catch up with it.Time was never there, from the very beginnings of philosophical physics. There si an excellent YT by Smolin elaborating on Events.
As a Caltech grad, I should be sensitive to Feynman bashing, and I'm not qualified to take sides, but I appreciate greatly the Unzicker criticisms of physics and of post-war science. Many years ago I observed that the science of physical chemistry turned abruptly (during and) after the war from understanding how molecules behave in the bulk to the quantum mechanics of these molecules. The advent of computers reinforced this change. Specifically I note the changes in research of Prof. Joel Hildebrand at Berkeley
Philosophy is the discovery of the importance of volk teleology to the life of man. Physics is the discovery of the importance of mathematical regularity to man's environment.
A lot of the logical positivists are actually trained scientists who subsequently become philosophers. Their works had been collected with Springer and they discussed and pioneered the discussions in the foundations of physics, statistics, probability etc.
Philosophy is the source of science. It is bashed as not being testable, but it is not so much about discovering the truth, it is rather about thinking, and thinking correctly. Every theory has a philosophical basis to begin with, if only in defining the concepts involved. That's why fundamental physics is in a crisis, the source has dried. Following that, technology will also be in a crisis because its source is in science.
Philosophy is absolutely testable, it's only that you have to test it by direct subjective experience, and not by objective measurement. Even objective science, in its very foundation (i.e. postulates), is philosophy: to say that objective masurement is "real" and reliable, cannot be proved inside science (i.e. by measurement itself - it would be circular reasoning) and must be taken as a philosophical postulate or axiom (or "dogma", if you like).
Technology is already in a state of stagnation on the medical front, precisely for this reason. There isn't a single unified state-sponsored or wealthy private effort to understand and cure psychiatric brain disease on Earth in 2023. The most expensive and pervasive medical problem in history is successfully ignored by both democracy and autocracy under capitalism and socialism, and that is only possible in a scenario of brute philosophical ignorance and a total disregard for any rational order of operations of social organization and obvious problem solving.
@@andsalomoni When somebody else completes a truth table of various deductions, and you read it and understand, or submit it to a computer to verify, is that 'subjective'? What a silly distinction. Philosophy is logic, and it is ignored simply because logic as such is not a public school class in the English speaking world, and most people don't even know what it is, and people resent those who know a lot about that which they themselves are completely ignorant. It's not any more complex than that. Make logic a universal subject in schools, and the next generation won't make stupid mistakes as often, because you'll have added logic as an active social competition pressure.
Maybe, but Edwin T. Jaynes pointed out how people developed genetics and other technologies without knowing anything about chromosomes etc. and some of these empirical people even deprecated fundamental scientific research. How is it that Soddy was warning people about the dangers of nuclear war as early as 1911 but C.C. Furnas, who was a U.S.A. government official, wrote in 1935 that it was folly to buy stock in an atomic power plant? Was mastery of physics what drove the large number of innovations in Nazi Germany?
Father Adam Agrees With Dr. Unzicker! When the eyes are open the light may enter in... Thank goodness that Unzicker can see the problem! There was a European philosophical tradition in Physics that was also spiritual in nature. Interestingly, father Adam first discovered the danger of an excessively material approach after he designed the meditation in the name Cain, The Hoer. When you are alone in your garden at your morning chores you can discover this meditation... For Cain became the first mighty man of labor. But the long application of all that masculine power, over against the Curse Upon the Ground, honed an aggressive, territorial edge to his soul which the fallen angel was able to exploit. But Adam was highly intelligent, and found the correct approach to this fundamental problem, which is revealed in the pivotal meditation he designed into the name Seth. And his practical solution to the problem of the devil is found in his derivation to the name Enoch, The Spiritual Warrior, first postulated by Cain himself. Our best way forward, says Adam, is to cultivate spirituality first, and also together with all our endeavors. QED SEL
In the case of your channel the opposite question might be more relevant. lol. I do appreciate your candidness though and share many of your sentiments.
To question current physics, you have to work on the foundations, i.e. you have to do some philosophical work too. So I think that Unzicker's channel is really alright.
I was astounded that we already know a relation between G and the speed of light, and saddened by the fact that it took me so long to find anything with this relation described.
How about a lot of falsifications, nobody trusts in, and has to manually re-calculate, just to verify or falsify them? Do we really need that "middle-man" step?
You ask a good question, Ali. I wonder about this as well. In a perfect world, you would have a unified theory BEFORE implementing, say, chatgpt. Without knowing the unified theory, however, AI just makes the problem worse I believe. Maybe people can find a way to use AI to find the people who have the right theory. If it can’t give perfect answers to fundamental questions, though, it only spreads misinformation. How do you correct a computer that is under no one person’s control? I think it would be good if Unzicker could find a solution to this problem. I wonder about this problem constantly, because I, myself, struggle to get through to physicists as it is. I am the author of “The Design Equation - The Unified Theory and the Mathematics of Hidden Dimensions” In this book, I describe my solution to problems I found in the Russellian Cosmogony. I am confident that this is now the unified theory the world is looking for. www dot theunifiedtheory dot com
I was a physics professor and genuine doctor of philosophy, but I lost my position for correctly opposing the unethical COVID mandates. I would summarize the majority of current physicists, even at the highest levels, as rat racers who are chasing social status and comfort, and not as intellectuals. They don't reflect on history, they don't understand the meaning of the term "critical thinking", they have no courage, and they have no understanding of Plato's division between the world of illusion and reality. The institutions we call universities today are decrepit and in desperate need of total dissolution. I need to find a new community and profession with serious intellectuals, I was barking up the wrong tree for the past 20 years.
I was suspended from work for 7 months because I refused to show up my covid eu certificate that would have granted my "rights". Much respect to you, I hope you managed to rebuilt your career.
They started bashing philosophy about the same time they became ignorant of it, and realised that a lot of their mainstream physics is actually based on a very simplistic and almost definitely wrong philosophy.
Ironically, Einstein has set an example: "I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori" A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1923
@@AndrewWutke There was a debate between Einstein and Bergson about time. Einstein described his concept of time (objective 4D spacetime), Bergson described his concept of time ("durèe rèelle"), based on direct subjective experience. No "a priori" at all.
Another face of the situation is that today, more and more scientists think they are philosophers and make sweeping statements. But they only ridicule themselves, and expose the shallowness of their ideas. This contributes to give a bad name to philosophy. It is a discipline on its own, not a sunday's leisure.
I think the way we treat science, is a Philosophy. How much of our knowledge do we actually use, and what "science" experiment results have just dissapeared in a drawer somewhere? And how many "implications" have not been verified yet by experiments? it's just such a vast playing field for our curiosity. And to come up with a method to prove an implicit fact to an ACTUAL FACT is a creative process more like Art even. And hard work.
I hope and believe that fundamental constants in physics can and will be established. I do worry though that a retrospective examination of our world ( of physics ) as it is today, will require a relative standardization method for " stupidity ". What will histroy make of today`s physics if the number of standard units of " stupidity " is much greater than the total number of sub-atomic particals in the known universe?
Totally agree, again. Great philosophical illustration of how respectful Students question all their Teacher's answers, who should be presenting them with questions to think about, that's the definition of "leading out", or projection-drawing of Observer's POV and mental awareness etc..
Physics is transitioning from science to philosophy to fraud. One example of this is the belief in the space time continuum. I address this in the first two pages of my book Myth Busting Physics.
qm is the biggest flawed concept. how can you have a wave with a medium that creates it? these fools think a wave is thing. time is result of magnetic hysteresis., and this simple axiom proves this : if all things were instant would time exist? the aether, dielecteric and magnetic fields are ALL the same thing just in different states like steam, water, ice. these different states is what a FIELD is. i would say 95% of scientific community are fools and in a cult.
We may not yet know the underlying reasons for certain parameters and relationships in physics, but we have conquered microphone technology. It is a shame that the questions are not very audible, at least to me. That aside, I agree 100% with your views on how physics should be practiced. However, I very respectfully suggest that giving a brief lecture followed by answering a few questions from the audience is not your forte, (or mine!) and not the best way to define and contrast your views against those of mainstream science. You really should try to engage in debates with scientists who do not share your views. This back and forth exchange of ideas and approaches to science would be far more educational to the average layman (me) and possibly more illuminating to your colleagues on both sides of the issue. Thank you!
" we being you and which immediate identifiable interlocutor. There are obvious reasons why there neither is nor can be any collective knowledge, or direct immediate personal experience, or how would you define knowledge. If you consider for but a moment it is remarkably fortunate that there is no such thing as collective knowledge
Interesting lecture, glad to listen to you. Thank you, for mentioning Sabine Hossenfelder and her brave books, which I just finished to read and found illuminating. Normally she falls under the razor of a sort of scientific inquisition.
The transition from theoretical physics to applied physics has less to do with national cultures than with the disintegration of the scientific world view that began to develop in the 14th century. That spatial model of modern physics, grounded in algebra and the calculus, has run its course. It is spent. And so scientists, both in Europe and in America, naturally turned to mopping up details and finding applications. It just happens that Americans are better at the applications. The fact that Europeans had just finished exterminating each other also put them at a disadvantage economically and institutionally. It's surprising to hear a German blame the U.S. for "big science." American "big science" came from Germany. Thinking that this was the future, the United States consciously adopted the German model of the research university early in the 20th century. Americans previously had a tradition of many small liberal arts colleges grounded in the teaching of Latin, literature, philosophy, etc. We truly lost a lot in following the German model, rather than our own traditions.
Im Kern sind wir im Jenseits von einem Vorher oder Nachher geborgen. Zudem entdecken wir immer mal wieder unsere Dezentralität, ohne ein Oben und Unten, ohne Innen und Außen. Dieses zu realisieren ist jene berechtigte Sehnsucht nach sogenannter Spiritualität. Form sei Leere, Aristoteles drückt dasselbe aus: "Elementar müssen höchstens Zweidimensionale Strukturen vorhanden sein, welche zusammen gebündelt, sowas ähnliches wie Volumen formen können." Materie ist so gesehen rein suggestiv.
In all fairness to America, before the world wars, the country did have some great scientists who were remarkably influential in physics, such as Josiah Willard Gibbs, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley to name a few
I would personally rename the 2 chart headings from Europe and America to Small money and Big Money eras. I would also put Heisenberg as a villain in my telling of the story, insisting on magic or miracles. Another flaw in science is "first fit wins".
There is no evidence that time is a dimension. There is only a belief that time is a dimension. How do we define time? We define a year (a unit of time) as one orbit of our planet around the sun. One orbit, one motion, one year. According to the International Committee on Weights and Measures a second is the time an electron spins on its axis inside a cesium 133 atom. 9,192,631,770 oscillations, 9,192,631,770 motions, one second. For 10,000 years all the measures of time we came up with have to do with one motion or another. It is safe to say that time is motion. The space motion continuum is not something I can believe.
