dimensions

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:04 AM']I've read stuff by dudes such as Einstein, Karl Popper, Heisenberg, Bohr and others which indicates that they certainly saw Physics as being pretty darn philosophical.
[/quote]
Sure, but those are all from an earlier age, perhaps when physicists thought that the underpinnings of reality would make some sort of logical-to-the-human-mind sense. Turns out that isn't true. There aren't many physicists left who think it's worthwhile to try comprehend what is "really" going on. I can think of a couple (Kaku and Penrose) and they're both... a bit wacky.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:04 AM']And I'd say the methods of science are grounded on philosophical principles. The idea that experiments and inductive or deductive proofs have any value rests upon epistemological and even metaphysical presuppositions. Even the most basic categories of science are essentially philosophical constructs.
[right][snapback]717889[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, of course. But that's not the normal understanding of philosophy. I am sorry if I sounded critical, I was only trying to share some of my experience.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:27 AM']Sure, but those are all from an earlier age, perhaps when physicists thought that the underpinnings of reality would make some sort of logical-to-the-human-mind sense.  Turns out that isn't true.  There aren't many physicists left who think it's worthwhile to try comprehend what is "really" going on.  I can think of a couple (Kaku and Penrose) and they're both... a bit wacky. 
[/quote]
The irony is that this is in fact a philosophical conclusion. It is simply a new, and distinctly post-modern epistemological presupposition.

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:27 AM']Yes, of course.  But that's not the normal understanding of philosophy.  I am sorry if I sounded critical, I was only trying to share some of my experience.
[right][snapback]717899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The compartmentalization and redefining of philosophy is another philosophical development. You really can't escape philosophy. The philosophical questions are essentially at the heart of man's strivings to make sense of reality.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:04 AM']I've read stuff by dudes such as Einstein, Karl Popper, Heisenberg, Bohr and others which indicates that they certainly saw Physics as being pretty darn philosophical. And I'd say the methods of science are grounded on philosophical principles. The idea that experiments and inductive or deductive proofs have any value rests upon epistemological and even metaphysical presuppositions. Even the most basic categories of science are essentially philosophical constructs.

It is really evident in studying ideas and science from a historical perspective. It was philosophical developments that made the work of say, Newton possible. His science was built off of the foundation of the Occidental philosophical tradition and would be groundless apart from medieval developments in epistemology, metaphysics and logic (as well as physics, optics, etc.. which were considered to be inside the scope of philosophy).
[right][snapback]717889[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would agree that in Newton's era that was even commonplace. The field of science was not well defined as seperate from the supernatural. However, I disagree that more current theories have their origins quite so deeply rooted in that way.

Nevertheless, I do agree that bleeding edge science does borrow from many sources, even the philosophical at times. The difference is that these theories indeed gain [b]no[/b] credibility among science from their philosophical roots (and therefor are not grounded there) but rather from the supporting empirical evidence - and that's exactly what makes it science as opposed to philosophy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:39 AM']I would agree that in Newton's era that was even commonplace. The field of science was not well defined as seperate from the supernatural. However, I disagree that more current theories have their origins quite so deeply rooted in that way.
[/quote]
Are you implying that the object of philosophy is the supernatural?

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:39 AM']Nevertheless, I do agree that bleeding edge science does borrow from many sources, even the philosophical at times. The difference is that these theories indeed gain [b]no[/b] credibility among science from their philosophical roots (and therefor are not grounded there) but rather from the supporting empirical evidence - and that's exactly what makes it science as opposed to philosophy.
[right][snapback]717902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Science does not borrow from philosophy, it rests upon it, is informed by it, and at times is synonymous with it.
Foundational ideas such as causality, energy, potency, matter, the rules of logic and argument, time, being, etc.. are imports from philosophy and are still, strictly speaking, in the realm of philosophy. The limits of knowledge, the principles behind the scientific method itself, the presupposition that the universe, and in fact being has (or has not) an intelligibility that we can grasp, etc.. are all philosophical conclusions.. In fact I would say that the majority of [i]a priori[/i] principles that ground the operations of scientific endeavor are properly speaking philosophical in nature.

[qfnol31]

And yay for Francis Bacon.

I think I have just become more sarcastic than Don John.

Up until Francis Bacon wrote in the 17th century, all scientific fields were considered under philosophy. It is only a modernist thought process that puts them separate, and I don't even want to go there because that is completely messed up.

[philothea]

Yes, yes, my beloved nitpickers, I AM AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE WORD PHILOSOPHY. Love of wisdom. Encompasses all possible realms of study. Got it. I'm a big fan of Socrates (via Plato). This is not really helping to answer Laudate's original question, which is what I was trying to do!

