Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
The Atlantic is running an interview with Tim Maudlin about the philosophy of cosmology.
In May of last year Stephen Hawking gave a talk for Google in which he said that philosophy was dead, and that it was dead because it had failed to keep up with science, and in particular physics. Is he wrong or is he describing a failure of philosophy that your project hopes to address?
Maudlin: Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed.
I asked my father what he made of the interview. He replied:
The article is rather flabby, but Tim Maudlin is a terrific philosopher of physics, and what he has to say is always worth reading. He is surely correct in observing that the physicists have not been much occupied in asking or answering the obvious and natural philosophical questions that their theories suggest. He is also correct in implying that when the physicists do talk about philosophy, they generally make themselves look ridiculous. The philosophers doing philosophy of physics are the best of the best. They know a lot of physics and a lot of mathematics and they have the self-confidence of men who know both. What they lack is any kind of daring. There are institutional constraints in play in philosophy as well as evolutionary biology. The philosophers know better than to take on the physicists as rivals.
He also said, "I'll be happy to babble on further if anyone asks a question or two."
Anyone care to ask a question or two?
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Matthew Bartle: I'm a little puzzled as to what philosophy adds to physics. Isn't it always just following whatever the physicists say?
Do physicists ever stop and say, "Wait, before we proceed with the next experiment or calculation, what do the philosophers think?" · 1 hour ago
Physics and philosophy are almost orthogonal. That is, physics can inform philosophy, but it cannot replace it for philosophy does things that physics cannot - give meaning to life.
Aug '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
One question I have would be on the existence of "real infinities." I've a bit of difficulty understanding this and I've read only a few popular level surveys of this stuff.
There are other theories which seem to show that the universe has existed forever-- the universe did not begin to exist. And then there are others that show that the math such that the universe begins "infinitely far back" in an infinite regress of events-- the universe cannot be said to have begun to exist.
What about the philosophical "issues" that may exist with these theories? As an example-- Willaim Craig and James Sinclair argued against the existence of both an actual infinite set and an infinite regress of events in their essay on the Kalam Argument in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
Cosmologist George Ellis has also argued against infinity. One very interesting thing he argued (roughly paraphrasing) was that once you posit an infinite set of multiverses it's no longer scientific as an infinite set is being uncountable and therefore cant be verified). Is there something to that philosophical critique of infinity? (approximately 28 mins into video).
Nov '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Not JMR
I'm not entirely qualified to answer this...
There can be no time without space. At the singularity its "value" is not zero, it's null.
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 4:24pmNov '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Matthew Bartle: I'm a little puzzled as to what philosophy adds to physics. Isn't it always just following whatever the physicists say?
Do physicists ever stop and say, "Wait, before we proceed with the next experiment or calculation, what do the philosophers think?" · 1 hour ago
Certainly philosophy is useless, but it is useless in the same way that art, poetry, music, and literature are. Physics only deals with essentially trivial problems - things that can be measured and quantified. Physics can help you build a better bomb, but it can't help you with the question of whether to use it.
Aug '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Another question I have is about causation. How does one think about "begin to exist" when one talking about "space-time" begining to exist?
Philosopher Quentin Smith seems to think that it's okay to suggest the universe began to exist on its own, and that's unintelligable to think about the universe begining to exist given that cause and effect are analyzed based on time. William Craig disagrees saying that cause and effect can be simueltaneous-- an analogy he uses would be a ball resting on a pillow and the indentation (he isn't talking about the ball coming to rest on the pillow).
I'm concerned about "shuttlecock" cosmology where time evolves smoothly as opposed to having a singularity point. And there are other "creation from nothing" models that are different. But it seems to me that if you have "nothing"-- a metaphysical emptiness-- how can one then get "something?" It doesn't make sense to me. And when I say "nothing" I mean "nothing" not the balanced or empty vacuum or an unstable 0 dimensional point that cosmologists often mean when they say "nothing." How does one understand this?
Edited on January 24, 2012 at 1:11pmAug '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
HalifaxCB
Matthew Bartle: I'm a little puzzled as to what philosophy adds to physics. Isn't it always just following whatever the physicists say?
Do physicists ever stop and say, "Wait, before we proceed with the next experiment or calculation, what do the philosophers think?" · 1 hour ago
Certainly philosophy is useless, but it is useless in the same way that art, poetry, music, and literature are. Physics only deals with essentially trivial problems - things that can be measured and quantified. Physics can help you build a better bomb, but it can't help you with the question of whether to use it. · 4 minutes ago
I wouldn't say that philosophy is "useless." You just defined some of the uses of philosophy. Philosophy isn't a machine.It performs no work. But it's absolutely needed. But I don't mean to say that PhDs in philosophy are needed. But no one can go without philosophy. Animals have no philosophy. They follow their impulses. People have philosophy, even if we just call them "manners."