I agree that time is defined in kinetics i.e. how fast things are happening. Newton defines time as an absolutely fixed spacing of things based on his own feeling and observation of motions, i.e., the reference is set to the observer and the observer believes that his feeling will be the same and last forever. Einstein defines time as the messenger who is sending information between the observer and the target and sets it to be fixed speed. Thus the time is converted to space because the messenger travels at a fixed speed. The problem I don't understand is why the messenger has a fixed speed regardless of the state between the observer and the target? In doing so, you have to compress and stretch space to count for different situations. So both time and space units are messed up. Why does this? Just to gain a little easier in calculations? I think intuition is a more precious thing to protect and perserve than calculation.
Saying time is motion is a truism. Time is rather defined by periodicity, something needs to be identical to itself an indefinite number of times. We see time the same way we see the third dimension: by comparing two different images, like on a film.
@@clmasse Does the third dimension have the fixed unit vector or changing sized vector units? In a film, we do fix pulling. It takes a kid maybe 20 years to get a sense of nonlinear distribution, it is intuitive for a kid to feel linear distribution. Why mess up with the unit? If Newton is wrong by a factor of 2, isn't it better to just times 2 or find out why time 2 in the same unit system? Of course, we use log scales and rotate or change axes all the time. But that should just be a mathematical way of calculation and should not be taken as a new definition of unit or angles or new reality.
Part of your answer to the last question was that you don't get break through's from highly educated people. That is probably a simplification because I believe that ideas can come from every where. It will however be more deficult for those people as they are on a taught track direction. I believe that new ideas should be welcomed and encurrished. Education is important as some body must know how to use the tools correctly. It should be up to educational centres to look for new and possibly cracy sounding ideas and then as a part of the education evaluate these ideas in some serious way and only disregard them when they are proven wrong. There may be alternative ways to do things that nobody have thought of. Experience is life educating you and what ideas you get from that may be wrong due to wrong perseption but they may also be correct but appear wrong to an educated person due to his education.
Faraday had some great conceptual ideas and was very good with experimentation, but Maxwell was quite educated and used the most advanced mathematics of his day. I question the idea of modern Universities being open to dissent, especially in the U.S.A., because of the influence of the military industrial complex and heavy emphasis on government research grants and research for the military. Even with QED there are trade secrets to be kept. Years ago, Lee Smolin wrote about problems in the science and physics communities and some like David Hestenes struck out on their own path decades before that. In the 1980's there was a lot of complaining about how research grants were obtained.
One could define "dimensions" as "the number of independent change possibilities", not only for space, but for generic experience ambits. In our commonly experienced space, we have three independent (orthogonal) directions of change. E.g. in indian philosophy, the "Heart Chakra" has 12 "dimensions", and it is interesting that in chinese traditional medicine, the heartbeat is considered to have 12 independent features that you can individually check "taking the pulse".
So philosophy equates to bashing physics because the present understanding is incomplete. Fortunately the speaker has more profound contributions than guys such as Einstein and Feynman.
That EU / America slide and the premise of that part of the talk is a bit judgemental and unnecessary. I think it’s more a zeitgeist of the two ages in physics and then the post war global political dynamics rather than cultural. I don’t think these generalizations hold today if we compare say, Penrose with Carroll. But fairly Penrose is clearly more accomplished. Or what about ‘t Hooft to Witten. Those slides for me weakened the underlying point you are making in the lecture title. Respectfully.
Logical positivism, and the following analytic philosophy, are the poor attempt to "upgrade" philosophy to the status of "science". I can't imagine a worse philosophy, really.
@@andsalomoni I am not really fan of philosophy. Everything in the philosophy is useless except logical positivism. Its important because it eliminates meta physics and helped to understand quantum physics. I never understood the precision of arguments against logical positivism since it is the very idea of speaking precisely.
@@deadpoet2544 If you want to eliminate metaphysics, just do physics. Metaphysics ("beyond physics") is about what is not measureable, which is what is more important in human life. Metaphysics can give as much knowledge as physics, only you have to rely on direct subjective experience, and not on objective measurement. And if you want to speak absolutely precisely, do mathematics. I really can't understand these "wannabe a scientist" analytic philosophers who wanted to transform the natural language into a mathematical mechanism, which cannot work and is utterly sterile.
@@andsalomoni metaphysics talks about things that cant be experienced by senses. Then why bother talk about it? The subjective experience you are talking about are not differences in obsevations or response to these, but a different set of words knocking around your cerebrum about what concept words to attach to these perceptions. Attaching different concept words to the perceptions in thier amalgamations does not constitute a change in anything by psychology, and reason shouldn't depend on your chosen category system or method of naming preceptions or thier correlation.
@@deadpoet2544 Metaphysics talks about things that we can definitely experience, by the senses or whatever. Metaphysics specifically is about experiences that cannot be objectively measured, i.e. measured by an instrument. The subjective experience that I am talking about has nothing to do with "words knocking around", in fact the words come after, when you want to create an intersubjective communication about it. If you don't recognize, or are not aware of these experiences, it's not my fault, nor my business.
Magnetic monopoles must exist - but they are too rare in the universe for us to ever find one. Protons must decay - but their lifetime is too long for us to ever see a decay event. What does it mean when physics theory makes a conjecture that IN PRINCIPLE can’t be proven by experiment? How can philosophy not enter into the search for truth and meaning?
The real problem of physicists is not about explaining the properties of forces of nature, but it is about finding the proper method or the right way of measuring the magnitude of the field's forces acting upon the observed with great precision. In reality, when we need to measure something, we normally apply Euclidian geometry when it comes to measuring the dimensions of material things. But when it comes to measuring the forces of fields like electric fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields, there is a likelihood we miscalculate the true magnitude of the field forces, because fields can be bent, twisted, stretched, compressed, and strained, just to name a few. And that's the reason why we often find numbers like unitless constants, coefficients, fudge factors, dielectric constants, and even fine structure constants from equations designed and formulated to deal with electric fields, magnetic fields or electromagnetic fields as well as gravitational fields that Euclidian geometry cannot describe. Einstein understood this problem with geometry, and that's the reason why he spent 10 years to develop his equation for general relativity, believing that gravity is geometry.
A thing is a wave also. Its „duality“. It depends on looking at it closely or not so closely. If you look too closely and emit photons the wave collapses and becomes a thing. Easy.
@lowersaxon do you know what duality means. It means that a person can be two different things. It is like a person can be a dog and a human at the same time. I don't think they know what duality means. That is a lame excuse. So does that means a person can be dog if I took a closer look? Physicists didn't know what they were talking about. A wave and a particle are two different thing, and nothing in this universe can be two different things. Duality was their excuse for not understanding what they saw. Does these geniuses know how stupid the idea of duality is? Doesn't anyone realizes these geniuses were making things up with words that were confusing like duality and collapsed?
How possible is it to make scaled down supercomputer simulations of the universe? And then change variables as little as possible each trial, to see how different universes would evolve. I suppose this relates to the idea of fine tuning; but I wonder how much give the variables have to still come out with something similar. The proton mass related to electron mass. How different would the universe be if all electron masses were 0.000000001 smaller? Etc. An electron can move 20 billion times in a short time and its standars; the earth moving around the sun 20 billion times seems extremly long time. For all the parts of the universe to for a long time form a stable, regular, possibly high ordered constructively interacting system; How many alterations to the characteristics of fundamental objects of universe (mass of electron, mass of proton, charge force of electron, speed of light) would also result in a long lasting, constructively interacting universe?
Let's say you doubled every quantity of the universe; standard electron mass doubled, proton mass doubled, speed of light doubled, would the universes physics be quite the same as ours, just double scale?
@@andsalomoni the universe appears to have patterns and possibly a limited number of most fundamental types of parts, building blocks. If there is a theory that: this all, started aprox some time ago, and there is theory about some characteristics and values of the possibly currently known fundamentals, can a big bang simulator not be made, and just plug the believed fundamental variable values in, and tweak them until the sped up simulation produces accuracies with our currently seen universe? I'm pretty sure some things with waters motions and behaviours can be quite accurately simulated without programming or accounting for every single atom (or electron) in the waters volume. Reality can be simulated imperfectly, but to degrees closer and further from accuracy.
The dichotomies presented are rather simplistic. For example, Bjørn Ekeberg notes how Einstein, despite having philosophy in his education, was part of the movement against using philosophy in physics: th-cam.com/video/XmzulJsGtZ4/w-d-xo.html
An excellent video. Thanks for the link. What I got from it, though, was that it wasn't that Einstein objected to philosophy in science. It's that he objected to using anyone else's philosophy but his. In effect, he created a new "priesthood" called physics. Now: 1. "it operates as a science and pretends not to do metaphysics" 2. "the core of the (standard) model is taken as a matter of faith" I would add to this that the math describing all this requires a great deal of training and aptitude in order to access. It reminds me of how the early Church relied on a text, which was not available to everyone, for it's guiding principles. But this new would-be priesthood does not tell you the faith-based aspects of its belief system.
@@rb5519 You're welcome! I agree: the idea that Einstein had an implicit philosophy he wanted everyone to adopt is a fruitful way of describing it, well reminiscent of E.A. Burtt's classic _The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science_. You can't avoid philosophy and minute you say you are, you're already doing philosophy, albeit badly. But your description of the "early Church" is a projection of a modern (post printing press, post-Reformation) perspective on the ancient world. The early Church wasn't based around "a text" (and this still holds true for the Catholic, Orthodox, and Eastern Churches today), most manifestly because the canon of the Bible wasn't delineated until the fourth century. I suppose such an illustration might turn the right knobs for a bunch of physicists who only know physics, but in a wider, more educated audience, it only shows ignorance, even bigotry. Sorry. More generally, I find that most invocations of philosophy for physics suffer from a similar narrow historical perspective. What people so often miss is that the philosophy they want to adopt is infected with the same anti-philosophical malady that infected the early moderns and gave rise to positivistic science (esp. Kant). Burtt's book is a powerful explanation of how Newton came up short in this regard. In any event, I wish you all the best in your endeavor to broaden the perspective of physicists!
@@johnkeck Thanks for the book recommendation. For a split second, I had the thought of including a caveat in my previous post that my church metaphor might be weak, but didn't get around to writing that. 😄 That metaphor actually occurred to me some time ago upon watching a discussion between Laurence Krauss and someone else. They sounded suspiciously positivist to me. I find this positivist bent to be intellectually lazy and unfortunately, unduly popular. In extreme cases it veers into flat-out profoundly unscientific thinking. It's like it's just a posture that says "I'm right, because 'science'". I saw their discussion reflecting some kind of desire that society should have some kind of "priesthood" of science. (of course they never used the word priesthood) But anyway, I'd also like to ask about your original comment: How is it that you find the dichotomies simplistic? I watched the video that you linked and it didn't clear that up for me. Thanks!
