If we cannot get a handle on this "absolute mind independent reality," then, it means it has no consistent, detectable effect on us. We don't have to worry about it. We are free to form and take advantage of multiple, overlapping, and competing theories. We should feel fortunate that there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak, and that many of those ways work adequately well.

Notice that engineers don't seem to be as discouraged by the lack of access to some posited absolute certainty. They function quite well with a toolbox full of useful techniques. Any new method that helps them get a project in on time, under cost, and satisfactory to the customer is seen as a benefit. Scientific types, on the other hand, seem to see such developments as falling short of the mark.

Len, be careful not to let philosophy misguide you into losing sight of what is truly of value to you and your life.

Kaptain K,

String Theory
Why do you think m-theorists might get lucky? Is that your definition of the scientific method? Does anyone else support Kaptain K's view?

The rapid advances in other fields of science such as biology was not due to luck, rather it was due to biologists preforming a set of specific experiments that were used to develop a fundamental base for biology. Biologists are not positing 12 dimensional space.

There is no fundamental base in physics. Physics has a set of contradicting curve fitting black box models.

Why is developing m-theories science? How many dimension in the real physical universe? 13? 20? How are banes different than Maxwell's model for which space had wheels and small balls in it?

What is a dimension? Note the string dimensions are not observable. After 20 years m-theorists have not develop a single testable “theory”. Why do you believe m-theory is different the alchemy? Compare "theoretical" physics to biology.

Comments:
The fact that a hundred thousand papers per year are and can be written in the field of m-theory (string theory), indicates that there is no possibility of closure using the “infinite number of monkeys” developing an infinite number of mathematical models methodology. The problem is not just that the "infinite monkey methodology", "no bounds on the model methodogy" will not solve the fundamental problems of physics (i.e. The fundamental problems are not even identified), but rather that intelligent people in physics, astrophysics, other fields do not criticize the methodology and its result (i.e. A hundred thousand papers per year with no convergence or connection with observation.)

Compare the number of m-theory models 100^503 to the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe. There are roughly 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the observable Universe.

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. 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.

Yes, I have often compared the methodology of engineering to that of physics, but does this mean physics is just engineering? 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:

Experiments at the quantum level involve predicted observations at the measurement device, the idea that a "particle" is localized independently of our knowledge is not assumed - the notion of an observer (which is the same as the measurement device) becomes an essential ingredient of the experiment rather than an option (such as watching or not watching a stone being thrown). So the experimental nature of quantum mechanics points to an underlying reality that is mind independent and hence scientifically inaccessible (though I must mention that Ken G considers this notion can be discerned clearly at the classical level, not just at the quantum level). For me, to ignore the implications of what physics is telling us is to instill a false sense of what physics can achieve. But if the implications are faced, then what we are left with is physics as a discipline that explores our relationship with mind independent reality in terms of models that are human representations rather than providing an illusory asymptote journey to the absolute. And that human representation is where the proper scientific methodology (as I understand it) ends. But hidden within those models is the absolute and whilst we scientifically cannot extract that absolute, philosophically, the pointers that d'Espagnat talks about may at least provide some kind of link to it.

Thanks for the advice! But my real interest is simply knowing what the scientific methodology can and cannot tell us about the world. If I can get a handle on that, then notions of the absolute fall into their proper place and the picture that science gives of the world becomes so much more meaningful.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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:

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.

Joe

I'm not entirely sure, but you seem to be putting forward views of a very holistic nature that would rule out any kind of mind independent absolute as existing independently of us. Certainly the experimental outcomes at the quantum level could point to this scenario, the essential notion of the observer/measuring device fits into this kind of complete holistic system. The interpretations that we take from quantum measurement involve facing up to the fact that at the most fundamental level we cannot invoke a separation between subject and object - the notion of an observer/measuring device is a requirement. I take from it a notion of mind independent reality as existing "out there" (I would prefer to call it an interpretation rather than an assumption). But none of this stops us doing science very successfully in terms of models by invoking an artificial separation of subject and object, but it does focus attention on what we think science can tell us about the underlying nature that this artificial separation takes place in (regardless of how one interprets this underlying nature, be it an interaction by us with mind independent reality or just one complete whole). My only real point in all of this is to clarify where scientific enquiry ends and philosophical enquiry begins in terms of discussing these questions - if indeed one thinks they are worth discussing. I do think they are worth discussing because I am interested in what the boundaries of science are since much of theoretical physics seems to think it can move in a direction that will uncover the underlying nature of the physical world as an entity independent of us.