[Laudate_Dominum]

Well, in response to your first post then. (sorry by the way)

Even though my bag is Philosophy, I come from a family of Physicists and grew up on the stuff. When I was a kid I would often hear Physics lectures and go to talks and conventions so from first hand experience I believe there is a certain anti-philosophy bias in the field. I know certain family members who are physicists have an irrational aversion as soon as I mention philosophy in a discussion, as if theories within Physics are somehow above philosophical criticism. I'm certainly generalizing.. I can just remember lectures in which professors ragged on philosophy or characterized anything pre-20th century as being mindless superstition. I dunno..

I'm also quite familiar with that particular genre of books, which includes such classics as "The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". I've read many of these type of pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical, new age tracts and I believe a lot of people have the impression that this is what happens when you mix Physics and Philosophy. I would say that such books are tripe. My kind of book would be something such as "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg. From this book alone one can examine critically the vast array of philosophical underpinnings and implications of Quantum Theory.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:29 PM']I must disagree with this statement.  Science and philosophy are different disciplines.  (not that the two are completely unrelated). One can be a scientist and have any number of different philosphies.

Science (as commonly understood - the physical sciences)  involves studying the mechanics of how physical things work.

Philosophy studies the meaning and ultimate nature of reality and covers things which are beyond the realm of physical science.

Traditionally, philosophy was understood as one of the sciences (which referred to any intellectual discipline) rather than vise-versa.

What is usually referred to as "science" today are the physical sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)  None of these in itself constitutes a separate "philosophy."
[right][snapback]717653[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I like your name. I also think that Socrates would cringe if he knew what has become of philosophy today...

And actually, science has always been a part of philosophy...and that I can prove. We can start with Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Parmenides...Those are the PreSocratics too.

Edited because I before E except in Greek...

Edited September 10, 2005 by qfnol31

[hierochloe]

I guess I see where you're coming from LD. I think I would qualify remarks with this: while all science may reside under the umbrella of philosophy, not all philosophy qualifies as science.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:49 AM']Are you implying that the object of philosophy is the supernatural?
[right][snapback]717907[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Heh, just noticed that. It would appear that's what I meant. No, admittedly the broader term "philosophy" does encompass pretty much all trains of thought when it all comes down, in my head at least.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum']Is it really possible and/or likely that there may in fact be universes of say, two dimensional space and two dimensional time, or one dimension of space and three time? [/quote]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:48 PM']Time and space are just dimensions.  Did you have a more specific application in mind?
[/quote]
Well, I heard a guy talking about universes with different dimensional structures and different configurations of space and time.
The theories that I know about either postulate further dimensions within our universe (maybe discrete or curled dimensions). Or in some cases paralell universes and carp like that. But I don't know of a legitimate theory that says there are other universes that have [i]n[/i] space and [i]n[/i] time. I guess I'm just curious to know if this guy was just spouting off random stuff, or if it was based on a credible theory with mathematical and experimental support.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:27 AM']Sure, but those are all from an earlier age, perhaps when physicists thought that the underpinnings of reality would make some sort of logical-to-the-human-mind sense.  Turns out that isn't true.  There aren't many physicists left who think it's worthwhile to try comprehend what is "really" going on.  I can think of a couple (Kaku and Penrose) and they're both... a bit wacky. 
Yes, of course.  But that's not the normal understanding of philosophy.  I am sorry if I sounded critical, I was only trying to share some of my experience.
[right][snapback]717899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote]Sure, but those are all from an earlier age, perhaps when physicists thought that the underpinnings of reality would make some sort of logical-to-the-human-mind sense.  Turns out that isn't true.  There aren't many physicists left who think it's worthwhile to try comprehend what is "really" going on.  I can think of a couple (Kaku and Penrose) and they're both... a bit wacky. [/quote]

I think Einstin was a bit wacky so was Hiesinburg

[quote]Yes, of course.  But that's not the normal understanding of philosophy.  I am sorry if I sounded critical, I was only trying to share some of my experience. [/quote]
Then what is the normal understanding of philosophy because that is my understanding of philosophy which is why I said science was itselfa philosophy.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:39 AM']I would agree that in Newton's era that was even commonplace. The field of science was not well defined as seperate from the supernatural. However, I disagree that more current theories have their origins quite so deeply rooted in that way.

Nevertheless, I do agree that bleeding edge science does borrow from many sources, even the philosophical at times. The difference is that these theories indeed gain [b]no[/b] credibility among science from their philosophical roots (and therefor are not grounded there) but rather from the supporting empirical evidence - and that's exactly what makes it science as opposed to philosophy.
[right][snapback]717902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


but the value of empirical evidence is a philosophical position.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 10 2005, 11:13 AM']but the value of empirical evidence is a philosophical position.
[right][snapback]718083[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The value of empirical evidence can actually be measured mathmetically sometimes.

OK, I agree that in the broader sense of the definition of the term philosophy, science and any other thought directed at explaining something falls into this classification. But this is getting way off topic for this thread.

[Don John of Austria]

Laudate_Dominum you see how this works I say something and everyone and there sister jump up and go NO NO NO !
You say the EXACT SAME thing and everyone says Oh I see what your saying. It just hell being a 16th century knight