@@rb5519 Thanks for that admission. You are right there's something of a "priesthood" vibe to physics these days (pre-Christian priesthood may have fewer pitfalls). Perhaps that's in large part due to the specialization required. Another metaphor would be the inner circles of some fraternal organizations. (Mystically enlightened ones or "Illuminati" would invoke the idea more immediately, but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist!) The big challenge for physicists is that the field requires a lot of dedicated study (and specialization), so it can be difficult to study other subjects. Someone once said (perhaps my dissertation advisor) that there are two kinds of physicists: those who want to study only physics and those who want to know everything. The point in the Ekeberg video relevant to the simplistic dichotomies was how Einstein had philosophy in his background but downplayed philosophy's importance for later physicists. I admit it may just be me, but your talk struck me as "Einstein good, later physicists bad", to grossly paraphrase, while in reality Einstein himself was one of the causes of the following decadence. Also: in your talk, you seem to be drawing a bright line in the 20th century after which everything went downhill. In reality the positivism that's so problematic goes back to Newton, if not before, as Burtt's book explains. The deeper problem that's often ignored is how physics excludes the physicist from the universe it describes. This is an unavoidable (I think) feature of physics that comes from the objectivity criterion of the experimental method, and a clear sign that another field (philosophy) is needed if we are to have a complete picture of the universe, namely, one that includes ourselves as knowers of truth.
@@johnkeck “Einstein good, later physicists bad” Yes. That is where I was coming from, in a way, grossly speaking. But these two videos and what you’ve told me is showing me a nuance that I wasn’t aware of before. What comes to mind now is that Einstein “broke”, in a sense, the physics that had gone on before. Then quantum mechanics (which, as I understand, he took part in initiating, even though he would largely disown the direction it took afterwards) broke physics again. Post-breakage, the situation seems to be that the mainstream of the field of physics told the rest of us: we have now found a fixed frame of reference on which to build the rest of our edifice upon. No need to look into the “context” of our thinking anymore. Again, I am putting it grossly, but it’s just what comes to mind now. As someone in the chat pointed out, physics is still a science in that it is subject to observations that can challenge current theories. But I have the impression that mainstream physics still clings to certain established contexts to the extent that it isn’t even aware of the context anymore. Your second impression about my talk is also correct. There seems to have been some kind of definite shift that took place in the early 20th century. Something happened that started the field down a path that was no longer headed towards the next conceptual break. And it seems there is a need for physics to be broken again in order for any advancement to occur. My first inkling of this was in my undergrad physics course in the 80s when it got to the part about the double slit experiment. As the textbook went into the conceptual discussion around the experiment, the sense of a door being slammed shut hit me in the face. I thought, “you guys don’t know what you’re talking about and the way you’re headed is not the road to understanding anything better about it.” Interestingly, in light of what you said, my speculative resolution of the problem was the idea that there is no such thing anymore as being “objective”. When you look at something, you are affecting it. YOU are part of the experiment. Don’t know how or in what way that is true. It seems the effect of the observer is not noticeable until you get down to the subatomic level or so. As far as positivism, I’ll have to read Burtt’s book. But my current thinking is that even if the positivism goes back to Newton (at least), generally, I have taken Newton’s “hypotheses non fingo” statement as a bright line separating him from current positivism. More recently, reading into a discussion between Ernst Mach and Max Planck, I got the impression that the very definition of what constituted “positivism” was still in play. Maybe large parts of the strange quantum phenomena that are now considered mainstream physics were considered “mystical” by some of the physicists back then?
Page -17:48 Sabine H, was mistaken. Lies propagate in language and mathematics is a language. So you can lie with mathematics. Aid obfuscation? Agreed with her.
@@andsalomoni if quantum physics continues in it’s determined direction what would we get in the end? A new religion full of priest and a pope feed on tax payers.
How about we assume the entire universe is made of photons that only have magnetic no electric field? electric is a consequence of rotating magnetic poles that is chiral? Matter is just curled-up photons with angular momentum and translational momentum correlated? Its mass and inertia are conservation of angular momentum when changing needs energy. Thus the entire universe is made of photons with different frequencies, energies, and rotational states. This is philosophically simple to me.
With this assumption, we only need photons in the universe and nothing else. Photon is responsible for matter, light, and force media, and no need for special relativity either if we put a speed limit on the photons vs the mass center of the universe that becomes internal of a black hole.
The closer an academic subject becomes to application in the real world, the more it lends itself to a political dimension. Theological professors can be rightly smug about "peer review" and soaking up the adulation as "Drs" and "Professors", but when it comes to physics, it is one step away from engineering which is one step away from the politics and economics of energy utilisation. Let's be quite clear: academics can be very "clever" in a narrow field, but still be stupid enough to wear a mask. Lack of courage does comes into the equation, but it is more than that, it is the engineering of knowledge to maintain the societal status quo, as it was in the time of "Galileo"...Suffice to say, there is also a lack of interdisciplinary overview.
what does he mean. Seems to me World Wars are actually great for physics and technology. Of course the cost is very high. Of course that's what one of his other books is about. Wars remove the financial cost barrier by making money the least of your worries, or at least a lesser worry. Priories get adjusted and attention gets focused.
Wars are indeed good for the technology that wars avail. However unfortunately we will never know of the other potential yet unavailable tech which is unrealized due to it's inventors perhaps becoming displaced refugees with their focus solely on survival or maybe being bombed to death or simply getting recruited and then suffering crippling trauma as a result or receiving an incapacitating injury or maybe one of the many other dismal fates that war brings about to the potential inventors who might use altruism instead of destruction as a motivation to invent and create.
That's a legend. Often the example of the radar is given. But the radar wad already developed in UK in the 30's. Of course it was under military secret, but got known to the world only at WW2 where it was tested in life size.
@@clmasse I never mentioned radar. Competition stimulates innovation. War is the ultimate competition. GPS is a military endeavor. The internet come to us from DARPA. No doubt any particle invention could come about by other means. But war opens up the coffers and speeds things up. It also leads to a lot of wast and tragedy. I'm not advocating for war per se. I just objected to his off the hand remark that World Wars are not good for physics. They were certainly good for American physics. Certainly good for aviation.
contrived logic based on lack of knowledge i would say. Wars are the reason we have hidden technology, feynman einstein and some others were not just arogant pricks, they were paid propagandists just like todays neil degrass tyson. They hiding correct physics by giving us lies ala space time and quantum electro dynamics and photon theory of light... Nikola Tesla was mostly correct hence why they hiding his Dynamic Theory of Gravity and everyone including Shrodinger was an etherist. ether is neutrino-antineutrino pairs all around and they are responsible for light, inertia, momentum and gravity.
@@darrellee8194 Ok, let's address that in another way. War is a catastrophe for science, it drains resources for destruction instead of construction, it cuts the communication among scientists, and it may also lead to persecution of the best scientists. Other examples. General relativity wasn't known in UK because the German journals weren't distributed there. It took Eddington to propagate it. Bohr almost died while trying and escape the nazi who were invading Denmark. Heisenberg led the research on the nuclear bomb without success, among others being thwarted by Joliot-Curie, a colleague, instead of continuing his top notch work in quantum mechanics.
Is physics philosophy ? For mainstream physics , absolutely not unfortunately..their strict adherence to absolute materialism is (IMO) the reason physics hasn't gotten anywhere for decades..
Why much of the physics world is protagonist of philosophy is confounding to me. In that, apparently many physicists fail to accept the notion, that philosophy has, can & does, actually further physics. In many aspects & contexts. It's as if physicists apperceive that there is no place for philosophy amongst physics ? Being a self-educated person, I have many times, been facilitated as more so grasping aspects, contexts & even specifics of physics, thru philosophy. I see philosophy as a potential, additional tool as furthering physics. Just as any source of information can potentially facilitate. Or as the information / computer world has conveyed, Garbage in, Garbage out ! The world of physics is soon to be confronted with a quandary, in that a book I am currently composing, definitively will be potentiating, not only the physics world but simultaneously the world's of information, systems, kinematics, etc. Forevermore ! May be as Forevermore changing their vista's. 😊
The expanding electrons do it all. Physical matter. Not ‘ philosophy.’ Max Stirner destroyed ‘philosophy ‘ in 1844: why be concerned about woo woo nothing.
I was an intense Stirner reader. He did not destroy "philosophy", since what he wrote is philosophy too... "I founded my case on [woo woo?] nothing..." Max
@@davidrandell2224 You lack the very basis of logical understanding, it seems. Whatever statement about philosophy one puts out, is philosophy itself [is philosophy as well]. "I have founded my case on nothing" is a philosophical statement - this is not too difficult to understand, isn't it?
@@andsalomoni Philosophy is a love of wisdom: I.e. fixed idea that apparently floats your boat. You have founded your philosophy- logic- on nothing but another endless stream of brain farts. “Philosophy itself “ - bats in your belfry.
@@davidrandell2224 You have "fixed" ideas? I don't. And I don't have any belfry too. Your pseudo-poetic comment disperses like smoke in the air. Say something relevant, or be silent.
Is the Universe aware of Us? And: thought exercise, elaborate a description of colour "red (or any other ftm)": Now elaborate your description of 'time'.
@@clmasse hi, Claude. Thanks for replying. Now here's the thought exercise: why colour, and why time? Because it seems that when we refer to both, we tend to describe them as what we can experience physically, locally and within particular assumptions such as measurement accuracy and awareness. But more importantly, no matter how much information we can elaborate to describe it, we are far from "explaining it's colour". My hypothesis is that we can't explain "blue". We can describe just qualities of how it behaves and how doesn't. And none of those descriptions really tells us why "blue" is blue, but it does tells why "blue" is not "red". I'm following my intuition here, but I think we could say, in a way, that "blue is like nowness", or colour is like 'time'.. (?)
@@vdlzts. Agree. It is our feeling and bundled agreement that matters. Not the value nor the name. Thus, we should define time as the traditional time and convert it to virtual time in any unit and system for calculation then convert it back to the definition which is simply the current orbital time of earth.
You can't describe the color red: it would be useless for those who never saw it. You can only show it. That's the same reason why we can't know how ancient music sounded: because we don't hear it. PS - you can see the color blue even in absence of 0.42 micrometer light.
My current questioning is : How much of Mathematics can be symmetrical to Philosophy? The whole of them both? Is there a limit or a fundamental divergence between them? Can we study reality without mathematical semantics?
You can't have one without the other. Look up the word philosophy in your Dictionary. Philosophy is the science of thinking! It's not logical to try to think about knowledge you don't have. Got Occam's razor? My philosophy is that Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined. I call it Quantum logic E>(O+B) =Quantum logic Aaron' laser cuts deeper than Occam's razor. You don't have a right to ignore the fundamental laws of physics just fit your personal opinions and beliefs .
