[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy. — T Clark

Energy isn't a substance. It's a physical construct, which means it comes from the analysis of an event.

Energy isn't a substance. It's a physical construct, which means it comes from the analysis of an event. — frank

E = mc^2

yep

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing. — T Clark

I don't think most of these are presuppositions of science.

1. I mean, science is an attempt to understand the universe by humans, so... yeah this one's a presupposition, but a rather agreeable, obvious one. The alternative to trying to understand the universe is not trying, and not trying doesn't seem to have many returns on (non)investment, so we might as well try.

2. Nope, not a presupposition of science in the slightest. Science has access to matter, and thus that naturally makes it easier to find out things about matter than ... things we don't have access to. It's not a presupposition of science, our focus on the physical is just an inevitable consequence of what it means to do science. Plenty of scientists do science just fine while also presupposing physical substances AREN'T the only things that exist. I'm sure some scientists do science well while assuming physical substances don't exist at all (surely some scientists are idealists of some kind).

3. Maybe?? I don't even think this one is - just because science tries to find principles and laws to describe behavior doesn't necessarily mean that in order to do science, one must presuppose substances all behave consistently in according with those principles and laws. I'm not convinced of this one, but I suppose I'm open to a solid agument that science presupposes this.

4. It happens to be the case that a lot of what we know about matter is describable mathematically - the fact that that's the case doesn't require a presupposition that it's a universal truth. I don't think this one counts.

5. Most scientists presuppose this, I think, but I again don't think it's a necessary presupposition. Someone could easily conduct science without that presupposition, right? Like one can imagine certain things we call laws fluctuating over time.

6. Yeah this one's probably fair to call a presupposition, although many scientists I'm sure are very questioning of the very concept of causality itself. So I'm inclined to say a very tentative 'yes, you're right' about this one.

7. Not a presupposition. This is a belief that's a consequence of experience and observation. If human scientists lived in a different universe where we experienced and observed very different things, we could easily have a science that has substances which are destructable. Come to think of it... don't matter and antimatter destroy each other? I give this one a 0/10, big fat NO on that being a presupposition.

8. Not a presupposition. Not even a universal belief among scientists.

9. Definitely a big fat no on this one. Separate? Have you literally never heard of spacetime?

10. Not a presupposition. At best, it's a similar situation to 7 - a belief that arose from experience and observation. Different observations could have yielded a different scientific belief.

Is this about presuppositions of science, or of scientists? I'm not sure the former makes any sense. The latter is an empirical question only answerable by a survey, no?

this about presuppositions of science, or of scientists? I'm not sure the former makes any sense. The latter is an empirical question only answerable by a survey, no? — bert1

Yes, science, not scientists. And, as I noted in an edit for clarification, I mean physics in particular. And yes, a discussion of the presuppositions of physics does make sense.

Before I get started, I put an edit in the OP to clarify my thoughts. As I noted there, the positions I describe are intended to apply to physics as opposed to all of science and specifically to classical physics before the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics in 1905.

I don't think most of these are presuppositions of science. — flannel jesus

I don't agree.

1. I mean, science is an attempt to understand the universe by humans, so... yeah this one's a presupposition, but a rather agreeable, obvious one. The alternative to trying to understand the universe is not trying, and not trying doesn't seem to have many returns on (non)investment, so we might as well try. — flannel jesus

Agreed.

2. Nope, not a presupposition of science in the slightest. Science has access to matter, and thus that naturally makes it easier to find out things about matter than ... things we don't have access to. It's not a presupposition of science, our focus on the physical is just an inevitable consequence of what it means to do science. — flannel jesus

And that's the whole point of an absolute presupposition. The question isn't whether it's true or false, it's whether it's necessary in order for the enterprise of physics to proceed. You couldn't do physics as it existed in 1900 without something you can measure, i.e. physical substances.

3...just because science tries to find principles and laws to describe behavior doesn't necessarily mean that in order to do science, one must presuppose substances all behave consistently in according with those principles and laws. — flannel jesus

All a principle or law is is a generalization of a regularity in the results of observations and measurements. In order for science to be useful, you have to be able to abstract a general feature of behavior. Otherwise, all you can do is talk about specific instances of phenomena. Again--It's something you can't do physics without.

