2 of 3
2
About philosophy.  Book “Facing Up”, by Steven Weinberg.
Posted: 30 December 2015 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
socratus - 30 December 2015 10:46 AM

@ VYAZMA @ DarronS
==.
1) I give great respect to scientists and philosophers
  in the past and in the present days.
2) I think that “philosophers of science” must have more “open” mind
than physicists (experts in some separate discipline) and therefore
they can help physicists. 
But maybe I am mistaken. (?)
===..

Well can you clarify what you mean by “open mind”.
and “experts in some separate discipline”?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2015 04:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
socratus - 30 December 2015 05:14 AM
GdB - 29 December 2015 09:19 AM
socratus - 28 December 2015 10:50 PM

The result of “philosophy of science”  must be logical explanation nature from its origin to the present days.

No. That would be science, not philosophy.

Scientists discover new facts and laws in nature and give them
different interpretations. Today they come to conclusion that
the Universe was begun from “Big Bang”.  But “big bang”
cannot be the origin of nature because “big bang”  doesn’t give
answer to the question:  “ Where did the masses for big bang
come from?”  Somebody can think that God created these masses.
And if Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics.” it is also because the beginning
of creation was chosen wrong.
Therefor philosophers must explain physicists, astronomers, . . . . .
to understand this fact and help them to find another source of
creation of the Universe. But philosophers haven’t done their job.

You are asking for the conditions under which mass could come into existence. That is a question for the cause of mass’ appearance. But that means it is still a physics questions, so there is really nothing a philosopher can contribute here.

Philosophers explaining physicists what they have to do is the reason why so many physicists look at philosophy in disdain: mostly they do not know what they talk about, unless they are also physicists. The main skill philosophers have, as explained above, is clarifying discourses. But a condition to do this is that they understand the discourse. In the very abstract and mathematical complicated area of QM and cosmology philosophers mostly do not have this understanding.

Another thing to see is that those physicists that are concerned with the fundamentals of their theories, mostly already have a philosophical stance: they might even be ‘infected by philosophy’ (there are several examples of these, like e.g. Einstein (he mentions Hume as one influence on his thinking), and Poincaré). Everytime a physicist is reflecting on the status of the theory he is working on, or on the precise meaning of concepts in his theory, he is practising philosophy. So in some sense, philosophy has influence on physics: but more often than not, it is combined in a single person, or a between a few physicists that share this philosophical stance.

But it is pretty naive to think that a philosopher without a deep understanding of physics, can do something a physicist with a philosophical attitude can’t do.

FYI: my background: I studied philosophy, with physics as subsidiary subject. Just in case you think I am an ‘anti-philosopher’...

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2015 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20

I suspect some people on this thread don’t know what the philosoohy of science is or how actual scientists would define it. How would you define it—in 50 words or less—in your own words?

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2015 06:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
LoisL - 31 December 2015 05:05 AM

I suspect some people on this thread don’t know what the philosoohy of science is or how actual scientists would define it. How would you define it—in 50 words or less—in your own words?

Reflection on the meaning and methods of scientific theories with the aim of intellectual clarity about its concepts, methods and results.

But why don’t you use Wikipedia, or suggest socratus does so?

...
...
...

OK, I was not too bad:

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2015 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  203
Joined  2010-12-31
GdB - 31 December 2015 04:29 AM
socratus - 30 December 2015 05:14 AM
GdB - 29 December 2015 09:19 AM
socratus - 28 December 2015 10:50 PM

The result of “philosophy of science”  must be logical explanation nature from its origin to the present days.

No. That would be science, not philosophy.

Scientists discover new facts and laws in nature and give them
different interpretations. Today they come to conclusion that
the Universe was begun from “Big Bang”.  But “big bang”
cannot be the origin of nature because “big bang”  doesn’t give
answer to the question:  “ Where did the masses for big bang
come from?”  Somebody can think that God created these masses.
And if Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics.” it is also because the beginning
of creation was chosen wrong.
Therefor philosophers must explain physicists, astronomers, . . . . .
to understand this fact and help them to find another source of
creation of the Universe. But philosophers haven’t done their job.

You are asking for the conditions under which mass could come into existence.
That is a question for the cause of mass’ appearance. But that means it is still
a physics questions, so there is really nothing a philosopher can contribute here.

Question: Where did masses come from?
Answer: maybe from “big bang”, maybe from chaos,
maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions ,  maybe . . . . . .
Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem?
====….

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2015 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
socratus - 31 December 2015 09:56 AM

Question: Where did masses come from?
Answer: maybe from “big bang”, maybe from chaos,
maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions ,  maybe . . . . . .
Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem?
====….

As you have been told, because they are not physicists. This is really quite a simple question. The hard question is how can we detect anything that happened before the Big Bang?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2016 08:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  203
Joined  2010-12-31
DarronS - 31 December 2015 11:29 AM
socratus - 31 December 2015 09:56 AM

Question: Where did masses come from?
Answer: maybe from “big bang”, maybe from chaos,
maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions ,  maybe . . . . . .
Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem?
====….