I read some Einstein's texts about philosophy (especially philosophy of science and epistemology) and was surprised by his enthusiasm about philosophy and necessity of it for real physicist as a seeker of truth not just artisan/specialist. Little quote by Albert Einstein: "When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this."
I also think about the mathematicians who were also philosophers and vice-versa: Wittgenstein, Russell, Whitehead, Husserl, Bolzano. And those are not just analytic philosophers. The historical relation between mathematics and philosophy, especially through their common discipline of Logic is also very interesting with subsequent separation of these two disciplines: mathematics' more specialization/isolation and philosophy tying itself more with linguistics/ philology after WW2.
Actually, that's how it was in Ancient Greece ...
Scholastic medieval philosophers contributed a lot to logic albeit from their dogmatism
Yes, physics is a branch of philosophy, it was known as natural philosophy in ancient age.
if by 'ancient' you mean 'roughly 150 years ago'
@@sumdumbmick Yes, I should have said that since ancient age.
How do you guys know that physics emerged from philosophy and not craftsmanship? The physics of Aristotle was absolute garbage, and it genuinely hindered progress in this field. Archimedes *built* stuff, like siege engines. Galileo wasn't classically trained, he didn't know or cared much for philosophy, yet his equations of motion keep on working. He *built* stuff too.
Physics existed before Kuhn and Popper. Somehow.
@@bakters It's not necessary (even not possible) for something to start in its perfect form at the beginning itself. Instead, it will evolve over the period. Likewise, hypothetically speaking, though the physics of early age was not accurate, those thoughts were the seed of the modern physics you study today; those thoughts gave the fuel to start thinking about this university. By the was, who told you only their understanding of nature was wrong! Are you really so confident that our modern physics doesn't have such (garbage) theories and ideologies too?
Even today, the thought experiments have their own place in modern physics too. And that's a form of philosophy per se.
The Kuhn-Popper debate itself was a philosophical debate. Though, physics was there even before them, it was as a part of philosophy itself.
@@livetolearn2014 " *It's not necessary (even not possible) for something to start in its perfect form* "
What's wrong with Archimedes' Law? What's wrong with the sieve or Eratostenes?
What's wrong with Pythagoras' theorem?
" *the physics of early age was not accurate* "
The philosophy of Aristotle was garbage, but the actual physics was fine. They didn't know much of it, but what they knew, was correct.
" *those thoughts gave the fuel to start thinking* '
I challenge this view, you are supposed to show examples where it obviously did work like that.
I'll give you another philosophical nonsense, which hampered physics. Very early on there was a debate, if matter and space are corpuscular in nature, or continuous. The *incorrect* view won an overwhelming victory, to the point that no works of the strongest corpuscular philosopher, Democritus, survived. Nobody read him, nobody bothered to copy his books.
As a result, even during the *early XXth century* most physicists didn't believe that the world is corpuscular. Chemists knew different, for quite some time too, but not the physicists. Thankfully, Einstein was one of the few, who did not read enough ancient philosophy to poison his mind.
" *Are you really so confident that our modern physics doesn't have such (garbage) theories and ideologies too?* "
In science, if something works, it keeps on working forever.
While I'm sure some of our current theories are incorrect, maybe wrong on a fundamental level, yet they still *work* , just like Ptolemaic epicycles, which also didn't stop working.
And since you can always work with a working theory, there is hope for progress. Copernicus might happen in the future. And even if not, we can still use what we have, just like the ancients, who built lots of antikytheras, based on those silly epicycles.
In comparison - Aristotle is pure garbage. You can't improve upon it. All you can do is reject him.
To earn an architect degree one has to be a full capable civil engineer first.
To be a good scientist he must excel in all these: apparatus, design of experiment, execution, observation, decipher data, interpretation, comprehension AND guided by philosophy - first.
None scientist qualify that after Michael Faraday.
I think that the creators of quantum mechanics had such wide competence as well.
The problems started with "Big Science".
Yep, physics needs to answer big questions, otherwise it is artificial "intelligence", lost in repeating facts in super super details.
Page -18:07 bravo
think > observe > calculate > rethink > re-observe > > >,,,
Recent "Planck's Constant Was Smaller In Early Universe" will make any physicist a philosopher.
All sciences, including physics, are rooted in philosophy. For a long time all the special branches of science were referred to as "natural philosophy." While philosophy has nothing to say about physics per se, it does have veto power over physics whenever existence itself comes up.
Logic is a branch of philosophy. Before going into science, you have to presuppose the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. Like if I didn’t presuppose the law of non-contradiction, I could just say that the earth is flat AND round at the same time. No amount of scientific evidence could convince me otherwise as it presupposes the law of non-contradiction. Science presupposes logic and therefore, presupposes philosophy. Sorry if I am having trouble articulating my thoughts I am very tired. Philosophy, particularly logic, provides a framework that underlies the principles we use to make sense of the world before delving into specific fields like science.
I think lectures like this will become more important in historical context over time.
Very true!!!
Will they indeed? - And the next winning lottery numbers are?
@@vhawk1951kl 17, 22 and 76. Bet everything on them.
@@andsalomoni if you took your own medicine titch you might not be no more than some insignificant little clerk/shopgirl, but you are, so clearly you don't.
Why do the most based and insightful physicists have the worst audio technicians?
It’s almost a cosmic fundamental law at this point
A big problem is that doctorate studies lead to a doctorate in philosophy (PhD) but do not teach philosophy. Every doctorate program should include a handful of basic philosophy courses. I was always puzzled that as graduare studest in science we were practicing a philosophy subdiscipline but did not formally study philosophy.
Not that I am anyone to listen to but when I was a physics student undergrad I took a philosophy 100 course as an optional gen Ed. I still to this day remember most of the lessons I learned in that class on how one argues for something. I remember even more than from my physics courses. We learned some poignant stuff.
@@johnshilacky2728 I took Philosophy in my first year at University as well as Physics, Statistics, Linear Algebra and Calculus. I really liked what I was taught about logic and logical fallacies.Philosophy really should be a part of Physics training for the other topics like Ethics and Metaphysics as well.
The idea of truth for itself, not depending on its usefulness and pratical purposes is one of the pillars of Western philosophy since the Greek philosophers. The shift towards applied sciences is one of the many ovens of the decline of Europe...
Carver Mead's talks seen on TH-cam suggest to me that all is not lost in American physics. His "general relativity bashing" and arguments for variable speed of light and Mach's Principle seem to me what Herr Unzicker might appreciate. Carver's background is largely in engineering of electronics. I understand the gulf that separates the thinking of scientists and engineers, having myself given talks to JPL scientists who seemed puzzled when I applied simple thermal analysis to planetary bodies.
The speaker is discussing the dismissal of philosophy by physicists and how it has affected physics as a discipline, leading to a crisis. They argue that many of the greatest physicists of the past, such as Einstein and Schroedinger, engaged with philosophical questions as part of their work, but this changed after World War II with a focus on technology and applications. The difference in culture between American and European science is cited as a key factor, with the former prioritizing usefulness and individual thinkers, while the latter values understanding fundamental questions and large-scale experiments. The lack of understanding and will to understand fundamental questions has resulted in a multi-parameter enterprise such as the standard model, with over 100 free parameters. The speaker concludes that the crisis in physics can only be resolved by a return to philosophical inquiry and a deeper understanding of fundamental questions. The speaker emphasizes the need for intercultural dialogue and the importance of philosophers in addressing these fundamental questions. The measurement problem is cited as one of these fundamental questions.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
@@johannpopper1493 no problem dog
❤ Excellent topic, Eric. Thanks.
Without philosophy we are intuitively and intellectually blinded, next we are out of touch in reality. All we can do is to invent new physics.
Why are you - yes *you* titch, " intellectually blinded" without philosophy- which means the love of wisdom; what is wisdom? How exactly do you experience this blindness from which you - yes *you* titch, say you suffer?
Most major figures in modern physics made philosophical considerations from their writings.
The people asking the questions were a bit hard to hear. Did the last person make a comment about how there is a lot of discussion of fundamental principles in the foundations and philosophy of physics? And what about the guy before? It sounds like he made some kind of joke but I couldn’t understand any of it.
Also, if I may ask mr. Unzicker, what parts of Hegel have you read? Because, considering his desire for a completely presuppositionless system of philosophy/science, where nothing can be taken for granted, I imagine the philosophy of nature could be very insightful. If not for its positive claims, at least in order to see what is essential, or what the grounding principles of space and time are. And therefore what one should expect to leave behind if they want to base it on different mathematical forms like you do.
This makes sense on many levels, scientific but also cultural and political.
Hi Sir, this is a brilliant speech, I am reading the transcript now, thank you.
Have you spoken with Roger Spurr? It would be great if you could, he has studied many ancient texts and found evidence to support it (evidence from elegant experiments and tests).
Exactly something i was thinking about ! there is a serious lack of philosophical foundation in academia, teaching etc. hinging on the "shut up and calculate" paradigm
Great speech. Totally agree - less building- more thinking.
Atheist evangelism is part of it, Dawkins and Hawking, both philosophers who deny philosophy, both have done more philosophy than actual science. I did Physics and Philosophy at Oxford 1992 - 1997, there were five of us. All emerges from philosophy, as a separate discipline emerges what is left in philosophy becomes more and more esoteric, physics is finding itself in this position later but hasn't noticed yet
It feels almost dystopian, the continual fragmentation and obscurity these disciplines undergo...It’s as if creativity has foregone all of it and I’m not sure that a return to fundamental questions can incite a sufficiently large paradigm shift when even philosophy is as much a victim.
Does this have anything to do with science becoming a standardized process, a business model for more tech revolutions?
Universities tend to have the most technically qualified students, however, they might cordon off a handful of supremely creative persons in search of technical excellence; but I’m only speculating.
Philosophie is the mother of all science..show her some respect.
Well, her "reasoning" is sometimes unsatisfactory, So i ask Why? and How? Isn't that the first step, to science?
If we feel insecure in science and not willing to pass it to a next more capable physicist, start building your defending castle. With what? Concrete and heavy duty rebars. What? Quantum field and heavy duty mathematics. Castle? CERN
This is like when Jor-El tried to save the Kryptonians.
It’s crazy how some physics lecturers mock philosophical questions during class and say things like that’s philosophy and not physics. It’s almost like they don’t know what science truly is and are using some kind of algorithmic approach to publish papers and do research rather than truly thinking.
its the difference between "seeing" and doing, it possible that if you do enough symbolic manipulations of physically verified theories that you get a false illusion of being a having understood it. Nobody wants to sit at a place, be quiet and reflect because thats what philosophy is, a meditation on thought.