4...It happens to be the case that a lot of what we know about matter is describable mathematically - the fact that that's the case doesn't require a presupposition that it's a universal truth. I don't think this one counts. — flannel jesus

I didn't say it was a universal truth or true at all, only that you have to assume, act as if, it's true in order to do physics as it was done in 1900.

5...Most scientists presuppose this, I think, but I again don't think it's a necessary presupposition. Someone could easily conduct science without that presupposition, right? Like one can imagine certain things we call laws fluctuating over time. — flannel jesus

I think you've answered your own point. It's not necessary I guess, but physicists do presuppose it. It's the background against which any variation from expected results is measured. You claim physics can be conducted without this presupposition. Can you give me an example of how that would work?

6...many scientists I'm sure are very questioning of the very concept of causality itself. — flannel jesus

That's true. I question the value of the concept of causality myself. But mainstream physics did not question it prior to 1900.

7...Not a presupposition. This is a belief that's a consequence of experience and observation. If human scientists lived in a different universe where we experienced and observed very different things, we could easily have a science that has substances which are destructable. Come to think of it... don't matter and antimatter destroy each other? I give this one a 0/10, big fat NO on that being a presupposition. — flannel jesus

The laws of conservation of matter and conservation of energy were fundamental laws of physics in 1900. Since then, we've learned energy and matter are equivalent. Now we have the law of conservation of matter and energy. Physicists didn't know about anti-matter until the late 1920s.

8...Not a presupposition. Not even a universal belief among scientists. — flannel jesus

I included this because the presupposition that the universe is continuous was included by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. An absolute presupposition doesn't have to be a universal belief.

9...Definitely a big fat no on this one. Separate? Have you literally never heard of spacetime? — flannel jesus

No one had heard of spacetime in 1900.

10...Not a presupposition. At best, it's a similar situation to 7 - a belief that arose from experience and observation. Different observations could have yielded a different scientific belief. — flannel jesus

The position that physical substances can not be created from nothing is just the flip side of the laws of conservation of matter and conservation of energy.

And that's the whole point of an absolute presupposition. The question isn't whether it's true or false, it's whether it's necessary in order for the enterprise of physics to proceed. You couldn't do physics as it existed in 1900 without something you can measure, i.e. physical substances. — T Clark

That doesn't make it a presupposition though. That just makes it a practical reality. It's a practical reality that we have access to physical objects, can smash them into each other, and so it's a practical reality that if we want to predict the future of the world we live in, we can only do so using the stuff we have access to.

To say physics presupposes all their is is matter, is like saying botany presupposes that all there are are plants. I mean ffs Newton himself wasn't a materialist.

All a principle or law is is a generalization of a regularity in the results of observations and measurements. In order for science to be useful, you have to be able to abstract a general feature of behavior. Otherwise, all you can do is talk about specific instances of phenomena. Again--It's something you can't do physics without. — T Clark

That's not a support of the presupposition claim you made, or an argument against what I said. Yes, you have to suppose perhaps that there are SOME "laws" and so forth, whatever "law" may ontological mean, but you need not pressuppose EVERYTHING is lawful. Maybe I'm misreading your point #3. I think if you want people to accept #3 as a true pressupposition, you're going to have to clearly define what a law is. I can easily see a physicist not believing in "laws" at all, depending on the definition.

I didn't say it was a universal truth or true at all, only that you have to assume, act as if, it's true in order to do physics as it was done in 1900. — T Clark

I replied to this without realizing you were talking about physics. I'm not sure what I think about it now that the context changed. You'd have to define "law" first.

It's not necessary I guess, but physicists do presuppose it — T Clark

Okay, well this one's too weak to even argue about then. Not a presupposition of science, apparently merely a common belief of scientists.