We cannot avoid being philosophical. But we can avoid being artistic and musical I think.
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 4:35pmMar '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
When all are confused about the conclusions it's time to question the premises. The Einstein, LeMaitre, Gamow, Guth universe (Big Bang) has spawned a zoo of imaginary creatures, the number of which has not been seen since ancient times, to try to explain those pesky little inconsistencies that keep tugging at its skirts. Television sets (Quasars), laundry detergents (Axions), nancy boys (WIMPs), night riders (dark matter), werewolves! (dark energy). Rube Goldberg, eat your heart out.
Per conventional cosmology-
Red (Hubble) shift = distance.
The universe is homogeneous.
The velocity of light (C, the BIG C) is finite.
Look in one direction and you see (good binoculars required) a quasar at 13 billion light years. Look in the opposite direction and, zounds, there's another one. Now here comes the divide by zero: those two objects were 26 billion light years apart 13 billion years ago. Apparently inflation was faster than a Shelby Cobra!
What about the homogeneous thingy - what's it look like from the quasars? Don't even try to think about the time frames - it hurts.
Turtles all the way down. Grampaw was a smart dude.
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 5:04pmNov '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
As a true political junkie who records the GOP debates I might miss due to conflicts with my 'real' life, I am nevertheless delighted to run into these conversations on Ricochet. Although I have a fingernail grasp on most of the concepts and am swimming underwater on others I have always enjoyed the exercise of at least trying to understand the ideas presented by this inquiry. All I have to add is one of my favourite quotes from Einstein.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It's the source of all true art and all science.
On the other hand he also said
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
May '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
HalifaxCB
Physics can help you build a better bomb, but it can't help you with the question of whether to use it.
=========
There's a big difference between moral philosophy and the "philosophy of physics." Philosophy (and religion) have the issue of morality all to themselves. Science has nothing to say about it. On the other hand, philosophy really has nothing to say about physics. Nothing that much interests me, anyway.
Jan '12
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Natural scientists treat the universe as a congeries of objects* operating either under certain laws or approximating probabilities that can be mathematically formulated.** It is all a matter of externalities. Some philosophical systems, Hegel's for one, examine man as a species whose individuals possess subjective intentions. These try to express that there exists an interiority, a self-conscious identity. The methods of natural science are not designed to regard this interiority, so some scientists deny that it even exists. Thus, when these people speak as scientists, what they say about music and poetry and religion must appear hollow.
A philosopher may claim that there is logical structure even among phenomena that cannot be quantified, measured in units, or weighed. These philosophers, regardless of their opinions regarding claims of religion, would agree that Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. (In the beginning was the Word.)
-----
* Even when they speak of energy states and quanta, the nature of language, of thought, constrains them, and they must treat these as objects.
**This, anyway, is how my son, a Ph.D. in physics who works with ultra-cold atoms, explains it to me. But he may be translating for his Dad, who does not accept naturalism.
May '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
If we figure out the origins of the universe does this knowledge have a practical use for the rest of humanity or does it merely assuage our curiosity?
Mar '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Linda Mair: All I have to add is one of my favourite quotes from Einstein.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It's the source of all true art and all science.
On the other hand he also said
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Einstein is, by far, the best explainer of Science, in words.
However, he came up with his theory of Relativity by means of mathematics, not with words - the words came later.
This is the problem with the philosophers of science - they cannot come up with new science, only describe what the mathematicians have discovered.
This is why Hawking was a professor of mathematics, not physics (he has since moved on to a research director, or some such). As was Newton (same chair, a few hundred years earlier).
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 9:51pmNov '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
The big question for me has always been:
Why does mathematics, an independent invention of the mind, so uncannily end up describing the physical world?
Nov '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
This question is a false dichotomy. To say that philosophy and physics are incompatible is irrational. Philosophy is the study of the way to think. Physics is one of the many things to think about. Philosophy is governed by the laws of logic or epistemology. The rules are simple and transcend all subjects in that the way you think applies equally to all disciplines otherwise, rationality disappears.
The law of identity -- whatever is, is.
The law of non-contradiction -- nothing can be and not be in the same time, space or condition.
The law of the excluded middle -- everything either is or is not.