@@delq it’s possible that over time the amount of information grew larger and larger such that an average modern academic does not have time to think through all the foundations. but this issue we’re describing has been present since the beginning of science so it might also be an innate condition
Some corrections fifth line from bottom on new science ......
In natural philosophy natural constant are property of both , function (Space: time).
Hi Sir, your talks have captivated me. I did my Honours thesis on QED corrections for high-energy Caesium ion transitions. I want to do a PhD in fundamental physics but my fears about physics are the same as yours. Can I email you some questions about what questions I should aim to answer in my PhD to make real progress in theoretical physics?
Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo-> Email. I am afraid however that my answers will not beneficial for your PhD :-) Regarding QED, read Consa's papers. (there is also another video)
He ain't a real Academic Physicst ask to the perfect guys in this field
@@Goat-e3g That's why he knows real physics, not the mainstream physics.
@@livetolearn2014 " *real physics, not the mainstream physics* "
Remember that Ptolemy was so useful, that they laboriously built an incredibly complex machines that worked according to his model.
Those machines were carried on enough ships, that we managed to find one in a wreck. What are the odds of that? Close to zero, so building those machines was likely a small industry.
His model *did work* !
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
Ha! We didn't get far before I am compelled to comment. "Constants" of nature? For your consideration: The constants are adjusted in order to support the illusion of Reality which is created on the fly by our observations.
Overall, a crisis in physics is an exciting time.
If that were the case, language would have zero referents, which is the catastrophic contradiction that immediately stops all deductions and inductions permanently. It is the scenario that is literally not thinkable. It is the lack of philosophical training that makes such elementary mistakes -- akin to 2+2=0 -- seem plausible. Untrained speculation is merely stringing words together without grammatical sense. This is the primary source of all error in today's academy, with extraordinarily destructive far reaching downstream consequences in public policy, theoretical physics, etc.
@@johannpopper1493 But it is thinkable. Reality is procedurally generated by our observations. It is not necessary to generate that which we cannot perceive, therefore it is no generated.
However, once we improve our ability to perceive, for instance by inventing a microscope or sum such instrument, we perceive more and more must be generated in order sustain the illusion of reality.
The Constants of nature are being constantly adjusted to support our observations.
Consider gravity, for example. An elephant is the largest land animal because that is the largest that can be feasible under present gravitational strengths.
But we know that the fossil record has much bigger animals, and flying dinosaurs as tall as giraffes.
These creatures couldn't exist today. Big G has changed drastically.
Consider too the various numbers that have to be just perfect for us to have this conversation. What other explanation do we have for this amazing coincidence other than the many-worlds conjecture.
Physics evidence supports the procedurally generated reality; it leads to better physics.
(PS. Have you seen the amazing FEDex guy who walks along self-assembling nano-tubes to deliver nutrient to the mitochondria. Obviously pure fabrication)
When asked to sign a "standard contract" a person should be on their guard. I think we have three "standard" models in physics. Herr Unzicker might characterize these models as religions to big-money physics. One of these models requires "dark matter", an ethereal concept (pun intended) that seems ridiculous to me on its face. Occam's Razor implies that Milgrom's hypothesis explaining galactic rotation without the dark matter has enough grains of truth that updated physics can be developed.
The list of differences between Europeans and Americans was a piece of art.
I really appreciated skepticism, as it was deleted from culture for a very long time.
Having a distinct approach to science is beneficial. The controversy has always had an inspiring effect stimulating creative thinking.
The owners of any kind of power, don't like different thoughs. Even in western countries. And they call that "democracy" . Better democrazy.
the World Wars caused an extinction event across all industries.
in France one of the responses was to found Nicolas Bourbaki to help secure the future of mathematics, understanding that the people they had left weren't fully equipped to execute the task, but doing nothing was definitely a worse option. they grew to take themselves too seriously, but the initial effort and the fruits of their labor are absolutely worthy of admiration.
in America, Kuhn just claimed that it was a 'revolution', not seeing the devastation for what it was, and sadly virtually everyone just accepted his analysis. but note that even most his historic examples of previous 'revolutions' were actually very similar, with for instance Newton et al. being allowed to rise to prominence because of the devastation caused by the English Civil War.
note that Kuhn got his grad degrees immediately after WWII, right around the same time as other prominent figures like Chomsky, Gell-Mann, Feynman, Lakatos, and even a few conservatives like Feyerabend who were perceived as radicals during this repopulation event and into the present.
I appreciate very much Kuhn's analysis that I think applies more generally, to just after WWII. I also appreciate, at least to considerable degree, Chomsky, Lakatos and Fyerabend. About Feynman and Gell-Man, I have made videos...
@@TheMachian Please stop using that image of nuclear mushroom cloud, it's obviously BAD CGI made in the image of a clown, use a real image - these are much more beautiful.
However great are the advances which physics may make, not the smallest step towards metaphysics is thereby taken, just as a plane can never obtain cubical content by being indefinitely extended… even if one wandered through all the planets and fixed stars, one would thereby have made no step in metaphysics. It is rather the case that the greatest advances of physics will make the need of metaphysics ever more felt. - Schopenhauer
Great subject and interestingly presented.
But I must make this remark:
Classicaly educated Einstein was very philosophically inclined. However, he may be one of the first modern physicists to bash philosophers:
"I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori"
A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1923.
What is wrong with physics (in my humble opinion) is that it considers only the objective / material part of reality and denies or sidelines the subjective / experiential dimension. Of course the objective / material is physics' realm, but must be seen and considered in context. Reality is a unified whole, a proposition which I think is hard to challenge. Of course you can simply deny the existence of half of it, but that leads to problems, with which you Dr. Unzicker are engaging. Great talk, keep at it, and thank you.
Aristotle was the original philosophical physicist. One should just read Aristotle's treatise on motion to understand this. This Aristotle's lineage continued with Rudjer Boskovic, Wittgenstein, Mach, Tesla. Tesla produced sketches of his dynamic gravitation theory which was based on luminous ether. He pronounced that time is an illusion, which shattered physics right there. He proposed the notion of flow of entropy as a true fundamental substitute for time. He did not produce equations but he did not produce them in his engineering work comprised from 600 patents either. Nowadays, some scientists in the free world rewrite equations with time removed. And finally, we have Smolin and events as the fundamental concepts. And we have Penrose CCC. And not to forget Sartre. Basically, we have 9 fundamental concepts with which we can model the "spaceworld": Context is the top abstract entity. It provides context to the following 9 fundamental entities:
Event,
Location,
Observer,
Arrangement,
Information,
Classification,
Resource,
Rule,
Intention
Aristotle was the world's first systems modeler but philosophy and science split and people never catch up with it.Time was never there, from the very beginnings of philosophical physics. There si an excellent YT by Smolin elaborating on Events.
20:50 LOL Shout out to American Empire. BTW, Nice talk.
As a Caltech grad, I should be sensitive to Feynman bashing, and I'm not qualified to take sides, but I appreciate greatly the Unzicker criticisms of physics and of post-war science. Many years ago I observed that the science of physical chemistry turned abruptly (during and) after the war from understanding how molecules behave in the bulk to the quantum mechanics of these molecules. The advent of computers reinforced this change. Specifically I note the changes in research of Prof. Joel Hildebrand at Berkeley
Philosophy is the discovery of the importance of volk teleology to the life of man. Physics is the discovery of the importance of mathematical regularity to man's environment.
Oh wow! I love the new book title!
A lot of the logical positivists are actually trained scientists who subsequently become philosophers. Their works had been collected with Springer and they discussed and pioneered the discussions in the foundations of physics, statistics, probability etc.
Philosophy is the source of science. It is bashed as not being testable, but it is not so much about discovering the truth, it is rather about thinking, and thinking correctly. Every theory has a philosophical basis to begin with, if only in defining the concepts involved. That's why fundamental physics is in a crisis, the source has dried. Following that, technology will also be in a crisis because its source is in science.
Unfortunately much of modern advanced physics is not testable. I'm looking at you string theorists.
Philosophy is absolutely testable, it's only that you have to test it by direct subjective experience, and not by objective measurement.
Even objective science, in its very foundation (i.e. postulates), is philosophy: to say that objective masurement is "real" and reliable, cannot be proved inside science (i.e. by measurement itself - it would be circular reasoning) and must be taken as a philosophical postulate or axiom (or "dogma", if you like).
Technology is already in a state of stagnation on the medical front, precisely for this reason. There isn't a single unified state-sponsored or wealthy private effort to understand and cure psychiatric brain disease on Earth in 2023. The most expensive and pervasive medical problem in history is successfully ignored by both democracy and autocracy under capitalism and socialism, and that is only possible in a scenario of brute philosophical ignorance and a total disregard for any rational order of operations of social organization and obvious problem solving.
@@andsalomoni When somebody else completes a truth table of various deductions, and you read it and understand, or submit it to a computer to verify, is that 'subjective'? What a silly distinction. Philosophy is logic, and it is ignored simply because logic as such is not a public school class in the English speaking world, and most people don't even know what it is, and people resent those who know a lot about that which they themselves are completely ignorant. It's not any more complex than that. Make logic a universal subject in schools, and the next generation won't make stupid mistakes as often, because you'll have added logic as an active social competition pressure.
Maybe, but Edwin T. Jaynes pointed out how people developed genetics and other technologies without knowing anything about chromosomes etc. and some of these empirical people even deprecated fundamental scientific research. How is it that Soddy was warning people about the dangers of nuclear war as early as 1911 but C.C. Furnas, who was a U.S.A. government official, wrote in 1935 that it was folly to buy stock in an atomic power plant? Was mastery of physics what drove the large number of innovations in Nazi Germany?
Father Adam Agrees With Dr. Unzicker!
When the eyes are open the light may enter in... Thank goodness that Unzicker can see the problem! There was a European philosophical tradition in Physics that was also spiritual in nature.
Interestingly, father Adam first discovered the danger of an excessively material approach after he designed the meditation in the name Cain, The Hoer. When you are alone in your garden at your morning chores you can discover this meditation...
For Cain became the first mighty man of labor. But the long application of all that masculine power, over against the Curse Upon the Ground, honed an aggressive, territorial edge to his soul which the fallen angel was able to exploit.
But Adam was highly intelligent, and found the correct approach to this fundamental problem, which is revealed in the pivotal meditation he designed into the name Seth. And his practical solution to the problem of the devil is found in his derivation to the name Enoch, The Spiritual Warrior, first postulated by Cain himself.
Our best way forward, says Adam, is to cultivate spirituality first, and also together with all our endeavors.
QED
SEL
In the case of your channel the opposite question might be more relevant. lol.
I do appreciate your candidness though and share many of your sentiments.
To question current physics, you have to work on the foundations, i.e. you have to do some philosophical work too. So I think that Unzicker's channel is really alright.