The laws of conservation of matter and conservation of energy were fundamental laws of physics in 1900. Since then, we've learned energy and matter are equivalent. Now we have the law of conservation of matter and energy. Physicists didn't know about anti-matter until the late 1920s. — T Clark

The boundaries of this conversation are weird and vague. What makes something a "presupposition of physics"? Is discovering something true, and then writing it in your physics notes, and then it being taught in phyiscs classrooms, a "presupposition"? That's certainly not how I'd use the term. Is every individual thing physcists thought were true supposed to be a "presupposition"? Is that how you're using the word? Yes, physicists thought it was true that matter and energy are conserved. I don't think that's sufficient to call it a "presupposition".

I actually think that's the most important thing here - for you to define exactly what you mean when you call this things presuppositions of science, or physics, or newtonian physics or whatever the boundaries of this conversation are. To me, it means "someone cannot participate in the social endeavour we call Physics without assuming these things to be literally true". But... can't they? I just don't know about that. I think you're overthinking what physics is about. They're just looking at how stuff moves and behaves and trying to figure out the patterns of it, and a bit more ambitiously, hopefully trying to figure out "why", whatever that means. Do you have to assume all that crap is literally true to notice and try to figure out these patterns? I just don't think so.

Energy is a number, not a substance.

Energy is a number, not a substance. — frank

The amount of energy is a number, but so is the amount of matter. Energy and matter are just two phases of the same substance like ice, steam, and water.

The amount of energy is a number, but so is the amount of matter. Energy and matter are just two phases of the same substance like ice, steam, and water. — T Clark

I think if you look into it further, you'll discover that I'm right. Energy is a scalar number that measures the capacity of a system to do work. There's an awesome Spacetime video in which Dr O'Dowd explains it really well. I've posted that video three times so far on this forum. But you can also discover the information elsewhere. :grin:

I think if you look into it further, you'll discover that I'm right. Energy is a scalar number that measures the capacity of a system to do work. There's an awesome Spacetime video in which Dr O'Dowd explains it really well. I've posted that video three times so far on this forum. But you can also discover the information elsewhere. :grin: — frank

I wrote a bunch of stuff about different principles in the OP. This particular one is just a small portion of what I’m interested in here and not a central one. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on all the presuppositions I identified.

I wrote a bunch of stuff about different principles in the OP. This particular one is just a small portion of what I’m interested in here and not a central one. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on all the presuppositions I identified. — T Clark

I just thought maybe you'd want to get a correct understanding of the scientific views you're discussing.

I just thought maybe you'd want to get a correct understanding of the scientific views you're discussing. — frank

You think I’m wrong. I think I’m right. I think I’m probably as good as judge of this as you are. I’m comfortable with my understanding.

I’m comfortable with my understanding. — T Clark

Ok. It's odd that you're not even willing to look into it.

My purpose in starting this discussion is 1) to discuss the specific presuppositions described and 2) to see how other people see these kinds of presuppositions fitting into their own understanding of how the world works. — T Clark

The problem with those presuppositions is that denying them, and asserting the opposites doesn't necessarily result in contradiction.

That doesn't make it a presupposition though. That just makes it a practical reality. It's a practical reality that we have access to physical objects, can smash them into each other, and so it's a practical reality that if we want to predict the future of the world we live in, we can only do so using the stuff we have access to. — flannel jesus

An absolute presupposition is an assumption. You can't really establish whether it's true or false empirically. It's a way of looking at things that allows a particular way of thinking to proceed. In order to do physics as it was done in 1900, you need to observe and measure things. You can't do physics on things you can't see or measure. To overstate the case, in order to do physics you have to be a materialist. So...Yes, that does make it an absolute presupposition.

To say physics presupposes all their is is matter, is like saying botany presupposes that all there are are plants. I mean ffs Newton himself wasn't a materialist. — flannel jesus

To be nitpicky and clear, it doesn't say all there is is matter, it says all there is is matter and energy. This represents physicalism, materialism. That's all physics as it is generally formulated can study. I'm not saying this is something good. Many people think this kind of physics is limited and misleading.

In like manner, plants and related phenomena are all botany can study.

