I agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented on.
Is 0.97 equal to 1?
I agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented on.
Is 0.97 equal to 1?
"Is 0.97 equal to 1?"Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2022, 9:48 amI agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented on.
Is 0.97 equal to 1?
You really think science proceeds Popperian? I don't think that progress proceeds like that.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2022, 9:48 amI agree with this sentiment, as I am definitely not a follower of Popper. But I observe that modern science and physics do follow the Popperian model, and that is what I commented
Then physics has surely reached its end.
Haha! The final formula: 1=0.97...
It is not about willing to change the model. It is about the humbleness principle to be open for contradictions, given the observations, and allow to modify or expand the model. It is the very fact of accepting (or at least starting from the assumption) that you don't know everything, the key point to differentiate physics from dogmatism.Raymond wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2022, 8:35 am [...]why should you wanna change it? In my mind I have found one. Well, almost. But the general outcome for the model seems to be not further reducible. I think that that's the goal for every physicist. You can be open to change but always trying to falsify, like sir Karl Popper demands, has its limits.
[...]
Yes, I understand the feeling of humbleness but I don't think this has to be connected with limiting our knowledge. If you have a humble approach to nature I can see no reason why nature won't show herself. Why shouldn't you be a true physicist if you consider your fundamental theory or model as true. Feynman said he wouldn't be surprised that the final fundaments wouldn't be math but a simple thing (he differed from Einstein who said you have to be able to explain your theory to a 6 year old, while he said that anyone claiming to understand quantum physics hasn't understood it; or don't they differ? I think you can explain qm very well to a 6 year old, maybe even the best). Is considering your theory or model as fundamentally true a sign of not being a physicist? There is soooo much more than fundamental laws or structures. I think it might even be a sign of not being a true physicist if you don't wanna know the fundamentals of nature, or claiming you found them. If it really is reasonable, after scrutinizing, criticizing, refining, falsifying, etc. Why not? It even gives a feeling of awe and maybe even more humble.intentes_pupil wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 3:52 pmIt is not about willing to change the model. It is about the humbleness principle to be open for contradictions, given the observations, and allow to modify or expand the model. It is the very fact of accepting (or at least starting from the assumption) that you don't know everything, the key point to differentiate physics from dogmatism.Raymond wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2022, 8:35 am [...]why should you wanna change it? In my mind I have found one. Well, almost. But the general outcome for the model seems to be not further reducible. I think that that's the goal for every physicist. You can be open to change but always trying to falsify, like sir Karl Popper demands, has its limits.
[...]
If someone finds a model and claims to have found the definitive knowledge, that person might be a saint, a guru, the pope; but this person is not a physicist.
I am interested in your idea of falsifying having it's limits. Could you develop more on that?
KR
If you believe you reached the limits of what can be known and that to be true, there is no room for new knowledge. The very first time some observation happen to challenge your so called truth you have two options:
intentes_pupil wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 7:40 amIf you believe you reached the limits of what can be known and that to be true, there is no room for new knowledge. The very first time some observation happen to challenge your so called truth you have two options:
1. Accept you had not reached the limits of physics (knowledge) and expand your knowledge --> this is what science is about.
2. Reject the observation and burn the heretics. --> this is what dogmatism can lead to.
I don't really understand your argument rationally.
Do you speak from a theological, religious, spiritual point of view?
Ok. Now I understand your point. You mean we cannot go deeper to the fundamentals of physics, am I right? That meaning we found the simplest axioms and theory of the smallest that cannot be further atomized and from which the whole physics can be derived. Right?
I have no rigorously-argued case to offer here. But my limited awareness of history says that we've concluded we know it all quite a few times, and each time, we've been wrong, sometimes very badly wrong. Now, I am of the opinion that we will never – even if we last another 1000 million years – know all that is there to be known. I don't think we could even begin to approach that point. Life, the Universe and Everything is very big, and very complicated, and we are very small, and very limited.intentes_pupil wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 4:10 am Apart from that and back to the point of not being able to go deeper. I agree that the observation might suggest that. We might have reached the limit of the fundamentals and might not be able to go smaller. But given that we study and understand things given axioms and principles, if for some reasons in the future those principles are shaken (as Einstein did with space and time), a whole new way of doing physics might be discovered that would allow us going "deeper" to find the smallest principles from that branch.
As my older post follows, I totally agree with you.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 8:14 am I have no rigorously-argued case to offer here. But my limited awareness of history says that we've concluded we know it all quite a few times, and each time, we've been wrong, sometimes very badly wrong. Now, I am of the opinion that we will never – even if we last another 1000 million years – know all that is there to be known. I don't think we could even begin to approach that point. Life, the Universe and Everything is very big, and very complicated, and we are very small, and very limited.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023