I was astounded that we already know a relation between G and the speed of light, and saddened by the fact that it took me so long to find anything with this relation described.
Wolfgang Smith wrote about this so eloquently in his final books . ❤
Professor CS unnikrishnan has solved the riddle of Inertia 😊
Any subject can be pursued philosophically. There just is no one around today with the capacity for it.
Thank you for the great talk
I wonder what the future holds for these fundamentals with increasingly use of AI?
How about a lot of falsifications, nobody trusts in, and has to manually re-calculate, just to verify or falsify them? Do we really need that "middle-man" step?
You ask a good question, Ali. I wonder about this as well.
In a perfect world, you would have a unified theory BEFORE implementing, say, chatgpt. Without knowing the unified theory, however, AI just makes the problem worse I believe.
Maybe people can find a way to use AI to find the people who have the right theory. If it can’t give perfect answers to fundamental questions, though, it only spreads misinformation. How do you correct a computer that is under no one person’s control?
I think it would be good if Unzicker could find a solution to this problem.
I wonder about this problem constantly, because I, myself, struggle to get through to physicists as it is.
I am the author of “The Design Equation - The Unified Theory and the Mathematics of Hidden Dimensions”
In this book, I describe my solution to problems I found in the Russellian Cosmogony. I am confident that this is now the unified theory the world is looking for.
www dot theunifiedtheory dot com
It's very simple: the more they use AI, the less they are able to understand what they investigate.
I was a physics professor and genuine doctor of philosophy, but I lost my position for correctly opposing the unethical COVID mandates. I would summarize the majority of current physicists, even at the highest levels, as rat racers who are chasing social status and comfort, and not as intellectuals. They don't reflect on history, they don't understand the meaning of the term "critical thinking", they have no courage, and they have no understanding of Plato's division between the world of illusion and reality. The institutions we call universities today are decrepit and in desperate need of total dissolution. I need to find a new community and profession with serious intellectuals, I was barking up the wrong tree for the past 20 years.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
Well said mate...
I was suspended from work for 7 months because I refused to show up my covid eu certificate that would have granted my "rights". Much respect to you, I hope you managed to rebuilt your career.
They started bashing philosophy about the same time they became ignorant of it, and realised that a lot of their mainstream physics is actually based on a very simplistic and almost definitely wrong philosophy.
Ironically, Einstein has set an example:
"I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori"
A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1923
@@AndrewWutke There was a debate between Einstein and Bergson about time. Einstein described his concept of time (objective 4D spacetime), Bergson described his concept of time ("durèe rèelle"), based on direct subjective experience. No "a priori" at all.
@Cirkellimiet
So it seems Bergson and Einstein did not understand each other equally.
@@AndrewWutke Exactly.
For example?
it INVOLVES philosophy
Another face of the situation is that today, more and more scientists think they are philosophers and make sweeping statements. But they only ridicule themselves, and expose the shallowness of their ideas. This contributes to give a bad name to philosophy. It is a discipline on its own, not a sunday's leisure.
I think the way we treat science, is a Philosophy. How much of our knowledge do we actually use, and what "science" experiment results have just dissapeared in a drawer somewhere? And how many "implications" have not been verified yet by experiments? it's just such a vast playing field for our curiosity. And to come up with a method to prove an implicit fact to an ACTUAL FACT is a creative process more like Art even. And hard work.
I hope and believe that fundamental constants in physics can and will be established. I do worry though that a retrospective examination of our world ( of physics ) as it is today, will require a relative standardization method for " stupidity ". What will histroy make of today`s physics if the number of standard units of " stupidity " is much greater than the total number of sub-atomic particals in the known universe?
Unzicker: physics is an extension of language. If you can't name it, it doesn't exist.
In phisics. the "names" are the measurements.
Does anything exist in physics if not measureable?
Totally agree, again.
Great philosophical illustration of how respectful Students question all their Teacher's answers, who should be presenting them with questions to think about, that's the definition of "leading out", or projection-drawing of Observer's POV and mental awareness etc..
What if our philosophical thinking is not enough to understand quantum physics.
Physics is transitioning from science to philosophy to fraud. One example of this is the belief in the space time continuum. I address this in the first two pages of my book Myth Busting Physics.
I addressed these problems in my book "The Mathematical Reality". Indeed, spacetime is probably a flawed concept.
@@TheMachian what's this? another book to buy? don't twist my arm! 😅
@@TheMachian spacetime is logical space: move by x, move by y, move by z, don't move (time) - 4 mutually exclusive events
qm is the biggest flawed concept. how can you have a wave with a medium that creates it? these fools think a wave is thing. time is result of magnetic hysteresis., and this simple axiom proves this : if all things were instant would time exist? the aether, dielecteric and magnetic fields are ALL the same thing just in different states like steam, water, ice. these different states is what a FIELD is. i would say 95% of scientific community are fools and in a cult.
i bet you believe in virtural photons as well... smh
We may not yet know the underlying reasons for certain parameters and relationships in physics, but we have conquered microphone technology. It is a shame that the questions are not very audible, at least to me. That aside, I agree 100% with your views on how physics should be practiced. However, I very respectfully suggest that giving a brief lecture followed by answering a few questions from the audience is not your forte, (or mine!) and not the best way to define and contrast your views against those of mainstream science. You really should try to engage in debates with scientists who do not share your views. This back and forth exchange of ideas and approaches to science would be far more educational to the average layman (me) and possibly more illuminating to your colleagues on both sides of the issue. Thank you!
" we being you and which immediate identifiable interlocutor. There are obvious reasons why there neither is nor can be any collective knowledge, or direct immediate personal experience, or how would you define knowledge.
If you consider for but a moment it is remarkably fortunate that there is no such thing as collective knowledge
@Peter Codner I don't know what you said but it sounded very intelligent. 🙂
@@lawrencegoldworm960 take my advice and do not use those asinine little yellow symbols for you will be taken for imbecile child if you do
Philosophy, metaphor and euphemism
Danke, dass Sie das Thema setzen.
Interesting lecture, glad to listen to you. Thank you, for mentioning Sabine Hossenfelder and her brave books, which I just finished to read and found illuminating. Normally she falls under the razor of a sort of scientific inquisition.
Another great video.
dr. David Bohm has layed out this exact issue in many of his discussions which can be found online.
The transition from theoretical physics to applied physics has less to do with national cultures than with the disintegration of the scientific world view that began to develop in the 14th century. That spatial model of modern physics, grounded in algebra and the calculus, has run its course. It is spent. And so scientists, both in Europe and in America, naturally turned to mopping up details and finding applications. It just happens that Americans are better at the applications. The fact that Europeans had just finished exterminating each other also put them at a disadvantage economically and institutionally. It's surprising to hear a German blame the U.S. for "big science." American "big science" came from Germany. Thinking that this was the future, the United States consciously adopted the German model of the research university early in the 20th century. Americans previously had a tradition of many small liberal arts colleges grounded in the teaching of Latin, literature, philosophy, etc. We truly lost a lot in following the German model, rather than our own traditions.
Im Kern sind wir im Jenseits von einem Vorher oder Nachher geborgen. Zudem entdecken wir immer mal wieder unsere Dezentralität, ohne ein Oben und Unten, ohne Innen und Außen. Dieses zu realisieren ist jene berechtigte Sehnsucht nach sogenannter Spiritualität. Form sei Leere, Aristoteles drückt dasselbe aus: "Elementar müssen höchstens Zweidimensionale Strukturen vorhanden sein, welche zusammen gebündelt, sowas ähnliches wie Volumen formen können." Materie ist so gesehen rein suggestiv.
Very good! yes physics is nearly completely wrong.
In all fairness to America, before the world wars, the country did have some great scientists who were remarkably influential in physics, such as Josiah Willard Gibbs, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley to name a few
I would personally rename the 2 chart headings from Europe and America to Small money and Big Money eras.
I would also put Heisenberg as a villain in my telling of the story, insisting on magic or miracles.
Another flaw in science is "first fit wins".
În 1996 I have a vision that space îs made of quantum microspaces, 4 of them made foton, tethaedral structure. Esence of relativity are events.
I really love you and the audio is so bad I just couldn’t listen
I apologize; despite post-processing, far from perfect. I underestimated the effect of turning my head.
You can read along with the transcript in the description if it helps perhaps :)
@@LucieSalat ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ thank you
There is no evidence that time is a dimension. There is only a belief that time is a dimension. How do we define time? We define a year (a unit of time) as one orbit of our planet around the sun. One orbit, one motion, one year. According to the International Committee on Weights and Measures a second is the time an electron spins on its axis inside a cesium 133 atom. 9,192,631,770 oscillations, 9,192,631,770 motions, one second. For 10,000 years all the measures of time we came up with have to do with one motion or another. It is safe to say that time is motion. The space motion continuum is not something I can believe.
Time is not an dimension. Time is the breakdown of molecular life. In a place without heat and life there is no time.
I agree that time is defined in kinetics i.e. how fast things are happening. Newton defines time as an absolutely fixed spacing of things based on his own feeling and observation of motions, i.e., the reference is set to the observer and the observer believes that his feeling will be the same and last forever. Einstein defines time as the messenger who is sending information between the observer and the target and sets it to be fixed speed. Thus the time is converted to space because the messenger travels at a fixed speed. The problem I don't understand is why the messenger has a fixed speed regardless of the state between the observer and the target? In doing so, you have to compress and stretch space to count for different situations. So both time and space units are messed up. Why does this? Just to gain a little easier in calculations? I think intuition is a more precious thing to protect and perserve than calculation.
Saying time is motion is a truism. Time is rather defined by periodicity, something needs to be identical to itself an indefinite number of times. We see time the same way we see the third dimension: by comparing two different images, like on a film.
@@clmasse Does the third dimension have the fixed unit vector or changing sized vector units? In a film, we do fix pulling. It takes a kid maybe 20 years to get a sense of nonlinear distribution, it is intuitive for a kid to feel linear distribution. Why mess up with the unit? If Newton is wrong by a factor of 2, isn't it better to just times 2 or find out why time 2 in the same unit system? Of course, we use log scales and rotate or change axes all the time. But that should just be a mathematical way of calculation and should not be taken as a new definition of unit or angles or new reality.
@@mossig Only superconductivity.
Part of your answer to the last question was that you don't get break through's from highly educated people. That is probably a simplification because I believe that ideas can come from every where. It will however be more deficult for those people as they are on a taught track direction. I believe that new ideas should be welcomed and encurrished. Education is important as some body must know how to use the tools correctly. It should be up to educational centres to look for new and possibly cracy sounding ideas and then as a part of the education evaluate these ideas in some serious way and only disregard them when they are proven wrong. There may be alternative ways to do things that nobody have thought of. Experience is life educating you and what ideas you get from that may be wrong due to wrong perseption but they may also be correct but appear wrong to an educated person due to his education.