As you have been told, because they are not physicists.
This is really quite a simple question.
The hard question is how can we detect anything that happened before the Big Bang?

  How can we detect what happened before the Big Bang?
==..
Scientists say that before the “big bang” was nothing: neither
space nor time. In my opinion when we say “space”, “time”
we must define more precisely. We must define more precisely
that we are talk about “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
Is my opinion correct?
====…
  First - SRT. (1905)
a) Take SRT the theory without gravity.
This theory doesn’t have “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
This theory has “spacetime”- other names:
Minkowski spacetime,  negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space.
In my opinion all these words hide one true word: vacuum.
b)
One SRT postulate says that the speed of light is constant in vacuum
because the laws of electricity and magnetism predict that light travels
at c = 2.998×108 m/s in a vacuum. But scientists did not specify the
frame of reference in which light had this speed. Therefore was invented
Minkowski spacetime,  negative 2D,  Pseudo Euclidian space –  all
these words are different names of vacuum.
Vacuum is reference frame for speed of quantum of light and SRT.
  (we still don’t know what vacuum is)

Second – GRT. (1915)
Take GRT the theory about gravity.
The gravity masses somehow changed the surrounded “spacetime”
and create “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
There aren’t “space” and “time” without gravity.

  Third – The prove.
You can detect my opinion in our Earth referent frame.
How?  Try to live without “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
# Astronauts can live in satellite without “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”
only because they have artificial air. Without artificial air this satellite
is flying coffin. We can live on natural / artificial cosmic satellite /planet
Earth only because Earth has own gravity-space- air and gravity-time.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====…

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2016 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

That’s a whole lot of words to say nothing, Socratus. Your musings are so far off base they aren’t even wrong.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2016 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  203
Joined  2010-12-31
DarronS - 01 January 2016 09:22 AM

That’s a whole lot of words to say nothing, Socratus.
Your musings are so far off base they aren’t even wrong.

  Once more.
=.
Before BB was no space and no time.
The situation “no space and no time” have only
one reference frame—vacuum. Vacuum has different names:
Minkowski spacetime,  negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space.
# Before BB was “singular point”.
This “singular point” has masses.
Where did these masses come from?
The answer can be only one. These masses came from vacuum.
These masses came from cold zero vacuum. Therefor in the
beginning the “singular point“  wasn’t hot. In the beginning the
“singular point” was cold. Very cold. Question: How did the
temperature arise from zero vacuum to the star’s conditions? 
This process I explained in the article:
  Star formation. / scheme by Israel Sadovnik Socratus /
==…
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18203/
=======..

Image Attachments
absolute zero.jpg
 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2016 02:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
socratus - 03 January 2016 10:50 AM
DarronS - 01 January 2016 09:22 AM

That’s a whole lot of words to say nothing, Socratus.
Your musings are so far off base they aren’t even wrong.

  Once more.
=.
Before BB was no space and no time.
The situation “no space and no time” have only
one reference frame—vacuum. Vacuum has different names:
Minkowski spacetime,  negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space.
# Before BB was “singular point”.
This “singular point” has masses.
Where did these masses come from?
The answer can be only one. These masses came from vacuum.
These masses came from cold zero vacuum. Therefor in the
beginning the “singular point“  wasn’t hot. In the beginning the
“singular point” was cold. Very cold. Question: How did the
temperature arise from zero vacuum to the star’s conditions? 
This process I explained in the article:
  Star formation. / scheme by Israel Sadovnik Socratus /
==…
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18203/
=======..

“...If something knows something of nothing
  Can nothing not not be a thing?”

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2016 11:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31

What are you doing Socratus? Physics or philosophy?

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2016 03:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
GdB - 03 January 2016 11:56 PM

What are you doing Socratus? Physics or philosophy?

Do word salads count as either?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2016 10:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20

Scientists make scientific discoveries. Philosophers of science speculate on what they mean. They can’t speculate on what hasn’t been discovered. They are the Greek chorus of science.

[ Edited: 06 January 2016 10:57 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2016 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  203
Joined  2010-12-31
LoisL - 06 January 2016 10:53 PM

Scientists make scientific discoveries.
Philosophers of science speculate on what they mean.
They can’t speculate on what hasn’t been discovered.
They are the Greek chorus of science.

Maybe tomorrow “ the Greek chorus” will sing another song:
“ When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

==========…

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2016 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
socratus - 07 January 2016 06:09 PM

Maybe tomorrow “ the Greek chorus” will sing another song:
“ When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

Good link:

But only in the last 10 years has the vacuum taken center stage as a font of confounding mysteries like the nature of dark energy and matter; only recently has the void turned into a tantalizing beacon for cranks.

Italics by me.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
‹‹ Postulate (1)      Detachment ››