Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
value
Premium Member
Posts: 706
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm...
Emmanuel Kant wrote:Everything in nature works according to laws.
What would be your opinion about this fundamental statement that seems to underlay the whole theory of Emmanuel Kant which would include the apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that would form the basis of the idea that reality is 'really real'?
Emmanuel Kant on apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) wrote:Kant's self-proclaimed achievement is the second main step in his effort to answer the question: “How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?” The first step was the argument offered in the Transcendental Aesthetic, to the effect that space and time are a priori forms of intuition. As such, Kant argued, they make possible judgments (propositions) whose claim to truth is justified a priori by the universal features of our intuitions. Such propositions are thus both synthetic and a priori. Kant's definition of apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) is the certainty of a knowledge (Erkenntnis) in connection with the consciousness of its necessity.
I did not find a reference in Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that would indicate that the mentioned intuition would find its origin in instinct - a physical origin in the brain. Do you have a reference for that idea?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 10:05 am
GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm...
Emmanuel Kant wrote:Everything in nature works according to laws.
What would be your opinion about this fundamental statement that seems to underlay the whole theory of Emmanuel Kant which would include the apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that would form the basis of the idea that reality is 'really real'?
Yes, that is a basic postulate of scientific theorizing/reasoning. Without it, you can't construct a coherent theory of "reality."
Emmanuel Kant on apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) wrote:Kant's self-proclaimed achievement is the second main step in his effort to answer the question: “How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?” The first step was the argument offered in the Transcendental Aesthetic, to the effect that space and time are a priori forms of intuition. As such, Kant argued, they make possible judgments (propositions) whose claim to truth is justified a priori by the universal features of our intuitions. Such propositions are thus both synthetic and a priori. Kant's definition of apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) is the certainty of a knowledge (Erkenntnis) in connection with the consciousness of its necessity.
I did not find a reference in Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that would indicate that the mentioned intuition would find its origin in instinct - a physical origin in the brain. Do you have a reference for that idea?
No, there isn't one. Kant didn't delve into the physiological explanations for the categories; it wasn't necessary to his project. But were he alive today I'm sure he would have accepted that there must be one.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 706
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 1:50 pm
value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 10:05 am
GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm...
Emmanuel Kant wrote:Everything in nature works according to laws.
What would be your opinion about this fundamental statement that seems to underlay the whole theory of Emmanuel Kant which would include the apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that would form the basis of the idea that reality is 'really real'?
Yes, that is a basic postulate of scientific theorizing/reasoning. Without it, you can't construct a coherent theory of "reality."
It is a belief in uniformitarianism - the dogmatic belief that the facts of science are valid without philosophy. That belief is a fallacy in my opinion.

Why would one assume the idea of 'law as such' merely by 'looking at' repeatability in nature?

Kant's apodictical certainty is essentially an example. The a priori forms of intuition space and time is equal to the idea of repeatability.

"Kant's definition of apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) is the certainty of a knowledge (Erkenntnis) in connection with the consciousness of its necessity."

It is nonsensical in my opinion to consider repeatable nature to be a necessity. It would only be so in the form of value (words) but not IN experience.

Besides this, I cannot see a reason to neglect the why question of the intuition and the concepts space and time, which implies that certainty cannot be established in my opinion.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 4:42 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 1:50 pm
value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 10:05 am
GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm...
Emmanuel Kant wrote:Everything in nature works according to laws.
What would be your opinion about this fundamental statement that seems to underlay the whole theory of Emmanuel Kant which would include the apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that would form the basis of the idea that reality is 'really real'?
Yes, that is a basic postulate of scientific theorizing/reasoning. Without it, you can't construct a coherent theory of "reality."
It is a belief in uniformitarianism - the dogmatic belief that the facts of science are valid without philosophy. That belief is a fallacy in my opinion.
Well, uniformitarianism is the belief that the universe is "law governed" --- i.e., that it evolves in obedience to certain universal laws. Those "laws" are just regularities discerned by observation and for which no exceptions are known. And, yes, the facts of science are "valid without philosophy." They don't depend upon any philosophy, but only upon observation.

Every theory must begin from certain postulates, or axioms --- propositions which are self-evident, and may be accepted without proof (otherwise you embark upon an infinite regress). For the sciences those are the physical constants --- the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge constant, etc., and certain regularities and equivalencies for which no exceptions are known, such as the laws of motion, the law of entropy, etc. Postulates cannot be "fallacies." A fallacy is an error in reasoning, in drawing a conclusion from a set of premises in violation of some logical rule. Postulates can be false, but not "fallacious." Which scientific postulates do you think are false? Keep in mind that to falsify it, you need an empirical, publicly-verifiable counter-example --- not some nebulous "metaphysical" speculation.
Why would one assume the idea of 'law as such' merely by 'looking at' repeatability in nature?
Because that is all that a scientific law is --- a regularity readily observable and for which no exceptions are known. (Don't confuse scientific laws with legislative laws --- the latter presume a law-giver; the former do not).
Kant's apodictical certainty is essentially an example. The a priori forms of intuition space and time is equal to the idea of repeatability.
No, it isn't. For Kant, the categories are "built-in" to our cognitive apparatus. They are not acquired through experience ("repeatability").
It is nonsensical in my opinion to consider repeatable nature to be a necessity. It would only be so in the form of value (words) but not IN experience.
It isn't logically necessary. It is only instrumentally necessary for devising scientific theories. There could be no theory of a chaotic, unpredictable universe consisting of random phenomena, where every moment you're confronted with entities and events no one has ever seen before, and may never see again. You can only devise theories for coherent, law-governed systems that behave in predictable ways. And since science has been very successful in describing the universe and predicting much of its behavior, we can take that uniformitarian postulate as confirmed.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8071
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Pattern-chaser »

value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 4:42 pm Why would one assume the idea of 'law as such' merely by 'looking at' repeatability in nature?
One would not assume it, one would derive it inductively from empirical observation. This is central to how science works. It cannot work otherwise, for purely practical reasons. It has to start with the specific — actual, real-world observations — and grope blindly for the general. This is why repeatability and continuous testing are also so central to science. These precautions attempt to reduce the uncertainty that is the well-known weakness of inductive reasoning.

