What is the Empirical World?

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and, therefore, part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Murphy: Goethe once said that the highest achievement to which the human mind can attain is an attitude of wonder before the elemental phenomena of nature.

Planck: Yes, we are always being brought face to face with the irrational. Else we couldn't have faith. And if we did not have faith, but could solve every puzzle of life by an application of human reason, what an unbearable burden life would be. We would have no art and no music and no wonderment.

It is not co-incidental that sapience, wisdom, comprises part of our species name. But we are attempting to redefine ourselves as Homo Faber, man the maker. It is seriously possible that scientific Western man will embark on the project of remaking himself in accordance with his own predelictions, through technology and genetic engineering.

It is interesting to me how many of the truly great scientists have a much broader view of the matter. Max Planck, in conversation:
t is interesting to me how many of the truly great scientists have a much broader view of the matter. Max Planck, in conversation:



Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and, therefore, part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

That's an interesting point he makes. And is somewhat mind boggling in terms of the implications. If we ever figure out what everything really(if there is such a thing)is in terms of the true nature of "stuff"(what things are made of and the like), that would only create more questions than ever. I mean if I'm just vibrating strings, I can't even wrap my head around the fact that why are we even able to make sense of things and what does it even mean to make sense of things. There would be no difference between me and a rock. It just seems there would almost have to be something beyond the material world

I'm not making this stuff up! I read a few years ago about this UK super-boffin Baroness Greenfield who is into all this kind of thing - how we can augment our abilities and minds with technology and basically re-define ourselves. The problem I have is that reality is in pretty short supply anyway. I have just read The Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges. Is is bitterly polemical, rather too much so for my taste, but it makes the point that the populace is immersed in electronic entertainment, consumerism, radio talkback and porn (to mention a few things) and barely literate, let alone 'wise'. It is not as if we are starting off a base where there is any kind of consensus on what 'reality' comprises anyway. The planet is radically divided between competing visions of what that might be and meanwhile there's a billion people in poverty, looming energy, food and environmental crises....

Anyway I am wandering far afield here. I suppose I could observe that the fact we can still ask the question 'what is the empirical world' is still of great significance. Perhaps if more people could realise this is still and always a question worth pondering, and one that is not at all answered, the world would be a better place.

But I also want to ask why you (or Planck) believe that because we are a part of nature we cannot solve this ultimate mystery of nature you think there is. Why is that a reason for the conclusion you draw?

---------- Post added 01-10-2010 at 02:53 AM ----------

Well consider it this way...it would be like being in a box(or being in a computer program).....we would need to figure out a way out(or a way to get out of the program)...but we are made of the exact same material as the box and in fact in some way we are part of the box. unless of course there is a transcendent "us" which exists outside of the box.

Why do you think it is like that? Maybe it is like being a part of a crowd, and then getting out of the crowd? There are a lot of analogies.

I, myself, do not know what the ultimate mystery of nature is supposed to be. What makes you (or Planck) think there is such a thing? Don't you (and Planck) think you have to have reason to believe there is such a thing before you set about trying to solve it? But I also want to ask why you (or Planck) believe that because we are a part of nature we cannot solve this ultimate mystery of nature you think there is. Why is that a reason for the conclusion you draw?

By the way, when Planck tells us this sort of thing, he is not wearing his scientist's hat. This is not a scientific discovery he has made. He is only philosophizing. He is a scientific authority, but he is not a philosophical authority (if there is such a thing) as far as I know. So, if you, or if jeeprs want to cite Planck as giving expression to your own views, that is fine. But if you or jeeprs are citing Planck as some kind of philosophical authority, that is a mistake, since he isn't one.

the point is that this rock is made up of things that have no extension in space

so what the heck is it that we think we're holding in our hand?

then realize we are made of the exact same thing

that's all I'm saying...it would seem to be a big mystery.

well just consider holding a rock in your for a second.

(this is all 2nd hand info btw)

using conventional terms you might say that rock is made up of matter
and that matter is made up of atoms
deeper you get electrons and quarks or vibrating strings or whatever

these things can be considered as point particles which have no extension in space

the point is that this rock is made up of things that have no extension in space

so what the heck is it that we think we're holding in our hand?

then realize we are made of the exact same thing

that's all I'm saying...it would seem to be a big mystery.

I think life is tremendously mysterious. I can't explain why, and I doubt I can persuade you that it is. You either feel it, or you don't. I am probably outside of the topic of philosophy in this matter. And Plank is known for his insights into the nature of physics, ergo 'the empirical world', so it might be worth considering what he has to say.





.

the point is that this rock is made up of things that have no extension in space.

Well I find reality kind of enchanted and mysterious too, and more like a living thing than a machine but:
The point particle theory is probably (almost certainly) wrong as is the notion of independent space time so I agree with those who suggest science and reason as an approach before ultimate mystery.

Maybe that is because Max Planck and Einstein (and for that matter Heisenberg, Eddington, Schrodinger, and James Jeans) all appeared to have a deep respect for spirituality and mystical philosophy (as distinct from institutional or popular religion.) This is of course tremendously inconvenient for the many armchair theorists who would like to believe that science has forever consigned what they understand as religion to the museum of thought. So all the many writings of these great thinkers that did address such themes as reality and appearance and the limitations of science, are then brushed off as being amateur speculations with no particular merit.

Well I am not buying it. I find the mystical writings of the above-mentioned physicists to be clear, consistent, intelligible, meaningful and profound. If you wish to dismiss all of them because they don't conform to your notion of the subject matter of philosophy, then that is your perogative. But collectively these thinkers have had an enormous impact on the future of civilization, and the fact that they respect philosophical spirituality in its own right and on its own merits, I actually find very inspiring.

They should because they are the heirs and the inheritors of the tradition of Natural Philosophy, which is what physics was once known as. At one stage, during the Victorian era (where, intellectually, many still reside!) 'natural philosophy' was thought to provide an explanation of the real world of objects and stars and atoms, as distinct from the shadowy reckonings of the medievals. But then, alas, it was found that the apparently rock-solid reality of objects and stars and atoms was not, after all, composed of imperishable and eternal units, and it was realised, once again, that in this respect, the so-called 'empirical world' was not as it seemed.

(It is no co-incidence that various new forms of platonism are still extremely influential among physical philosophers see e.g. The Emperors New Mind, by Roger Penrose.)

And it was Max Planck, Einstein, and the others, who realised the non-substantiality of matter. It makes them far better philosophers in my book than many of the academics who pursue the subject for a livelihood.

I am not too concerned about whether they are recognised philosophical authorities. I believe what they say in these matters is true and worthy of attention. It stands on its merits.

"A philosopher talks about things, while a professor of philosophy talks about philosophy." Etienne Gilson.

Planck and Einstein made physical discoveries, not philosophical discoveries.

Authority from one field does not automatically transfer over into another field. Planck and Einstein were no more philosophical authorities than then were English literature authorities.

It is precisely this kind of compartmentalized, reductionist, fragmented approach to "knowledge" that philosophy is supposed to overcome. Philosophy deals with the larger questions of life and helps us to construct a coherent comprehensive worldview.

Ideas that come from authorities may be seriously in error, and ideas that come from amateurs may be spot on. One should not dismiss ideas because they do not come from an authority in that field and one should not accept them just because they do. Philosophers generally try to pick up the basic concepts in all areas of knowledge and compile them into some kind of integrated whole. To see the larger more holistic integrated picture so to speak.