You don't get breakthroughs from people whose prestige, career and funding depend on the old ideas.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
Faraday had some great conceptual ideas and was very good with experimentation, but Maxwell was quite educated and used the most advanced mathematics of his day.
I question the idea of modern Universities being open to dissent, especially in the U.S.A., because of the influence of the military industrial complex and heavy emphasis on government research grants and research for the military. Even with QED there are trade secrets to be kept. Years ago, Lee Smolin wrote about problems in the science and physics communities and some like David Hestenes struck out on their own path decades before that. In the 1980's there was a lot of complaining about how research grants were obtained.
Wolfgang smith is a mathematician physicist and philosopher he has a great take on all of this.
We define a dimension as a spatial arrangement.
Aspects of space. x,y,z,-axis 3 you need to get a space, and lightspeed to see it.
One could define "dimensions" as "the number of independent change possibilities", not only for space, but for generic experience ambits.
In our commonly experienced space, we have three independent (orthogonal) directions of change.
E.g. in indian philosophy, the "Heart Chakra" has 12 "dimensions", and it is interesting that in chinese traditional medicine, the heartbeat is considered to have 12 independent features that you can individually check "taking the pulse".
Science without philosophy is a piece of chalk without blackboard.
So philosophy equates to bashing physics because the present understanding is incomplete. Fortunately the speaker has more profound contributions than guys such as Einstein and Feynman.
In order for the physicist to see his experiment he must think about it first. Which is what the philosopher does. Thinks about it first.
Yes.
Mostly gibberish.
That EU / America slide and the premise of that part of the talk is a bit judgemental and unnecessary. I think it’s more a zeitgeist of the two ages in physics and then the post war global political dynamics rather than cultural. I don’t think these generalizations hold today if we compare say, Penrose with Carroll. But fairly Penrose is clearly more accomplished. Or what about ‘t Hooft to Witten. Those slides for me weakened the underlying point you are making in the lecture title. Respectfully.
Excellent lecture. I would suggest that any ratios relating to mass need to be considered in terms of the physical properties of the vacuum.
Logical positivism is a philosophy of modern science. So physics also comes under it.
Logical positivism, and the following analytic philosophy, are the poor attempt to "upgrade" philosophy to the status of "science". I can't imagine a worse philosophy, really.
@@andsalomoni I am not really fan of philosophy. Everything in the philosophy is useless except logical positivism. Its important because it eliminates meta physics and helped to understand quantum physics. I never understood the precision of arguments against logical positivism since it is the very idea of speaking precisely.
@@deadpoet2544 If you want to eliminate metaphysics, just do physics.
Metaphysics ("beyond physics") is about what is not measureable, which is what is more important in human life. Metaphysics can give as much knowledge as physics, only you have to rely on direct subjective experience, and not on objective measurement.
And if you want to speak absolutely precisely, do mathematics. I really can't understand these "wannabe a scientist" analytic philosophers who wanted to transform the natural language into a mathematical mechanism, which cannot work and is utterly sterile.
@@andsalomoni metaphysics talks about things that cant be experienced by senses. Then why bother talk about it?
The subjective experience you are talking about are not differences in obsevations or response to these, but a different set of words knocking around your cerebrum about what concept words to attach to these perceptions. Attaching different concept words to the perceptions in thier amalgamations does not constitute a change in anything by psychology, and reason shouldn't depend on your chosen category system or method of naming preceptions or thier correlation.
@@deadpoet2544 Metaphysics talks about things that we can definitely experience, by the senses or whatever.
Metaphysics specifically is about experiences that cannot be objectively measured, i.e. measured by an instrument.
The subjective experience that I am talking about has nothing to do with "words knocking around", in fact the words come after, when you want to create an intersubjective communication about it.
If you don't recognize, or are not aware of these experiences, it's not my fault, nor my business.
Need my vibration device that reverses aging
Magnetic monopoles must exist - but they are too rare in the universe for us to ever find one. Protons must decay - but their lifetime is too long for us to ever see a decay event. What does it mean when physics theory makes a conjecture that IN PRINCIPLE can’t be proven by experiment? How can philosophy not enter into the search for truth and meaning?
Good points.
The real problem of physicists is not about explaining the properties of forces of nature, but it is about finding the proper method or the right way of measuring the magnitude of the field's forces acting upon the observed with great precision. In reality, when we need to measure something, we normally apply Euclidian geometry when it comes to measuring the dimensions of material things. But when it comes to measuring the forces of fields like electric fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields, there is a likelihood we miscalculate the true magnitude of the field forces, because fields can be bent, twisted, stretched, compressed, and strained, just to name a few. And that's the reason why we often find numbers like unitless constants, coefficients, fudge factors, dielectric constants, and even fine structure constants from equations designed and formulated to deal with electric fields, magnetic fields or electromagnetic fields as well as gravitational fields that Euclidian geometry cannot describe. Einstein understood this problem with geometry, and that's the reason why he spent 10 years to develop his equation for general relativity, believing that gravity is geometry.
Which it is not.
how can you take these "physicist's" serious when they think a wave is a thing.
Hahaha, at least someone understands physics.
A thing is a wave also. Its „duality“. It depends on looking at it closely or not so closely. If you look too closely and emit photons the wave collapses and becomes a thing. Easy.
@lowersaxon do you know what duality means. It means that a person can be two different things. It is like a person can be a dog and a human at the same time. I don't think they know what duality means. That is a lame excuse. So does that means a person can be dog if I took a closer look? Physicists didn't know what they were talking about. A wave and a particle are two different thing, and nothing in this universe can be two different things. Duality was their excuse for not understanding what they saw. Does these geniuses know how stupid the idea of duality is? Doesn't anyone realizes these geniuses were making things up with words that were confusing like duality and collapsed?
@@roccraz exactly, nature does not operate in dualities
@@lowersaxon a wave is what something does, not what it is. how can you have a wave without a medium?
How far our education system has fallen since the greats....
A moment of silence.
How possible is it to make scaled down supercomputer simulations of the universe? And then change variables as little as possible each trial, to see how different universes would evolve.
I suppose this relates to the idea of fine tuning; but I wonder how much give the variables have to still come out with something similar.
The proton mass related to electron mass. How different would the universe be if all electron masses were 0.000000001 smaller? Etc.
An electron can move 20 billion times in a short time and its standars; the earth moving around the sun 20 billion times seems extremly long time.
For all the parts of the universe to for a long time form a stable, regular, possibly high ordered constructively interacting system;
How many alterations to the characteristics of fundamental objects of universe (mass of electron, mass of proton, charge force of electron, speed of light) would also result in a long lasting, constructively interacting universe?
Let's say you doubled every quantity of the universe; standard electron mass doubled, proton mass doubled, speed of light doubled, would the universes physics be quite the same as ours, just double scale?
@@derndernit8275 “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
The Universe is all.
Do you think you can simulate "all"?
@@andsalomoni the universe appears to have patterns and possibly a limited number of most fundamental types of parts, building blocks.
If there is a theory that: this all, started aprox some time ago, and there is theory about some characteristics and values of the possibly currently known fundamentals, can a big bang simulator not be made, and just plug the believed fundamental variable values in, and tweak them until the sped up simulation produces accuracies with our currently seen universe?
I'm pretty sure some things with waters motions and behaviours can be quite accurately simulated without programming or accounting for every single atom (or electron) in the waters volume.
Reality can be simulated imperfectly, but to degrees closer and further from accuracy.
@@derndernit8275 Just remember that all simulations are, in the end, toys.
I Kant tell.
The dichotomies presented are rather simplistic. For example, Bjørn Ekeberg notes how Einstein, despite having philosophy in his education, was part of the movement against using philosophy in physics:
th-cam.com/video/XmzulJsGtZ4/w-d-xo.html
An excellent video. Thanks for the link. What I got from it, though, was that it wasn't that Einstein objected to philosophy in science. It's that he objected to using anyone else's philosophy but his. In effect, he created a new "priesthood" called physics.
Now:
1. "it operates as a science and pretends not to do metaphysics"
2. "the core of the (standard) model is taken as a matter of faith"
I would add to this that the math describing all this requires a great deal of training and aptitude in order to access. It reminds me of how the early Church relied on a text, which was not available to everyone, for it's guiding principles. But this new would-be priesthood does not tell you the faith-based aspects of its belief system.
@@rb5519 You're welcome! I agree: the idea that Einstein had an implicit philosophy he wanted everyone to adopt is a fruitful way of describing it, well reminiscent of E.A. Burtt's classic _The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science_. You can't avoid philosophy and minute you say you are, you're already doing philosophy, albeit badly.
But your description of the "early Church" is a projection of a modern (post printing press, post-Reformation) perspective on the ancient world. The early Church wasn't based around "a text" (and this still holds true for the Catholic, Orthodox, and Eastern Churches today), most manifestly because the canon of the Bible wasn't delineated until the fourth century. I suppose such an illustration might turn the right knobs for a bunch of physicists who only know physics, but in a wider, more educated audience, it only shows ignorance, even bigotry. Sorry.
More generally, I find that most invocations of philosophy for physics suffer from a similar narrow historical perspective. What people so often miss is that the philosophy they want to adopt is infected with the same anti-philosophical malady that infected the early moderns and gave rise to positivistic science (esp. Kant). Burtt's book is a powerful explanation of how Newton came up short in this regard.
In any event, I wish you all the best in your endeavor to broaden the perspective of physicists!
@@johnkeck Thanks for the book recommendation.
For a split second, I had the thought of including a caveat in my previous post that my church metaphor might be weak, but didn't get around to writing that. 😄
That metaphor actually occurred to me some time ago upon watching a discussion between Laurence Krauss and someone else. They sounded suspiciously positivist to me. I find this positivist bent to be intellectually lazy and unfortunately, unduly popular. In extreme cases it veers into flat-out profoundly unscientific thinking. It's like it's just a posture that says "I'm right, because 'science'". I saw their discussion reflecting some kind of desire that society should have some kind of "priesthood" of science. (of course they never used the word priesthood)
But anyway, I'd also like to ask about your original comment: How is it that you find the dichotomies simplistic? I watched the video that you linked and it didn't clear that up for me. Thanks!
@@rb5519 Thanks for that admission. You are right there's something of a "priesthood" vibe to physics these days (pre-Christian priesthood may have fewer pitfalls). Perhaps that's in large part due to the specialization required. Another metaphor would be the inner circles of some fraternal organizations. (Mystically enlightened ones or "Illuminati" would invoke the idea more immediately, but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist!)
The big challenge for physicists is that the field requires a lot of dedicated study (and specialization), so it can be difficult to study other subjects. Someone once said (perhaps my dissertation advisor) that there are two kinds of physicists: those who want to study only physics and those who want to know everything.