That's not a support of the presupposition claim you made, — flannel jesus

Yes, I think it is. As I wrote previously for the presupposition of physicality, "In order for science to be useful, you have to be able to abstract a general feature of behavior." In 1900, at the broadest scale, that was expressed as physical laws of nature.

whatever "law" may ontological mean, but you need not pressuppose EVERYTHING is lawful. — flannel jesus

As I noted, you need to presuppose everything you want to study or explain can be expressed by abstracting general features of reality. One way of doing that is by postulating laws of nature.

You'd have to define "law" first. — flannel jesus

Here's what I wrote previously.

All a principle or law is is a generalization of a regularity in the results of observations and measurements. In order for science to be useful, you have to be able to abstract a general feature of behavior. Otherwise, all you can do is talk about specific instances of phenomena. Again--It's something you can't do physics without. — T Clark

In order to call something a law of nature, it would have to represent a generalization at the highest level of abstraction.

Okay, well this one's too weak to even argue about then. Not a presupposition of science, apparently merely a common belief of scientists. — flannel jesus

No. It's a presupposition physicists have to make in order to study the physical world in a way that can be called science as it is currently understood.

I actually think that's the most important thing here - for you to define exactly what you mean when you call this things presuppositions of science, or physics, or newtonian physics or whatever the boundaries of this conversation are. To me, it means "someone cannot participate in the social endeavour we call Physics without assuming these things to be literally true". — flannel jesus

As indicated previously, "absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality." This is what R.G. Collingwood says about them--"[An absolute presupposition] is a thing we take for granted in [our thinking]. We don’t question it. We don’t try to verify it. It isn’t a thing anybody has discovered, like microbes or the circulation of the blood. It is a thing we just take for granted."

Do you have to assume all that crap is literally true to notice and try to figure out these patterns? — flannel jesus

I recognize you don't agree with my position, which is fine, but if you're not going to take it seriously--and recognize I take it seriously--let's end this discussion now.

Interesting idea for a thread. I’ve never been a science or math guy, so I don’t have strong views on these.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans. — T Clark

I don’t know about the others, but this one has often interested me. This statement seems to capture what I see as the foundational metaphysical assumption of science: that there is an objective reality which humans can understand.

We take science to reveal consistent patterns across observers, but do these patterns tell us about reality itself, or only about the ways humans organize and interpret our experiences?

I don’t know about the others, but this one has often interested me. This statement seems to capture what I see as the foundational metaphysical assumption of science: that there is an objective reality which humans can understand. — Tom Storm

I have taken the position in the past that objective reality is an absolute presupposition of a materialist ontology. I think that is reflected in the absolute presuppositions of physics I have included.

do these patterns tell us about reality itself, or only about the ways humans organize and interpret our experiences? — Tom Storm

This is a really good way of putting it. I think the two choices you’ve given us above are absolute presuppositions of two different metaphysical approaches which have different understandings of what “reality” means. Either can be useful, depending on the context. We probably need the first in order to do physics. I’m not exactly sure about that.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans. — T Clark

Did they really think there was nothing that couldn't eventually be understood? Or does it only mean 'partially understood' or 'sufficiently understood'?

[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.

Pre-20th century, sure, but also post renaissance.

[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.

Norton's dome illustrates that 19 century (classical) physics is a-causal, but Norton's dome wasn't known until the 20th century, so I'm inclined to agree with this.

[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.

Was this never challenged? It being false is a nice retort to say Zeno's attempts to drive a continuous universe to absurdity.

Your 11-14 seem to require discarding some of the previous presumptions. Less so with 15-19, but still not compatible with 1-10.

Come to think of it... don't matter and antimatter destroy each other? — flannel jesus

Don't think there was antimatter pre-20th century.

Have you literally never heard of spacetime?

Not coined until 19-something. Not really considered before then, although the block universe was considered, but the time axis was fixed until relativity showed that the geometry wasn't Euclidean.

Energy is a scalar number that measures the capacity of a system to do work. — frank

Sort of. Entropy is a measure of energy that has no capacity to do work. Heat for instance cannot do work unless there is a place of less heat to flow into.

