11
   

Temporal kinetics and the creation of the universe

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 05:28 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
You still don't get it. This is actual knowledge, not philosophy.
Okay Bran I'll have to take your word for it

Hello, anyone else around here have a smidgeon of knowledge in this arena
IanRust
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 08:27 am
@dalehileman,
Physics actually merges with philosophy and metaphysics when questions fall outside the range of knowledge.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 08:45 am
@IanRust,
Many laymen think things are outside the range of knowledge because they are unfamiliar with the field. If more is learned about the origins of the universe, it will be by physicists, certainly not by philosophers. What has philosophy ever given the world?

Here is one example of a physics paper on the subject of cosmic inflation (the big bang):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5277.pdf
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 11:57 am
@IanRust,
Quote:
Physics actually merges with philosophy and metaphysics when questions fall outside the range of knowledge.
Ian that's also largely as I see it. Certainly Bran's article is almost pure physics where my assertion is one of almost straight philo or even semantics
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 12:39 pm
What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 02:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
Einstein's early speculations, Bran, might have been considered philosophical

Of course I'm not comparing myself to Einstein, I'm only comparing myself to Einstein

Seriously though Bran, is it so outrageous to speculate that "…. because nothingness doesn't include time; there just simply isn't a 'before' "
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 06:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

What has philosophy ever given the world?


Civilization...
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 06:43 pm
@Razzleg,
You could argue that, but I was talking about the world of physical science. Has philosophy without physics and mathematics ever resulted in a significant contribution to man's understanding of the universe in modern times?
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 07:26 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

You could argue that, but I was talking about the world of physical science. Has philosophy without physics and mathematics ever resulted in a significant contribution to man's understanding of the universe in modern times?


"Ecological preservation might be a a good thing for both ourselves and other existing species?..."

"Space travel is possible?..."

"Man's understanding of the universe"... i think you may need to expand your definition of that phrase... Historically speaking, neither physics nor mathematics would have developed as they did without philosophy, and they only remain socially influential for philosophical reasons. Of course, physics and mathematics are important, as aspects of humanity's pursuit of knowledge and truth...
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 07:30 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You could argue that, but I was talking about the world of physical science. Has philosophy without physics and mathematics ever resulted in a significant contribution to man's understanding of the universe in modern times?


"Ecological preservation might be a a good thing for both ourselves and other existing species?..."

"Space travel is possible?..."

"Man's understanding of the universe"... i think you may need to expand your definition of that phrase... Historically speaking, neither physics nor mathematics would have developed as they did without philosophy, and they only remain socially influential for philosophical reasons. Of course, physics and mathematics are important, as aspects of humanity's pursuit of knowledge and truth...

Tell me a case in which a philosopher working without physics contributed something to modern scientific theory.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 07:46 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Tell me a case in which a philosopher working without physics contributed something to modern scientific theory.


That would ridiculous...there's no such thing, although there are a couple of biologists i could mention. But the fact of the matter is, they didn't oppose physics, theoretical or otherwise. their theories just didn't touch upon that discipline.

i'm not arguing against the validity/value of modern theoretical physics, i'm arguing against the irrelevance of philosophical thinking by physicists, among others.

They aren't mutually exclusive types of study...

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 08:26 pm
@Razzleg,
Quote:
They aren't mutually exclusive types of study...
Precisely. Hence the observation that Einstein's earl;y hunches might be classified as " philosophical"
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 06:54 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?


That's not philosophy's job.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 08:05 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?


That's not philosophy's job.

Correct, and that's why it's so puzzling when people try to use it as a tool to deduce the nature of space and time.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 11:21 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
when people try to use it as a tool to deduce the nature of space and time.
The philo might so speculate on its nature, Bran, providing a starting place for Physics--Science--to refine, confirm, or disprove
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 11:49 am
@dalehileman,
Philosophy has never contributed anything to science. When used to speculate about nature, it's just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes. If you disagree, find a counter-example.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 12:08 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
...just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes
Bran that's me all right
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 05:52 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Philosophy has never contributed anything to science. When used to speculate about nature, it's just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes. If you disagree, find a counter-example.


Your ignorance and classificatorial rigidity are adorable. Your knowledge of the history of science, i.e. natural philosophy, is embarrassing. Here are some, not so random, names: Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Douglas Hofstadter...(Leonardo da Vinci, maybe)

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?


What standard for "verifiability" are you using? By most standards, no one has verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe...there are mathematically reliable theories, though.
IanRust
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 10:22 pm
@Brandon9000,
Hypothesis are ideas; ideas are often arrived at through philosophical introspection.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 10:53 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:


Your ignorance and classificatorial rigidity are adorable. Your knowledge of the history of science, i.e. natural philosophy, is embarrassing. Here are some, not so random, names: Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Douglas Hofstadter...(Leonardo da Vinci, maybe)

My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations. They were not people ignorant of the hard sciences who proceeded from nothing but philosophy to correct science agreed upon later by the scientific community, at least not in the past couple of centuries.

Razzleg wrote:

What standard for "verifiability" are you using? By most standards, no one has verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe...there are mathematically reliable theories, though.

Scientific work can be somewhat verified if entirely different approaches lead to the same equations, but, for the sake of simplicity, we can change it to "accepted by the world scientific community."

There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 06:13:40