William,
You said:

HA!
Fleming damn near threw out the contaminated petri dish that had all the dead bacteria in it! Thus, penicillin was discovered. Serendipity runs rampant through all fields of science!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

In reply to Kaptain K.'s comment:
One cannot use the fact that penicillin has discovered serendipitously in 1928 to conclude that developing m-theory models which have a 13 dimensional space that contain branes or strings or some other theoretical mathematical entity (there are 100^503 possible models) is science and is different than alchemy.

As I noted biology has continued to advance, theoretical physics as others have noted has not. There have been no Nobel prizes awarded for “m-theory”.

You did not answer my question. Is m-theory akin to alchemy?

I field where theories multiply without constraint is a field in crisis. The “theoretical” physics theories are closer to fantasy than science fiction.

Comment:
The discovery of high temperature super conductivity is an example of a physics discovery that was made using the Edison method of trail and error, based on a hutch, by Karl Müller and Johannes Bednorz.

From Wikipedia

Classical Newtonian mechanics could explain the motions of the planets in broad terms, but it could not explain in full detail (the error was small) the precession of Mercury's orbit. Along came relativity, which can easily account for Mercury's precession.

I would say that the theory which explains the most observations is objectively better than the one which explains fewer observations. Does this make it closer to reality? Not necessarily, in principle: it could be that the ultimate reality is completely different from what we observe. But in practice I would say we generally assume that there is an intimate connection between our sensory data and reality, and that therefore a theory which explains more observations is closer to reality. And by "we" I don't just mean scientists -- all human beings reason in this way about most things in their lives. Which is quite sensible, because at the end of the day it's the sensory input we have to deal with, not the inaccessible ultimate reality. At least in this world.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Yes, I entirely agree, it is the sensory input from this world we deal with and that is our macroscopic reality. In terms of that reality, I can certainly consider theories getting closer and closer to what we observe empirically.

Where I run into doubts is the way physics deals with empirical observations but then introduces notions that can never be observed. Those notions seem to gain an element of macroscopic reality by many (perhaps they don't for most scientists - I'm not sure) that for me is unjustified. I can happily accept these notions when thought of as purely a model to accommodate macroscopic observation, but if we can never observe these notions, we can never say that they are close to or quite different to our reality. We can't say anything about them other than they are purely a model that is a human representation of the absolute (in what ever way you may interpret this "absolute").

The passage of photons from a source to sink is especially problematic I think. The source and sink are macroscopic in the manner you describe - they are part of our observable reality and the results we take note of are part of that reality. But the bit in between we can never observe so we construct a model based on a time difference between activation of the source and the detection of a signal and that model we call the propagation of light at a speed c. What happens in between can never be thought of as being close to or distant from our macroscopic world because we can never observe photons in flight. But I don't see this as a problem as long as we think of this model as being a human representation of the absolute (and again, I have no idea what this absolute is other than just calling it "something" that is inaccessible).

But for me this issue seems to come in to focus at the quantum level. Experiments at the quantum level involve predicted observations at the measurement device, the idea that a "particle" is localized independently of our knowledge is not assumed - the notion of an observer (which is the same as the measurement device) becomes an essential ingredient of the experiment rather than an option (such as watching or not watching a stone being thrown). So at this level we are forced to acknowledge that entities as particle events (the movement of one particle from point A to B) are not part of our macroscopic world - we construct models based on predictive observations, not events. The events are models that can never be observed, but that does not reduce their value as scientific truths because we make practical use of them. But again they are human representations of the absolute (what ever that is).