The amount of energy is a number, but so is the amount of matter. Energy and matter are just two phases of the same substance like ice, steam, and water. — T Clark

The amount of energy is frame dependent. Matter wasn't back then. Nobody suggested that the two were interchangeable. Matter was conserved. I think energy in the universe (which consisted of what? Us and those other light points, the nature of which wasn't understood back then) was conserved. This is no longer the case.
As to what energy is, yea, it's something sort of conserved, kind of like momentum, but few suggest that the universe is just matter an momentum.

Plenty of scientists do science just fine while also presupposing physical substances AREN'T the only things that exist. — flannel jesus

I have to agree with this. It isn't an unstated supposition, but I don't have a lot of examples of non-material things being investigated via the scientific method. Some, but not many.

You can't do physics on things you can't see or measure. — T Clark

Dark matter cannot be seen or measured, but it affects stuff that can be measured.
Of course, shift one's language usage a bit and the moon also cannot be seen or measured. All we see is light, presumed to come from this not directly neasurable thing we posit is the moon. So in a way, dark matter is just as measurable as is the moon, known indirectly by something we can measure.
I'm not trying to be contradictory, but only pointing out that any successful investigation of some immaterial (or non-mathematical) phenomena is eligible to be labeled science.

I have taken the position in the past that objective reality is an absolute presupposition of a materialist ontology. I think that is reflected in the absolute presuppositions of physics I have included. — T Clark

But it's not objective. It's subjective, and we tend to confine our assumptions to what we observe. The laws is the OP concern this universe, not 'the universe' since there's no evidence that this one is objectively special, only subjectively special since it's the one we observe.

Did they really think there was nothing that couldn't eventually be understood? Or does it only mean 'partially understood' or 'sufficiently understood'? — noAxioms

Keeping in mind, I’ve set these up as the absolute presuppositions of classical physics—If it can’t be understood, there’s no point in studying it, so there’s no point in physics.

Pre-20th century, sure, but also post renaissance. — noAxioms

The way I’ve set up this issue, the absolute presuppositions I’ve identified represent the basis of physics between about 1600 and 1900–Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Norton's dome — noAxioms

I’m not familiar with this concept. I looked it up briefly, but I’ll have to look at it more thoroughly later.

Was this never challenged? It being false is a nice retort to say Zeno's attempts to drive a continuous universe to absurdity. — noAxioms

I’m sure there were people who didn’t agree with it, but as I noted, absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false. They have or don’t have what Collingwood called “logical efficacy” and what I call “usefulness.”

Your 11-14 seem to require discarding some of the previous presumptions. Less so with 15-19, but still not compatible with 1-10. — noAxioms

As I noted, I put together the list with items one through 10 in a discussion here on the forum about four years ago. Items 11 through 14 represent my interpretation of EA Burtt’s understanding of the absolute presuppositions of scholastic science before 1600. Items 15 through 19 represent my interpretation of his understanding of the absolute presuppositions developed in the 1600s by Newton and others. All in alI I thought they matched reasonably well, although certainly not perfectly.

The amount of energy is frame dependent. Matter wasn't back then. Nobody suggested that the two were interchangeable. — noAxioms

Good point. An anachronism.

Dark matter cannot be seen or measured, but it affects stuff that can be measured. — noAxioms

Dark matter can be seen indirectly. That’s also true of much of what physics deals with today. Electrons also cannot be seen or measured directly.

But it's not objective. It's subjective — noAxioms

You have provided your own understanding, your own absolute presupposition. As I’ve noted absolute presuppositions are not true or false, they either have logical efficacy or they don’t. That depends on context.

…
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature …
— T Clark

The question that jumps out at me is: are the mathematical laws themselves physical, and, if so, how? I don’t expect an answer to that, as there isn’t one, so far as I know. But it makes a point about an inherent contradiction in physicalism.

Another question is about your understanding of ‘formal and final causation’. These are of course part of Aristotelian philosophy, generally deprecated after Galileo, but are making something of a comeback in biological sciences. This is because of the somewhat obvious fact that organisms are generally goal-directed in their activities.