What are the Philosophical Implications of " Dark Material"?

There should be a reason if one does not suppose that the unobservable part of the universe is shrinking with the sixth force.

0 Replies

What reasons ARE there?

Here's what I don't get...

I happen to know a lot of physicists. I am not a physicist myself. I don't know what sort of image people have of physicists, but all I see is people who work hard at what they do, think of possibilities of how the universe works, devise experiments to test these possibilities, and then integrate the results of those experiments into their developing theories. (Speaking in aggregate of theorists and experimentalists, who do different things.)

Why is that bad, or futile, or whatever? One can recognize that today's "facts" are tomorrow's "misconceptions" while still doing one's best to figure things out. I find that pursuit worthy and even noble.

0 Replies

I do not think "facts" change with time, but do think that the interpretation of facts changes with newly found facts.

0 Replies

That's why I used quotes. By saying that there are some empirical truths, though, you seem to be disagreeing with some posts here.

0 Replies

truth
Sozobe, I agree that science is a noble profession, even if, by virtue of the fact that it is empirical and PROGRESSIVE (as opposed to theological and dogmatic) it is a history of errors. And I do not mean this disparagingly. I think all scientists would agree that the virtue of their discipline lies in the fact of their institutionalized humility, their insistence that they never have the last word, that they are only replacing one tentative truth with another tentative truth which will--if science works--be replaced by other tentative truths. This is why I melodramatically call it a history of errors.
It's just that philosophy wishes to establish NOW, by means of speculative reasoning, principles of knowing that in a sense shortcuts the process of scientific investigation which is unending. I suppose that philosophical speculation is also unending. It just seems that each philosopher is less willing to admit that he or she has not come, at least close, to the final word--and for some (like Richard Rorty) that final word may be that IN PRINCIPLE there is no final word.

0 Replies

Quote:

What reasons ARE there?

Any logically consistent hypothesis should be refuted by facts observed.. the latter is the "reason."

Quote:

By saying that there are some empirical truths, though, you seem to be disagreeing with some posts here.

I did not talk about "empirical truths" but empirical "facts", which means anything that can readily be seen from raw data. The term "truth" seems to be very tricky one and I avoid it here for depicting facts found in experiences.

0 Replies

Sure, I see nothing negative with a bunch of errors, especially in terms of the progressive/ changeable aspect you mention. Each error provides more information.

JLN, I just saw your edit from a few posts up -- it is not only closer to simply not being observed for practical reasons, those practicalities are being worked on and inroads are being made. I don't know how far off being able to observe the whole shebang is, but they're on their way.

I definitely do NOT think it is unobservable "in principle", and agree that it is more a matter of practicalities -- figuring out how to observe it, and doing so -- than philosophy.

Again, at least one part of "dark matter" as originally posited has already been found -- neutrinos.

0 Replies

truth
Thanks for your informative response, Sozobe. I sometimes think nobody reads my posts (other than Tywvel and Fresco, of course).

0 Replies

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
..a quote from Socrates

Isn't Socrates the greatest philosopher throughout human history?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The "fallacy" is that "the observed" exists independently of "the observer". i.e. When speaking of "existence" we must ask "for whom".

But once we answer that question, where is the fallacy?

fresco wrote:

Thus "dark matter" exists for (a) astronomers wishing to account for discrepancies in their calculations and (b) ourselves in as much as we might all have a vested interest in what we call "scientific methodology" because the "same methodology" appears to be "successful" in predicting future outcomes of own actions.

OK, fine. Now where's the fallacy?

0 Replies

Quantum Consciousness?

[snip]

Chalmers, a steely-eyed rationalist when the need arises, is
not above indulging in a little speculation on the matter. And
-- surprise, surprise -- he suggests that perhaps
consciousness is a bit too complicated to be invested
exclusively in our puny, palpitating brain tissues.

"You know, we have physicists who want to build a
so-called Theory of Everything using just a few basics, such
as spacetime, mass and charge," Chalmers notes. "They
want to explain everything in terms of a few reductionist
components. And they can certainly explain a whole lot of
complicated stuff that way -- maybe even chemistry, life and
behavior.

"But consciousness seems to be left out. And so what I tend to think is that if we're reasoning
consistently about these things, if we've got something that these fundamentals can't explain,
then we need something else which is new and fundamental. So I've argued that perhaps we
need to view consciousness as a kind of fundamental constituent of reality."