So I suppose one answer to your question could be something like "One would assume such a thing in the practice of science, and thereby the search for knowledge and understanding". Or is your question intended to, er, question the use and value of practising science?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
value
Premium Member
Posts: 706
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:27 pmWell, uniformitarianism is the belief that the universe is "law governed" --- i.e., that it evolves in obedience to certain universal laws. Those "laws" are just regularities discerned by observation and for which no exceptions are known. And, yes, the facts of science are "valid without philosophy." They don't depend upon any philosophy, but only upon observation.

Every theory must begin from certain postulates, or axioms --- propositions which are self-evident, and may be accepted without proof (otherwise you embark upon an infinite regress). For the sciences those are the physical constants --- the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge constant, etc., and certain regularities and equivalencies for which no exceptions are known, such as the laws of motion, the law of entropy, etc. Postulates cannot be "fallacies." A fallacy is an error in reasoning, in drawing a conclusion from a set of premises in violation of some logical rule. Postulates can be false, but not "fallacious." Which scientific postulates do you think are false? Keep in mind that to falsify it, you need an empirical, publicly-verifiable counter-example --- not some nebulous "metaphysical" speculation.
I believe that that reasoning is wrong. The supposed 'postulates' are not postulates but are assumptions. What is neglected is an unforeseeable future - a fundamental uncertainty.

Scientists often respond to that uncertainty by adopting a 'humble' subjective position in the face of (the act of) observation but that does nothing to confirm the certainty required for a belief in uniformitarianism.

A scientist on a science forum of Cambridge, UK described it as following:

"You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation."

If it cannot be said that any 'law' of nature remains the same in time, why call it a postulation? Utilitarian grounds provide no justification in my opinion.

GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:27 pm
Why would one assume the idea of 'law as such' merely by 'looking at' repeatability in nature?
Because that is all that a scientific law is --- a regularity readily observable and for which no exceptions are known. (Don't confuse scientific laws with legislative laws --- the latter presume a law-giver; the former do not).
My argument is that such a postulation is at most utilitarian of nature and cannot provide a basis for fundamental theory.

GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:27 pm
Kant's apodictical certainty is essentially an example. The a priori forms of intuition space and time is equal to the idea of repeatability.
No, it isn't. For Kant, the categories are "built-in" to our cognitive apparatus. They are not acquired through experience ("repeatability").
But isn't that what space and time amounts to, repeatability?

GE Morton wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:27 pm
It is nonsensical in my opinion to consider repeatable nature to be a necessity. It would only be so in the form of value (words) but not IN experience.
It isn't logically necessary. It is only instrumentally necessary for devising scientific theories. There could be no theory of a chaotic, unpredictable universe consisting of random phenomena, where every moment you're confronted with entities and events no one has ever seen before, and may never see again. You can only devise theories for coherent, law-governed systems that behave in predictable ways. And since science has been very successful in describing the universe and predicting much of its behavior, we can take that uniformitarian postulate as confirmed.
One would not be obligated to assume randomness or chaos when causality isn't grounded in certainty.

Success of science is no ground for the assumption that uniformitarianism is true. While repeatability of science provides what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, that does not imply fundamental certainty and when the idea is not accurate on a fundamental level then that has profound implications.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 706
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 6th, 2023, 10:49 am
value wrote: February 5th, 2023, 4:42 pm Why would one assume the idea of 'law as such' merely by 'looking at' repeatability in nature?
One would not assume it, one would derive it inductively from empirical observation. This is central to how science works. It cannot work otherwise, for purely practical reasons. It has to start with the specific — actual, real-world observations — and grope blindly for the general. This is why repeatability and continuous testing are also so central to science. These precautions attempt to reduce the uncertainty that is the well-known weakness of inductive reasoning.

So I suppose one answer to your question could be something like "One would assume such a thing in the practice of science, and thereby the search for knowledge and understanding". Or is your question intended to, er, question the use and value of practising science?
I see no ground for the idea 'law as such' based on your defence. Repeatability - repeatable nature - is time bound and involves an unforeseeable future - a fundamental uncertainty that is opposed to the idea of law as such (intrinsic existence or uniformitarianism).

In my opinion it is not justified to 'assume' uniformitarianism by observing repeatability in nature.

While as seen from an utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a 'certainty factor' isn't at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, it would become important.

A quote of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) explains what I mean:

"The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."

Science has been attempting to rid itself of philosophy. The dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism - the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy - results in the ideal to abolish morality.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

The belief in law as such - intrinsic existence - can have profound implications. Scientific exploration is a moral practice in my opinion but one must realize that it addresses a small part of the spectrum of meaningful relevance and that morality (the question "What is good?") cannot be 'abolished'.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021