These laws apply equally well to physics, biology, mathematics and every other subject you would like to describe. Where the confusion and/or failure arises is from their inconsistent application. The philosopher is the proctor over the application of these laws to any particular subject. S/he does not proctor the content in any subject.
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 10:24pmNov '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
David John: The big question for me has always been:
Why does mathematics, an independent invention of the mind, so uncannily end up describing the physical world? · 18 minutes ago
The place to start with this line of questioning is "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner. A site you will probably find interesting is The Number Theory and Physics Archive by Matthew Watkins which links to more papers than you'll care to read on the subject. (I also have a website devoted to the topic if you're into reading the thoughts of anonymous internet people - link in my profile).
Edited on January 23, 2012 at 11:04pmAug '11
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Nunov Yerbiz
David John: The big question for me has always been:
Why does mathematics, an independent invention of the mind, so uncannily end up describing the physical world? · 18 minutes ago
The place to start with this line of questioning is "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner. A site you will probably find interesting is The Number Theory and Physics Archive by Matthew Watkins which links to more papers than you'll care to read on the subject. (I also have a website devoted to the topic if you're into reading the thoughts of anonymous internet people - link in my profile). · 22 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
I've made a note to check on Wigner's article. I've heard it referenced a few times in articles I've read but I've never actually read the article. I go through cycles (just like some universe models) of periods where I'm really interested in reading about cosmology and when I don't even think it. It's just that time.
Dec '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Claire,
It's time to take the physicists down a peg or two and I'm just the guy to do it. As Joan Rivers used to say "Can we talk?"
Albert Einstein, in the "Special Theory of Relativity" 1905, discovered and proved a relativity in Newtonian Physics. A relativity simply defined as two observers getting two different answers for the same event.
Einstein from then on began his quest to find a new
Edited on January 24, 2012 at 2:28amTheory which would remove the relativity. After the fame inside the scientific communtiy (not general) from his 3 1905 papers, Einstein got out of the patent office and got himself a small teaching position. From here word started to get out that he was going for a general theory. Max Planck, who had already won the Noble Prize for inventing Quantum Physics, was now the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Research Institute in Berlin. This Institute was the model for the Princeton Advanced Research Institute that was later founded in America. Planck heard about Einstein's quest for a general theory through the grape vine.(cont.)
Dec '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
(cont. from #37)
Planck brought Einstein to Kaiser Wilhelm to do nothing but pursue his single goal. Einstein had no other duties. He only had to do his own research. He was being paid a sum of money that was many, many times more then what he had ever made in his life. He had little else to worry him but his research problem.
For 2 and 1/2 years Einstein struggled at the Kaiser Wilhelm without results. He wanted to use extra dimensional geometry to solve the problem but he couldn't get it to work!! A colleague mentioned to Einstein that Riemann, a German Mathematician, had done an extra dimensional geometry in the 1840s. Riemann, of course, was a pure Mathematician and did not connect his geometry to physics at all. Riemann had done it as a pure intellectual pursuit. Einstein got the book out of the library and read it. Within 6 weeks Einstein produced The General Theory of Relativity. Riemann has almost never been given the credit he deserves. Einstein the Physicist sucked up all the glory and got the gold mine while Riemann the Mathematician got the shaft.(cont.)
Edited on January 24, 2012 at 2:51amDec '10
Re: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
(cont. from #38)
Claire, ask your father about this. I'll bet he has a few things to say.
As an extra bit of info for your entertainment. I think it's important to understand something about The General Theory of Relativity. The name should really be The General Theory of De-Relativization, because that's what the theory does!
The relativity is in Newton's theory. By adding a 4th time dimension and a 5th gravitational dimension the theory removes the relativity entirely. Now instead of two observers getting two different answers they will measure and get the same space/time interval. All the relativity is gone!!! That's why it should be called The General Theory of De-Relativization.
Einstein was a great salesman for science and the iconoclastic socialist left. He didn't wear socks and he stuck his tongue out. This was a great act for the public but his theory is a theory of Absolute Determinism.
He couldn't even stomach probability so he hated Quantum Physics. Niels Bohr finally told him to "Stop telling Gd what to do!!"
Niels was right.
Edited on January 24, 2012 at 2:44amRe: Big Bang Bashup: Are the Philosophers Afraid of the Physicists?
Update from my Pop: "I like these questions and I am so pleased that readers have found them worthwhile, interesting, pertinent, and sometimes overwhelming. I feel the same way. I'll try and think about the letters -- what is it to try and think about something, now that I think about it? -- and comment on them as best I can."
Stay tuned.