From Scientific American: in an effort to understand the mystery of time’s arrow, past and future,
many physicists have sought help from an unfamiliar source: philosophers.
From philosophers? To most physicists, that sounds rather quaint. The closest some get to philosophy is a late-night conversation over dark beer. Even those who have read serious philosophy generally doubt its usefulness; after a dozen pages of Immanuel Kant, philosophy begins to seem like the unintelligible in pursuit of the undeterminable. “To tell you the truth, I think most of my colleagues are terrified of talking to philosophers—like being caught coming out of a pornographic cinema,” says physicist Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (paywall for the rest)
So by definition, they are studying with people who are purveying untruths?
Sure, because Tegmark is the multiverse wizard, and remember: The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Scientists were known as natural philosophers before William Whewell coined the former term. If physicists have a problem with philosophers it’s only because they’ve lost touch with their roots.
As for the multiverse theory, as far as I understand it (which isn’t much), the proponents argue that it seems offers a satisfactory solution to some of the hard problems they are trying to crack. They seem to be having a lot of fun playing with it, it’s not doing anyone any harm that I can see, so why not leave them to it? If it’s a dead end, they’ll find out eventually but if they ever find evidence that it’s true, it could be one of the biggest breakthroughs in science ever. Either way it’s worth checking out.
As to:
Too Funny! ,,, Although I fail to see how multiverse popularizer Max Tegmark’s amoral atheistic/materialistic philosophy would make him ashamed to be caught watching porno, I guess the only thing worse for an atheist such as Tegmark would be for him to be seen coming out of a church on sunday? 🙂
Of related note:
But actually, contrary to however ashamed Tegmark may feel about being seen with philosophers, (and I suppose he has an even worse aversion towards being seen with Theologians), science cannot be rationally practiced without first being grounded in Theistic metaphysics. Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, presupposes an intelligibility to the universe, and that the human mind, being made in God’s image, can grasp that intelligibillity.
Moreover, Tegmark’s atheistic philosophy, (which he apparently is completely unaware of and is what is driving his bizarre, and untestable, multiverse metaphysics), leads to the epistemological failure of science instead of leading to the furtherance of scientific discovery.
Thus, perhaps if Tegmark were not so ashamed of being seen with Philosophers and Theologians in the first place, then perhaps he would not find himself spouting such unscientific multiverse nonsense of the highest order as he is currently doing?
It would not suprise me upon reading the full article that Tegmark does not put himself in the same boat as “most of his colleagues” when it comes to philosophy. This is the guy that says all of Nature is math – it’s math all the way down. That’s a bit metaphysical like Dembski’s “matter is a myth” and it’s information all the way down.
I have not read his new book “Mathematical Universe” but I probably will. Sounds wild:)
ppolish, actually Dembski has very impressive evidence, from quantum mechanics, that reality really is ‘information theoretic’, whereas Tegmark has no evidence for postulating a Platonic realm. Dr. Gordon puts the situation like this:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/
“In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.”
C.S. Lewis – doodle video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk
Of related note:
Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
https://vimeo.com/92387853
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians
Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false.
The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians
Agree BA77, and Dembski puts mathematics as a “thoroughly informational entity”, a “medium for information”. Both physical matter and mathematical matter are mediums for information per Dembski. Max needs to get up to speed:)
All investigation is philosophy. natural philosophy because science recently only.
its all about figuring things out.
God and man became uninteresting after the success of natural things and attacks against God and mans special place.
yet in reality god and man are studied greatly these days.
the point is IS conclusions about nature any more settled in ‘science’ then other stuff.
creationists know it ain’t.
As to the Time Dilation of relativity,,,
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video
https://vimeo.com/93101738
Time dilation
Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity:
In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized:
1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop).
2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Time Dilation | Einstein’s Relativity – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R8LGy-OVs
,,,There was a discrepancy found by Godel in the time dilation of relativity,,,
Excellent point. But the question is – why have they lost touch with their roots?
I propose that materialism destroys philosophy since it eliminates the need to ask “why” about anything. There is no real meaning, only “outputs of processes”. Of course it is self-refuting because materialism is a philosophical position that cannot be established by physics (since physics is a philosophical concept itself).
If biology is reducible to physics (as in materialism), then brain-activity (philosophy) is a product of a physical mechanism, fully explainable in terms of physics.
Supposedly, we would be able to understand the origin of all human thought via chemical/physical processes.
Silver Asiatic @ 9
I don’t see that materialism eliminates the need to ask “why”. We can always ask “why”. As a materialist I could ask “why is matter and energy the way it is?” or that good, old favorite “why is there something rather than nothing?”
Whether or not materialism is the complete answer, it’s a good place to start. Everything we see around us, the world in which we live and of which we are a part, is made of matter and energy. How that explains the experiences of conscious beings such as ourselves is a hard one. I don’t know. What I do know is that there is no evidence of a consciousness existing apart from a physical substrate like a brain. When a brain is destroyed, the conscious being associated with that brain is gone too. That alone suggests a strong connection between the two.
It may not be intellectually or emotionally satisfying to some to believe that, at root, it is all nothing but matter and energy. It may even be objectionable. But that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong – or right, come to that. But if you think there is some domain of existence that is neither matter nor energy – assuming that actually means something – then what is it? What is it made of? Why is it there? Why is it as you say it is? Asking questions, in a sense, is the easy bit. Coming up with answers is hard.
“Everything we see around us, the world in which we live and of which we are a part, is made of matter and energy.”
That is a strict Materialist assessment, Seversky – and is not a given. Some view matter/energy as mediums for information, and Information is what it’s all about. Others view matter/energy as emergent from Mathematics.
The visible comes into existence from the invisible: Quantum Physics and Relativity 2: – Antoine Suarez PhD – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxuOE2Bo_i0&list=UUVmgTa2vbopdjpMNAQBqXHw
The idea that time has a direction of motion (time’s arrow) is one of the most persistent crackpot ideas in mainstream physics. Time cannot change by definition.
Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the University of Central Arkansas said it best:
Seversky @ 10
I found that to be a thoughtful and worthwhile response – thanks.
It seems that you’re at least open to some possibilities that those questions could bring. Of course, if there is a domain of existence that is neither matter nor energy, we wouldn’t expect direct scientific measures (since science is limited to matter and energy).
We need other tools for research and we’d expect only indirect evidence. But this shouldn’t be that difficult to accept. What is are physical dimensions of a thought?
I think most of the world doesn’t have a problem accepting that thoughts are immaterial. We know they exist by observing their effects. But we do not directly observe or measure them as if they are physical entities.
Failing to describe the dimensions and measurements of a thought in scientific terms usually lead people to conclude that “thoughts do not exist”.
The point here is that, in my opinion, it’s helpful to be open to the possibility that there is more to reality than what science can observe or measure directly.
Sorry: Failing to describe the dimensions and measurements of a thought in scientific terms doesn’t usually lead people to conclude that “thoughts do not exist”.
William D. Phillips: Time and Einstein in the 21st Century – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X74TYKIz73k
Using laser cooling to measure time – William D. Phillips – video
http://bigthink.com/ideas/usin.....-mark-time
In 1997 William D. Phillips won the Nobel Prize in Physics (together with Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and Steven Chu) for his contributions to laser cooling,,,
He is one of three well-known scientists and Methodist laity who have involved themselves in the religion and science dialogue. The other two scientists and fellow Methodists are chemist Charles Coulson and 1981 Nobel laureate Arthur Leonard Schawlow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....l_Phillips