You heard right:

The world's foremost thinker on the Hard Problem is speculating -- and Chalmers would be the
first to stress it's only speculation, mind you -- that consciousness may one day very well turn
out to be a basic building block of the universe. Like photons are to light, or cream filling is to
Twinkies, consciousness may prove to be an inherent requirement of all that surrounds and
composes us.

[/snip]

http://www.conferencerecording.com/conflists/tsc20tw.htm

0 Replies

Then again, it may not . . .

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I agree with all of that stuff about we can't KNOW anything, etc., but it has its limits as a practical framework in which to live one's life. I really think that if I step out of the house, I won't be sucked into a swirling vortex and slowly suffocate, but I don't KNOW that. The last 36,178 times I stepped out of the house I was OK, but that doesn't mean that the NEXT time, the laws of gravity couldn't be repealed.

I agree with this -- and I hope that the agnostic arguments I make don't lead you to suppose I am saying that NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN -- or that there is not IMMENSE value in making educated guesses.

I am thankful for all the guesses, theories, and hypotheses that scientists have made over the years -- and I frankly wish we could find some way of spending more of the nation's treasure to fund their speculations.

That is the only way we will ever progress at a reasonable pace.

But I think there is as much danger in the way some lay people "accept" various as yet unproven guesswork as absolute fact...

...as there is in people accepting various religious tenets.

I acknowledge that I am a big fan of science -- especially astronomy -- and I would not want anything I'm saying to be misconstrued as equating science and religion.

0 Replies

Oh, no worries Frank, that's what I had gotten from your posts. I agree with what you say there.

0 Replies

Frank,

Perhaps you could elaborate on:

"That is the only way we will ever progress at a reasonable pace."

Does this not beg the questions...

Who's "we" ?/ What is "progress" ?/ What is "reasonable pace".

I am not particularly playing devils advocate here, but I think there is a major argument that our apparant "control of nature" is short termist and illusiary.
(Note that smoking was once thought beneficial to health !)

0 Replies

And now it's not. Because of science. I'd say that's a kind of progress.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

Perhaps you could elaborate on:

"That is the only way we will ever progress at a reasonable pace."

Does this not beg the questions...

Who's "we" ?/ What is "progress" ?/ What is "reasonable pace".

I am not particularly playing devils advocate here, but I think there is a major argument that our apparant "control of nature" is short termist and illusiary.
(Note that smoking was once thought beneficial to health !)

Fair enough, Fresco

When I used "we" in that sentence, I meant "humanity."

When I used "progress" in that sentence, I meant "getting closer to understanding our world."

When I used "reasonable pace" in that sentence, I meant "at a pace faster than if scientists did not speculate, ask questions, and probe."

0 Replies

Re: What are the Philosophical Implications of " Dark M

fresco wrote:

Astronomers now seem to be in agreement that a large proportion of the universe is unobservable.

Irresepective of the "scientific" implications of such consensus does not this very "fact" diminish our confidence in so called "scientific explanations" as to the nature of "reality and existence".

I think it depends on where you start with your assumptions about "reality and existence". If you already understand the philosophical argument of not being able to *know* anything (in an absolute sense), and you have recognized the banality of that philosophic revelation, and have moved on to the more pragmatic philosophy of naturalism, then knowledge becomes measurable, and even the lack of information can provide knowledge.

As such, in knowing that a large percentage of our Universe is as yet, mysterioius, I am overjoyed Smile

Best Regards,

0 Replies

I am overjoyed at the notion that the universe will not once again congregate into a singularity destroying all life.

And I am overjoyed at the possibility that this "dark matter" may not neccesarily pull galaxies themselves apart in expanding the universe thus making life unsustainable.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, your phrase, "getting closer to our understanding of the world", inspires the notion that understanding involves two events, (1) asking meaningful questions and (2) answering those questions to our satisfaction. These two steps reflect the pragamatism of Charles Saunders Pierce. Knowledge in this sense is the goal of purposeful inquiry. I would suggest that if and when we encounter phenomena that are completely exotic, meaning that we cannot even begin to ask questions about them--as is most likely in the case of sub-atomic physics. We are likely to overlook the phenomena, or at least to archive it in a file of "anomalies for future consideration." Without questions we cannot puruse the answers that are "knowledge". I suspect we are at that stage regarding the anomaly of dark matter--we are trying to formulate sensible questions.

0 Replies

What are the Philosophical Implications of " Dark Material"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know