Live data from Hacker News

Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

quantamagazine.org

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#21
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large chunk of physics is theoretical in nature. Sometimes you simply cannot experimentally validate a phenomenon, so you instead propose a theory that attempts to explain it using physics. Then in the future, when the phenomenon is testable, your peers determine whether your theory was correct or not.

Atomism is a good example of how philosophy first made up a theory that was later confirmed (in a changed version). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism You could also derive the Atomic nature of matter through math though, as infinitely devisable sets end up with paradoxes that don't match up with reality (think banarch-tarski) You can do all this without an idea how to test it.

Given the knowledge available 2000+ years ago, atomism was a surprisingly good idea. Yah, they got a lot of the details wrong, but that basic idea that reality is made up of basic "building blocks" that combine into the larger structures we can observe is basically correct.

The philosophers that invented atomism probably thought about how the might see their atoms directly. I wonder how many "crazy" ideas were dreamed up that sounded impossible, that are now easy experiments to do today.

Theory is important, even if it sounds impossible today, because we have a history of redefining what is "possible" throughout the history of science.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#22
post #17

What was wrong with the article title? > A Fight for the Soul of Science

I think that title is meaningless. The one being used here on HN succinctly summarizes the article, while that one doesn't give me a clue about the subject matter

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#23

Nowadays, as several philosophers at the workshop said, Popperian falsificationism has been supplanted by Bayesian confirmation theory, or Bayesianism, a modern framework based on the 18th-century probability theory of the English statistician and minister Thomas Bayes. Bayesianism allows for the fact that modern scientific theories typically make claims far beyond what can be directly observed — no one has ever seen…

Yes, this is real and it can be done rigorously. The big problem is, "How do we come up with reasonable priors?"

It is still a minority position.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#24

Nowadays, as several philosophers at the workshop said, Popperian falsificationism has been supplanted by Bayesian confirmation theory, or Bayesianism, a modern framework based on the 18th-century probability theory of the English statistician and minister Thomas Bayes. Bayesianism allows for the fact that modern scientific theories typically make claims far beyond what can be directly observed — no one has ever seen…

Yes. It's a fairly natural outgrowth of falsification based theories, and is in fact completely necessary.

Consider a simple theory - bear attacks will be very low in the UK forever. Consider an alternate theory - bear attacks will be low until 2016 and then the bearpocalypse happens. Both theories have passed all attempts at falsification - they both accurately predict that bears haven't so far eaten very few people.

The Bayesian approach is to assign a prior distribution to various theories of this nature. Because there are infinitely many possible priors, most exceedingly complicated (because the set of priors of complexity A very readable approach to this is a post by Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/03/the-guardian-vs-inducti...

Wikipedia is also pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#25
post #15

Physics used to be "hard science" - if it wasn't testable, it wasn't meaningful. Physicists used to look down on other sciences for that reason. This article shows how much worse things have become. Nobody can figure out a way to test string theory. In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment. As the article points out, the big questions are out of reach for scaling reasons. Trying to fix the problem through w…

yeah, that's a picture of the implied surface of the electron cloud surrounding an atom's nucleus

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#26
post #15

Physics used to be "hard science" - if it wasn't testable, it wasn't meaningful. Physicists used to look down on other sciences for that reason. This article shows how much worse things have become. Nobody can figure out a way to test string theory. In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment. As the article points out, the big questions are out of reach for scaling reasons. Trying to fix the problem through w…

bayesian reasoning is a fairly accepted form of epistemology these days, and it is a form of knowledge long prominent in non-western cultures. What is wrong with physcists/philosophers thinking about how this can be applied in science?

Seems a better critically minded approach is to consider their arguments - rather than brush them off by calling them desperate

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#27
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not. It's not completely clear that, for example, string theory could ever be experimentally verified, since it operates completely at a level below all the manifestations of our observable universe. (AFAIK, I'm no physicist) What technology can you imagine that could ever prove or disprove a hypothesis of our universe being only one facet of a multiverse? The apparatus would necessarily exist within the closed…

> The apparatus would necessarily exist within the closed system. does being in a multiverse influences our world in any way using current theories? yes > we can eventually figure out and run an experiment no > then studying it is as productive as searching the Russel's teapot this is how you set apart a theory from speculation, a falsification test. i.e. > http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

But the multiverse theory is in competition with other theories, some of which make the same predictions. If two or five or seventeen theories all make the same predictions, do you pick one? Which one? If you want to pick the simplest theory, what criteria do you use to figure out that one theory is simpler than another theory?

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#28
post #13
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "testable"? There's a pretty big spectrum of "untestable" ranging from requiring too many trillions of dollars to requiring more resources than this planet has to requiring equipment or energy levels we don't know how to produce even in theory to requiring stuff we're pretty sure is impossible like looking beyond the range of the observable universe or requiring more energy than is contained in th…

You've actually summarized the article in your comment!

Except the question remains unanswered. "Untestable" is basically a grey area. There's "untestable right this minute, but in 5, 10 or 20 years it will be testable", then there's "we can probably test it in 100 or so years..." then there's the "it would take 1,000 years or more (maybe never) to test it".

Theories like String Theory tend to fall into the first, possibly dabbling with the second option. Researchers are already starting to work on ways to test string theory, with promising results. It's quite likely that within 20 years, we might be able to do just that. While things like the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics or multiverse theories tend to fall on the "maybe in 1,000 years, but probably never" category.

I think the real question is: How patient are we?

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#29
post #15

Physics used to be "hard science" - if it wasn't testable, it wasn't meaningful. Physicists used to look down on other sciences for that reason. This article shows how much worse things have become. Nobody can figure out a way to test string theory. In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment. As the article points out, the big questions are out of reach for scaling reasons. Trying to fix the problem through w…

I fully agree with your point, but I think the "picture of atoms" is not a good supporting argument. The IBM image[1] is nothing more than a visualization of measurements including a good measure of artistic license. It has not much to do with seeing in the usual sense. [1] http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/...

Every picture is a visualization of measurements.

Re: Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science

#30
post #15

Physics used to be "hard science" - if it wasn't testable, it wasn't meaningful. Physicists used to look down on other sciences for that reason. This article shows how much worse things have become. Nobody can figure out a way to test string theory. In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment. As the article points out, the big questions are out of reach for scaling reasons. Trying to fix the problem through w…

> Physics used to be "hard science" -

Physics is still a hard science. However, the edges of physics are difficult to test.

> In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment

Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". It's a naive approach to science.

In both cases, you can use theories to make predictions about new things to look for. e.g. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

> Physics is funded because it produced the atomic bomb and semiconductors.

Physics is funded because it's cool. And it still gets less funding than major sports leagues. So by your definition, the NFL is funded because it's part of a national defence strategy?

Post reply on HN