The lessons from quantum experiments tell us that the world at this level requires the notion of an observer/measurement device, we cannot talk about events as happening without this notion, and even then, those events are not seen, the predictive observations are seen. So we can take an interpretation from this - the underlying reality of our world that can exist without our presence is nowhere to be seen or accessed. Our models of particle events can never be compared in any manner to our macroscopic reality as being "true", nor can they be thought of as existing independently of observation/measurement. All we can say is that they are human representations of an absolute that we can never access. But the form this absolute would take can only be a philosophical interpretation, I think of it as an entity that is "out there" as something existing entirely independent of us. Some think of it as not being "something" out there but rather we are all part of a complete whole, everything is just "everything" if you see what I mean.

But the important point (for me) is nothing to do with how one interprets the absolute, the important point for me is where does science end and where does philosophy start when dealing with these questions. For me, science ends abruptly at the models that are human representations of the absolute, it can offer no authority over the nature of the absolute or how close models are to it with any greater degree than philosophical enquiry. But I don't say that in any negative manner in terms of what physics can achieve or will achieve in the future, it just redefines (for me) the role of physics in a much more satisfactory manner.

A crucial part, yes.
Right, it seems it relates to "how closely you look", or the difference between an effective understanding and "the truth". When Greek philosophers, like Zeno, looked too closely at the classical models and tried to interpret their ramifications if they were "true", they ran into many of the same problems we encounter in quantum mechanics. The key difference seems to be that in quantum mechanics, the problems are harder to avoid, you pretty much have to confront them, whereas classically you get away with pretending they are not there.

Right, that's the key, we built science to do certain things, and it does not compromise the effort to recognize that-- it informs the effort.

Yes, that's well said.

We do all right-- for a bunch of smart apes.

Everything is a projection. When we look at our surroundings, it would be insensitive to those who are blind to bemoan the limitations of using light as our probe; instead we revel at having sight. I think the ability to do science is just like that.

And any other insights we can get, even those that are not scientific. We just don't expect the latter to be testable-- they are just up to us. But that's an important part of freedom-- as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or lower our value to the society (if we take it to the point of delusion).

I'll be more willing to entertain this idea once computers learn to dream.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

That's right. To be clear, I am not saying that “there is no reality;” we are fully immersed in it. Reality is not going to let us off that easy, hiding, always just out of reach. We talk about “models” representing “absolute reality,” but that is mostly just a metaphor. The product of science is no more a model or representation of some supposed absolute as is one of our golfer's putts a model of some supposed absolute putt.

I was thinking about your earlier question if science was just engineering. We may think of fundamental science as pure, abstract research, but consider that science creates some of the largest engineering projects ever including the LHC, the Apollo program, large telescopes, expansive antenna farms, and so on. We cannot seriously take the LHC as producing a mere model of some underlying absolute truth. We could say that the LHC scientists are not making a model of reality, but learning how to operate and make use of a very large contraption.

As for separating subject from object, you would need to define both terms and then define what it means to separate the two. Some people simply mean that an experiment is reproducible by others. But since you have to produce all those definitions, you could just as well dispense with the whole subject/object dichotomy and say what you want to say.

You might want to start with questioning the assumptions and methods philosophy has handed you such as dividing everything into an “in here” and an “out there” and making you work within the constraint that the “in here” is a copy or model of the “out there.”

Both Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics succeed even though neither provides nor depends on an underlying mechanism. The success of Newtonian mechanics is not being in the passive possession of some model that represents some underlying nature, but of flying to the moon and back and so on.

The bogey of underlying mechanism overly bewitches us.

That's coming from a non-physicist perspective, perhaps a behavioralist. However, most physicists do indeed think that their art, physics, creates models of reality. A better analogy, then, would be that a computer program designed to figure out what stroke is needed to sink a putt would indeed be modeling an "absolute" putt, meaning a real putt. Others might say this is one of the primary purposes of science.

__________________
Physics doesn't predict the future, it predicts the past that hasn't happened yet.

There are two kinds of delusions, the obvious kind that clearly don't work, and the insidious kind that clearly do.

Another interesting and IMO relevant story by John Timmer at The Register:

Poll:US taxpayers want more funding for scientific research, John Timmer, The Register, July 02, 2008 - 07:45PM CT

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!