Quote:
Originally Posted by Len Moran
I agree, except that such a stance throws into question the degree to which we think our models match the absolute. You quite often hear comments that suggest our models are asymptote in nature - they continually approach the absolute but never reach it, but if we have no conception of what mind independent reality is then we have no means in which to ever make a scientific judgement as to how close or distant our models are, the judgement is philosophical in nature.
|
Consider that the problem may be with the "models match reality" notion philosophy imposes on us and not with science itself.
We understand what it means for a photograph of a person to match that person. If an athlete runs the 100-meters in the same time the world record holder did, we say that his performance matches the record holder's. But when philosophers say that the model does not match absolute reality, it is not clear what is meant by "model" and what is meant by "absolute reality," and most importantly, how one establishes a correspondence relation between the two such that one can talk coherently about models matching reality or asymptotically approaching reality.
Quote:
|
But if we accept this distinction between what is scientific thought and what is philosophical thought in terms of models and their relationship to the absolute, I think we would all be much clearer about what science can and cannot achieve, and clearer regarding the relationship between science and philosophy.
|
It seems science is being held to an ill-defined standard. My concern is that in doing so, we lose sight of the value of science in our lives.
Look around you. Science has drastically altered the way we live our lives. We landed on the moon six times with classical mechanics. That is not asymptotically approaching reality. That's living within reality and taking advantage of what it affords.
Now, true, no matter how well we are doing now, we can always do better in the future. But that is not a matter of moving closer to some mind-independent reality. It is a refinement and improvement of technique. It is like the way a golfer improves his putt. Persistent study and practice increases his putting success. He does not move towards some singular, perfect Platonic Ideal putt. The objective is to get the ball in the hole and there are numerous ways to accomplish that. Course conditions are always changing too. Adaptability and flexibility is an advantage.
Quote:
|
Yes, I have often compared the methodology of engineering to that of physics, but does this mean physics is just engineering?
|
All human pursuits fall under the umbrella of living a happy of a life as is possible. We strive to do well and live with as much joy as we can attain.
Quote:
|
I don't think so, because the models that physics teases out and constructs from our interaction with mind independent reality are discoveries about that interaction and hidden in those models are elements of the absolute. This is what Bernard d'Espagnat ("on Physics and Philosophy") says:
|
We do use the terms "practical" and "theoretical" differently, but that doesn't mean that "theoretical" is somehow distinct and separate from our lives. Nor is the theoretical pursuit holier than the practical. Practical and theoretical are just different techniques for improving our lives. They are different means of accomplishing an end. We can test our racecars on the track and in a wind tunnel. Or we can pursue the same end through a CFD analysis on a computer cluster. Both the practical and the theoretical approaches are
embodied in the same human undertaking of producing a faster car. They are two different ways of skinning the same cat.
Quote:
|
So the experimental nature of quantum mechanics points to an underlying reality that is mind independent and hence scientifically inaccessible
|
Be careful with your assumptions here. Perhaps the problem is not with scientific accessibility, but with the philosophic notion of a "mind independent reality" or an "underlying reality" or an "underlying mechanism" and so on. It seems to me to that for us humans, no matter how much we directly see and experience in the world, we for some reason disqualify what we see in front of us and attribute the "real truth" to some posited hidden underlying mechanism or reality. We see the same attitude in those who pursue the occult, conspiracy theories, and religion.
Look at your quote from d'Espagnat:
Quote:
|
Quite on the contrary, I consider it most plausible that the multifarious regularities and symmetries science reveals in all domains do correspond - albeit in a highly hidden manner - to some form of the absolute.
|
Is he describing the work of a scientist or of a priest?
Going back to the engineering aspect, notice that philosophers and scientists think they are somehow isolated from the real reality. Engineers, on the other hand, live with the concern that their actions will have real consequences. They see reality as having a hand on their throats ready to squeeze if they don't act the right way--or at least ready to slap them upside the head.
We engage in a process of studying the world, experimenting, developing techniques, employing those techniques, measuring their success in our lives, and returning to the first step to for another loop through the cycle for refinement. We are not asymptotically isolated from the world; we are embodied in it. Discovery is not a matter of revealing a literal "underlying reality," "underlying mechanism," or "absolute truth," but of improving our lives.