Reply
Wed 16 Jun, 2010 03:54 pm
At what point do we stop the questioning, or stop the request for justification?
Here is what i mean...
Suppose we have a formal system with suitable interpretation that can be used as a model for fundamental physics. The axioms of this formal system would be the fundamental laws of nature. Such Laws could not be explained, or reduced to more simpler set of laws. Examples of fundamental laws could be the schrodinger ` s equation, or the dirac ` s equation for Quantum mechanics. Einstein` s field equations would also be the fundamental laws of general relativity. Suppose, physicists do come up with a set of laws that are fundamental, and is such that all other laws of QM, and general relativity could be derived. There would be the question of "why those fundamental laws?'. Is this question not worth asking? If laws of nature govern( or describe) the regularities we see in nature. If we can imagine different laws, why can` t there be a different universes? It seems reasonable to ask why nature pick a particular set of laws, and use it as a blue print for a universe.
On the other hand, we can also imagine there being one universe, and that ` s it, but what would be the justification for this? You would have to justify two things. You would have to justify " There is one universe", and "there is no greater than one universe". The former is easily justified, but the latter is not.
Science is good in confirming the existence of something, but not good at denying the existing of something without quantification. By this, i mean, it is easy, and with in science to claim "There is no X, given what we know about the Y set of laws", and not "There is not X". For the above reason, i think it is reasonable to ask why the fundamental laws is the way it is, since i can imagine different fundamental laws.
There seem to be a difficulty is mathematics as well. For a formal system that is expressive enough to include arithmetics, there is a limitation. It is incomplete. There is statements in arithmetics that are true, but not derivable within the formal system. What does this mean? It seems, we can always ask why these set of axioms, and not others. You never know that there might be a new axiom( fact) that needs to be included into your formal system to be make it more complete.
The axiom of logic is sort of special. They seem to be tautologies. You can always translate the logical axioms into table, and verify it for all truth values.
Perhaps constructing these tables can be a justification of some sort, but have we just translated the mystery from the logical axioms to the rules of constructing the table. For example... Why do we have these weird rules for logical constants( -, ^, &, *, ->, ...), and why variables have only two truth values? Perhaps, the rules and meaning of those symbols in rooted in how people use it( Quine, Wittgenstein see it that way), but why those rules, and not others? There are different cultures. Why can`t there be different rules?
@TuringEquivalent,
You are entering the realm of philosophy and religion as science and mathematics are subsets of philosophy. They are tools to define and investigate the real observable world i.e. to explain how but not why. We can explain how gravity works but not why. Fundamental laws can be overturned if htere an underlying even more fundamental law e.g. protons, electrons and neutrons were fundamental particles until even more fundamental particles were discovered.
@talk72000,
Well, some physicists, and mathematicians are always asking more fundamental questions, and this is how things are. Why else do people advance axioms, and fewer number of postulates. The typical temptation is to stop asking question, or to find psychological closure with the axioms, or postulates. People need to fight against the urge for psychological closure.
If not, don` t we need a criterion to stop asking questions?
@TuringEquivalent,
Since we are limited beings we make progress step at a time by refining the tools as we move along. It is like a long journey. It is neverending for once you discover something it opens up new views and questions. We have myopic vision.
I don't think there is any point that we should stop questioning, but a relentless insistence on justification, if it was ever tolerated (and it won't be), would only grind the gears of knowledge and seize up its advancement.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
Since we are limited beings we make progress step at a time by refining the tools as we move along. It is like a long journey. It is neverending for once you discover something it opens up new views and questions. We have myopic vision.
so, you think progress can continue forever, or those it stop? If it stops, when does it stop? If it continues, why continues?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I don't think there is any point that we should stop questioning, but a relentless insistence on justification, if it was ever tolerated (and it won't be), would only grind the gears of knowledge and seize up its advancement.
what do you mean by 'gear of knowledge'? What knowledge? scientific knowledge?
@TuringEquivalent,
I can't speak for Finn but my interprtation is that he feels the scientific method is like a machine with gears. It is a mechanical machine that just keeps going.
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
talk72000 wrote:
I can't speak for Finn but my interprtation is that he feels the scientific method is like a machine with gears. It is a mechanical machine that just keeps going.
Well, metaphor sucks.
The metaphor I used or any metaphor at all?
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
You would have to justify two things. You would have to justify " There is one universe", and "there is no greater than one universe". The former is easily justified, but the latter is not.
I would first ask you what your criterian is for justification, then I would begin asking you if whether or not something is justified. However, this takes us out of one science (field of study) into another, and this may not be fair.
To answer the question at large, I would argue that the cessation of questioning is the cessation of progress and it would be foolish to stop progressing. The problem with what you call "laws" is that they are not laws of the universe, they are laws of a particular understanding of the universe... in otherwords they are theories. Theories should always endlessly be challenged.
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
talk72000 wrote:
I can't speak for Finn but my interprtation is that he feels the scientific method is like a machine with gears. It is a mechanical machine that just keeps going.
Well, metaphor sucks.
Actually, I think that is a rather good metaphor, however, I would substitute "scientific method" for "science" in general, the scientific method being a gear itself. Science (the discovery of new knowledge) only continues as long as it's constituent parts keep running. Without the scientific method (an important part of science), science breaks down. Without the fuel of human inquiry, science, like a mechanical machine, stops producing what it is meant to produce... new knowledge.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace