Page 15 of 22
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:50 am
by kay
Linguistics can be quantised and formalised in a mathemathical framework. Or at least that's the way the research is going. It's quite a separate discipline from language.
Not really sure why some of you are so keen on defining clear boundaries as to what constitutes philosophy and what constitutes science. Too much compartmentalisation is a big problem with scientific disciplines as a whole.
The very act of coming up with a framework to describe anything, be it "why things fall down" or "why is the sky blue" or "why doesn't that gurl fancy me", ultimately falls within the purview of philosophy. Therefore, scientific thought is a subset of philosophy.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:52 am
by rickyarbino
Do you know what the Physical Sciences are?
Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Meteorology and Geology.
That isn't even relevant.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:03 am
by scspkr99
kay wrote:Linguistics can be quantised and formalised in a mathemathical framework. Or at least that's the way the research is going. It's quite a separate discipline from language.
Not really sure why some of you are so keen on defining clear boundaries as to what constitutes philosophy and what constitutes science. Too much compartmentalisation is a big problem with scientific disciplines as a whole.
The very act of coming up with a framework to describe anything, be it "why things fall down" or "why is the sky blue" or "why doesn't that gurl fancy me", ultimately falls within the purview of philosophy. Therefore, scientific thought is a subset of philosophy.
The thing is I'm not interested in defining clear boundaries I think the definitions may be broad enough that there's room to be ambivalent as to whether or not you wish to consider philosophy a science.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:05 am
by scspkr99
jesslem wrote:Do you know what the Physical Sciences are?
Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Meteorology and Geology.
That isn't even relevant.
You know I was responding to this right?
jesslem wrote:there is more to Philosophy than Physical Science.
scspkr99 wrote:physical science does not equal science
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:11 am
by kay
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:08 pm
by scspkr99
Cheers Kay I'll take a look at that when I get home.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:11 am
by Phigure
my mind isnt entirely made up either way on the subject but that article makes some weak points.
just cause we dont have mathematical models to describe certain things, doesnt mean that they don't theoretically exist. they might be unreasonably complicated and too impractical for humans to work with or formulate in the first place, but that doesn't mean the math itself cant create a description of the phenomenon.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:27 am
by jorge
magma wrote: it has come to represent the areas of mystery that can't be proven with data, only logical thought.
Werent you saying logical thought is data a few pages back?
magma wrote: Still, the rules of proper philosophy are the same as the rules of proper science.
Sorry to butt out and rejoin the party much later, but this is mainly what i disagreed with earlier. There are valid forms of philosophy and knowledge based on intuition. Of course you can say rationality will always come into it but that doesnt mean that intuitive knowledge is empirical data and can be used scientifically.
I didnt read that article above, but I have gone through various phases of how I view maths, I used to see it as a kind of pure reality now I tend to see maths as drawing a straight line onto a curved one. A very useful and interesting abstraction but I feel it is too perfect to accurately describe the world. Then again who can say how accurate any description can be. The map will never be the land itself. I think quite a few advocates of science forget that.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:07 am
by magma
jorge wrote:magma wrote: it has come to represent the areas of mystery that can't be proven with data, only logical thought.
Werent you saying logical thought is data a few pages back?
No, I'm pretty sure I wasn't because that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. Logical thought is a process that data can be put through. Data isn't a process, it's... data. They're not even comparable concepts!
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:33 pm
by jorge
magma wrote:and logical thought surely constitutes empirical evidence?
kind of sounds like you were saying that here
care to reply to the other thing I said? id be interested to hear your opinion
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:27 pm
by Muncey
String theory is mental yo'.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:05 pm
by kay
Phigure wrote:my mind isnt entirely made up either way on the subject but that article makes some weak points.
just cause we dont have mathematical models to describe certain things, doesnt mean that they don't theoretically exist. they might be unreasonably complicated and too impractical for humans to work with or formulate in the first place, but that doesn't mean the math itself cant create a description of the phenomenon.
Yeah the article's not the best. I have to hope that the original paper is much better (haven't read it yet). I pretty much agree with your sentiments - our inability to date to produce a purely mathemathical construct to describe the universe does not mean that there isn't one.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:56 am
by rickyarbino
For the time being the most natural interpretation seems to me to be that the occurrence of electromagnetic fields of light is associated with singular points just like the occurrence of electrostatic fields according to the electric theory. It is not out of the question that in such a theory the entire energy of the electromagnetic field might be viewed as localized in these singularities, exactly like in the old theory of action at a distance. I more or less imagine each such singular point as being surrounded by a field of force which has essentially the character of a plane wave and whose amplitude decreases with the distance from the singular point. . . I am sure it need not be particularly emphasized that no importance should be attached to such a picture as long as it has not led to an exact theory. All I wanted is briefly to indicate with its help that the two structural properties (the undulatory structure and the quantum structure) simultaneously displayed by radiation according to the Planck formula should not be considered as mutually incompatible."
A. Einstein (1909)
The truth, son.
Enter the Amplituhedron
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:04 pm
by alphacat
This is pretty interesting stuff. Seems like they might be on to something important here.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta ... m-physics/
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:10 pm
by kay
It looks like a potentially useful construct/framework looking at how the universe works but there's still a lot that needs to be done to tie it to real facts and figures.
I really like it though.
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:25 pm
by Direflow
Re: Physics anyone?
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:55 pm
by scspkr99
magma wrote:
I read The Particle At The End Of The Universe on my trip to the States a couple of months ago. Brilliant.
From Eternity To Here I've mentioned in the books thread once or twice... I think it's the only book that I've put down because it made my brain hurt. I've still never finished it.
Weirdly, recommended both of them to a mate yesterday!
I came across video and thought of this. It's a discussion between Carroll and Craig Callender going over the themes in the book. It could be a way back into it. I finished the book, though found it challenging enough in places than I'm going to have to read it again, but this is pretty interesting.
http://www.philostv.com/craig-callender ... an-carroll
Re: Enter the Amplituhedron
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:20 pm
by alphacat
Re: Enter the Amplituhedron
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:24 pm
by kay
I'd thought the original article made those points reasonably clearly?
Re: Enter the Amplituhedron
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:54 am
by Phigure
kay wrote:
I'd thought the original article made those points reasonably clearly?
yeah it does and i dont think it makes it any less interesting, its just a matter of generalizing/modifying it to make it work with the actual standard model
