Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan Viehoff
I thought, when I stated precisely the same view, but using the example of fluid dynamics (ie a theory we already have, but pretending we didn't have it yet) rather than particle physics, that you had overtly assented to exactly my point. Although I did notice (but chose to ignore) you added some stuff afterwards which seemed to contradict yourself.
|
If your point is that our theories don't directly affect reality, we can agree on the truth of that, but not its relevance to the OP. The issue is, can our theories completely unify everything that happens.
Quote:
|
You say that "particles don't behave in accordance with laws...". I would like to propose that I might from time to time quote you on that, for example as follows: "Ken has said elsewhere 'particles don't behave in accordance with laws...' (precise quotation). Just so you know where he is coming from in general."
|
I thought I was perfectly clear in this thread, for example (added bolds):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenG
Hence our discussion is not about reality, it is about the axiomatic systems we invent to describe reality. The distinction is usually ignorable, but only at our peril in discussions that try to get to the heart of what science can achieve.
|
and
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenG
Science normally differentiates what exists from our best descriptions of it, and for good reason, especially if one is wondering what is unifiable.
|
If you want to quote me out of context, you will be engaging in logical fallacy.
Quote:
|
I think I am actually saying the thing you do believe. And you are saying something that I think is a fairly pointless philosphical quibble, though please go ahead and enjoy yourself making it.
|
I think you are forgetting the entire purpose of the debate: to establish whether or not we should expect reality to be completely unifiable. News flash: that
is a philosophical topic! If you didn't want to address "philosophical quibble", why did you assert an arbitrary position in the first place?
Quote:
|
When I read what you say about axioms etc, I actually make similar points myself in another thread about is mathematics true. But I don't feel the need to worry about it, as you clearly do.
|
Same question as above. But I'm glad we agree on the difference between what is "true" and what "stems from the axioms", an important distinction I have also made on other threads. But this thread is about whether or not we can make an axiomatic system that is complete in its application to reality-- something we cannot do in regard to the real numbers. You are therefore arguing that reality is less rich than the real numbers, whereas I argue that at best we can hope that its projection onto objective measurement is less rich than the reals, but I don't see why we should expect that projection to maintain a complete axiomatic structure in the first place.
Quote:
|
Whether particles "exist" or not, or whether my "particle" is actually a model in an axiomatic system or not, who cares, in my view.
|
Obviously the answer as to whether or not we should care about that distinction depends on the context of interest. When the context is "is a unified theory of everything possible", I can hardly see why that would
not be an important issue.
Quote:
|
I'm a "just do the sums and don't worry about what it really is" man.
|
A perfectly valid view-- but why did it lead you to post on this thread? If that was really your position, the answer to the OP is "who knows-- I just calculate".
Quote:
|
In science the only thing that objectively exist are measurements.
|
Then we agree on the meaning of "objective existence".
Quote:
|
So when I say "particles do behave in accordance with laws" what I am actually saying is that "measurements we make can be explained in accordance with laws, and given measured initial conditions, measured later conditions will reliably behave the same way each time, so that in principle laws exist even if we haven't found them yet".
|
So then what you are actually saying is that "everything is unifiable because it behaves consistently, whether or not it is possible for us to find unifiable laws". You are simply assuming that "unifiable" may be equated with "behaves consistently", whereas I see those as completely different issues.
Quote:
|
Measurements is all we will ever really have, and I do believe that the measurements will show reliable and repeated behaviour. To deny that is to deny the possibility of reliable scientific laws in a Popperian sense.
|
Why would I deny it? That is essentially the point I've been making. Yet I claim it leads to "we should not expect everything to be unifiable", and you claim the same thing leads to "we should expect everything to be unifiable, even if we can't do it". Personally, I think that if we can't do something, then that's the definition of "not possible" for us, which I think is what the OP was asking.