The point in the Ekeberg video relevant to the simplistic dichotomies was how Einstein had philosophy in his background but downplayed philosophy's importance for later physicists. I admit it may just be me, but your talk struck me as "Einstein good, later physicists bad", to grossly paraphrase, while in reality Einstein himself was one of the causes of the following decadence.
Also: in your talk, you seem to be drawing a bright line in the 20th century after which everything went downhill. In reality the positivism that's so problematic goes back to Newton, if not before, as Burtt's book explains.
The deeper problem that's often ignored is how physics excludes the physicist from the universe it describes. This is an unavoidable (I think) feature of physics that comes from the objectivity criterion of the experimental method, and a clear sign that another field (philosophy) is needed if we are to have a complete picture of the universe, namely, one that includes ourselves as knowers of truth.
@@johnkeck “Einstein good, later physicists bad” Yes. That is where I was coming from, in a way, grossly speaking. But these two videos and what you’ve told me is showing me a nuance that I wasn’t aware of before. What comes to mind now is that Einstein “broke”, in a sense, the physics that had gone on before. Then quantum mechanics (which, as I understand, he took part in initiating, even though he would largely disown the direction it took afterwards) broke physics again. Post-breakage, the situation seems to be that the mainstream of the field of physics told the rest of us: we have now found a fixed frame of reference on which to build the rest of our edifice upon. No need to look into the “context” of our thinking anymore. Again, I am putting it grossly, but it’s just what comes to mind now. As someone in the chat pointed out, physics is still a science in that it is subject to observations that can challenge current theories. But I have the impression that mainstream physics still clings to certain established contexts to the extent that it isn’t even aware of the context anymore.
Your second impression about my talk is also correct. There seems to have been some kind of definite shift that took place in the early 20th century. Something happened that started the field down a path that was no longer headed towards the next conceptual break. And it seems there is a need for physics to be broken again in order for any advancement to occur. My first inkling of this was in my undergrad physics course in the 80s when it got to the part about the double slit experiment. As the textbook went into the conceptual discussion around the experiment, the sense of a door being slammed shut hit me in the face. I thought, “you guys don’t know what you’re talking about and the way you’re headed is not the road to understanding anything better about it.” Interestingly, in light of what you said, my speculative resolution of the problem was the idea that there is no such thing anymore as being “objective”. When you look at something, you are affecting it. YOU are part of the experiment. Don’t know how or in what way that is true. It seems the effect of the observer is not noticeable until you get down to the subatomic level or so.
As far as positivism, I’ll have to read Burtt’s book. But my current thinking is that even if the positivism goes back to Newton (at least), generally, I have taken Newton’s “hypotheses non fingo” statement as a bright line separating him from current positivism. More recently, reading into a discussion between Ernst Mach and Max Planck, I got the impression that the very definition of what constituted “positivism” was still in play. Maybe large parts of the strange quantum phenomena that are now considered mainstream physics were considered “mystical” by some of the physicists back then?
yes it is philosophy........ complete philosophy
Page -17:48 Sabine H, was mistaken.
Lies propagate in language and mathematics is a language. So you can lie with mathematics.
Aid obfuscation? Agreed with her.
Not to be taken too literally, and a nice punchline by Hossenfelder.
Hossenfelder would be very good, if only she didn't believe in "Superdeterminism"...
@@andsalomoni if quantum physics continues in it’s determined direction what would we get in the end? A new religion full of priest and a pope feed on tax payers.
What isn't philosophy is fantasy. Epicycles.
How about we assume the entire universe is made of photons that only have magnetic no electric field? electric is a consequence of rotating magnetic poles that is chiral? Matter is just curled-up photons with angular momentum and translational momentum correlated? Its mass and inertia are conservation of angular momentum when changing needs energy. Thus the entire universe is made of photons with different frequencies, energies, and rotational states. This is philosophically simple to me.
With this assumption, we only need photons in the universe and nothing else. Photon is responsible for matter, light, and force media, and no need for special relativity either if we put a speed limit on the photons vs the mass center of the universe that becomes internal of a black hole.
The closer an academic subject becomes to application in the real world, the more it lends itself to a political dimension. Theological professors can be rightly smug about "peer review" and soaking up the adulation as "Drs" and "Professors", but when it comes to physics, it is one step away from engineering which is one step away from the politics and economics of energy utilisation. Let's be quite clear: academics can be very "clever" in a narrow field, but still be stupid enough to wear a mask. Lack of courage does comes into the equation, but it is more than that, it is the engineering of knowledge to maintain the societal status quo, as it was in the time of "Galileo"...Suffice to say, there is also a lack of interdisciplinary overview.
what does he mean. Seems to me World Wars are actually great for physics and technology. Of course the cost is very high. Of course that's what one of his other books is about. Wars remove the financial cost barrier by making money the least of your worries, or at least a lesser worry. Priories get adjusted and attention gets focused.
Wars are indeed good for the technology that wars avail. However unfortunately we will never know of the other potential yet unavailable tech which is unrealized due to it's inventors perhaps becoming displaced refugees with their focus solely on survival or maybe being bombed to death or simply getting recruited and then suffering crippling trauma as a result or receiving an incapacitating injury or maybe one of the many other dismal fates that war brings about to the potential inventors who might use altruism instead of destruction as a motivation to invent and create.
That's a legend. Often the example of the radar is given. But the radar wad already developed in UK in the 30's. Of course it was under military secret, but got known to the world only at WW2 where it was tested in life size.
@@clmasse I never mentioned radar. Competition stimulates innovation. War is the ultimate competition. GPS is a military endeavor. The internet come to us from DARPA. No doubt any particle invention could come about by other means. But war opens up the coffers and speeds things up. It also leads to a lot of wast and tragedy. I'm not advocating for war per se. I just objected to his off the hand remark that World Wars are not good for physics. They were certainly good for American physics. Certainly good for aviation.
contrived logic based on lack of knowledge i would say.
Wars are the reason we have hidden technology, feynman einstein and some others were not just arogant pricks, they were paid propagandists just like todays neil degrass tyson.
They hiding correct physics by giving us lies ala space time and quantum electro dynamics and photon theory of light...
Nikola Tesla was mostly correct hence why they hiding his Dynamic Theory of Gravity and everyone including Shrodinger was an etherist.
ether is neutrino-antineutrino pairs all around and they are responsible for light, inertia, momentum and gravity.
@@darrellee8194 Ok, let's address that in another way. War is a catastrophe for science, it drains resources for destruction instead of construction, it cuts the communication among scientists, and it may also lead to persecution of the best scientists. Other examples. General relativity wasn't known in UK because the German journals weren't distributed there. It took Eddington to propagate it. Bohr almost died while trying and escape the nazi who were invading Denmark. Heisenberg led the research on the nuclear bomb without success, among others being thwarted by Joliot-Curie, a colleague, instead of continuing his top notch work in quantum mechanics.
Is physics philosophy ? For mainstream physics , absolutely not unfortunately..their strict adherence to absolute materialism is (IMO) the reason physics hasn't gotten anywhere for decades..
Why much of the physics world is protagonist of philosophy is confounding to me. In that, apparently many physicists fail to accept the notion, that philosophy has, can & does, actually further physics. In many aspects & contexts. It's as if physicists apperceive that there is no place for philosophy amongst physics ? Being a self-educated person, I have many times, been facilitated as more so grasping aspects, contexts & even specifics of physics, thru philosophy. I see philosophy as a potential, additional tool as furthering physics. Just as any source of information can potentially facilitate. Or as the information / computer world has conveyed, Garbage in, Garbage out ! The world of physics is soon to be confronted with a quandary, in that a book I am currently composing, definitively will be potentiating, not only the physics world but simultaneously the world's of information, systems, kinematics, etc. Forevermore ! May be as Forevermore changing their vista's. 😊
The expanding electrons do it all. Physical matter. Not ‘ philosophy.’ Max Stirner destroyed ‘philosophy ‘ in 1844: why be concerned about woo woo nothing.
I was an intense Stirner reader. He did not destroy "philosophy", since what he wrote is philosophy too...
"I founded my case on [woo woo?] nothing..."
Max
@@andsalomoni So you read Stirner without comprehension. Max a “ philosopher “. Laugh.
@@davidrandell2224 You lack the very basis of logical understanding, it seems. Whatever statement about philosophy one puts out, is philosophy itself [is philosophy as well].
"I have founded my case on nothing" is a philosophical statement - this is not too difficult to understand, isn't it?
@@andsalomoni Philosophy is a love of wisdom: I.e. fixed idea that apparently floats your boat. You have founded your philosophy- logic- on nothing but another endless stream of brain farts. “Philosophy itself “ - bats in your belfry.
@@davidrandell2224 You have "fixed" ideas? I don't. And I don't have any belfry too.
Your pseudo-poetic comment disperses like smoke in the air. Say something relevant, or be silent.
Is the Universe aware of Us? And: thought exercise, elaborate a description of colour "red (or any other ftm)": Now elaborate your description of 'time'.
Red I don't know, but bleue is 0,42 μm.
@@clmasse hi, Claude. Thanks for replying.
Now here's the thought exercise: why colour, and why time? Because it seems that when we refer to both, we tend to describe them as what we can experience physically, locally and within particular assumptions such as measurement accuracy and awareness.
But more importantly, no matter how much information we can elaborate to describe it, we are far from "explaining it's colour".
My hypothesis is that we can't explain "blue". We can describe just qualities of how it behaves and how doesn't. And none of those descriptions really tells us why "blue" is blue, but it does tells why "blue" is not "red".
I'm following my intuition here, but I think we could say, in a way, that "blue is like nowness", or colour is like 'time'..
(?)
@@vdlzts. Agree. It is our feeling and bundled agreement that matters. Not the value nor the name. Thus, we should define time as the traditional time and convert it to virtual time in any unit and system for calculation then convert it back to the definition which is simply the current orbital time of earth.
You can't describe the color red: it would be useless for those who never saw it. You can only show it.
That's the same reason why we can't know how ancient music sounded: because we don't hear it.
PS - you can see the color blue even in absence of 0.42 micrometer light.
My current questioning is : How much of Mathematics can be symmetrical to Philosophy? The whole of them both? Is there a limit or a fundamental divergence between them?
Can we study reality without mathematical semantics?
Philosophy is like sleeping in a bed with a blanket that is to small always something left uncovered...
King Solomon Talmud Bavli
You can't have one without the other.
Look up the word philosophy in your Dictionary.
Philosophy is the science of thinking!
It's not logical to try to think about knowledge you don't have.
Got Occam's razor?
My philosophy is that Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined.
I call it Quantum logic
E>(O+B) =Quantum logic
Aaron' laser cuts deeper than Occam's razor.
You don't have a right to ignore the fundamental laws of physics just fit your personal opinions and beliefs .