Right you are.

We've been under the same impression around here. Except some of us would not think that physics can explain the "why" at all, flaws or no flaws. In fact, some of us believe that there is no satisfying answer to the "Why"... some of us think it's a fallacious question.

Hi

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Interesting tag you have .
Does it imply God/s could be a Factor affecting physical Reality?

Physics seems flawed to me in ways. It seems axiomatic that laws can't change because identical objects act identically. If they didn't physics would be impossible. But what we are measuring is questionable. Are we really measuring a multiverse? When laws seem to change, are the true laws coming to the front of a filter? Also, if you have Newtons laws and say they were 75% sure they were accurate, and then have Einstein's and say it's 95% possible it's accurate, is it really at 95% considering that the 75% guess was wrong? Physicists get excited by new theories but don't consider this

"Classical" model of physics ... a reliable reflection of "Activity" within the larger "Reality" we all inhabit AND a faithful guide to understanding and problem solving "change" in the "real" world.

Classical physics works well to solve problems in the world of physical reality of space and motion created just for that purpose. But how can that be extended into our daily lives?

Hi thanks for the comment.

I think you are right to question what is being measured. Experience shows me that tolerance exists with all measurements and all components. I am not convinced of the multiverse concept.

Interesting tag you have .
Does it imply God/s could be a Factor affecting physical Reality? — Chris1952Engineer

Thanks for asking. No, it does not imply that.

Do you find materialism satisfying? I like it but if it's not your cup of tea there is much in philosophy, religion, and spirituality to consider

The reason I chose my moniker was this following mental exercise I have made up:

God must be an atheist because to be a theist, one must have faith in a god. Faith excludes knowledge. But god does have knowledge of his own existence (Cogito Ergo Sum). Therefore he lacks faith in himself, as he has knowledge of himself. Those who lack faith in a god are atheists. Since god lacks faith in himself, he fits the definition of an atheist.

Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists, I seem to recall stated that physics could never say why nature behaves as it does, only how.

Not flawed; just incomplete.

You might be thinking of the well-known Heisenberg quote: 'We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.'

First off, I don't get the analogy of a mirror unless you're trying to understand yourself, by which I mean both consciousness itself and its uniqueness as you, through physics.

Second, physics, all of science in fact, is not in the business of answering why questions of the kind that seeks a reason for the way things are. Why questions in science stop at descriptions of the way things are.

It seems the question why? comes in at least two varieties. One is of the type "why things are the way they are?" and the other is of the type "how things are?". As far as I can tell, science answers the second type of why questions and, for better or worse, like it or not, knowing "how things are?" serves as a jumping board to answering "why things are the way they are?" that are downstream as in subsequent to "how things are?".

It appears that I've made a boo-boo. It's actually like this: science's raison d'etre is to describe how things are but knowing that gives us a platform of sorts to answer why things are the way they are?, questions that assume a definitive form downstream from how things are.

However, if one asks why? of the scientific descriptions of how things are themselves, we're met with a wall of silence.

To illustrate, physics has a very good description of gravity in Newtonian terms i.e. physicists have knowledge of how things are in re gravity but ask physicists the question "why gravity exists in the first place?" and they have no ready answer.

If it's all the same to you or anyone else for that matter, I'd like some feedback on what I just said. Anyone?

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘ — Wayfarer

:up: Will get back to you. Thanks

However since retiring I have had time to consider other models such as "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics" and find myself increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Physics is a flawed mirror. One that we need to understand before we can move on and be at peace with both Science and ourselves. — Chris1952Engineer

There is clearly a fundamental flaw in one of the foundational propositions of modern physics, Newton's first law. This law, the law of inertia, states a taking for granted of the temporal continuity of physical existence. An external force is required to change the internal constitution of a physical object. But if we desire to account for the reality of free willing human beings, we need to repeal this law and consider the opposite condition, that a force is required to maintain the temporal continuity of physical existence. In theology, this force which maintains temporal continuity is known as the Will of God. In understanding the need to assume the reality of this force to account for the temporal continuity of physical existence, we can understand that the temporal continuity described as inertia, is the result of an active internal force, rather than something passive requiring an external force to interfere. This accounts for the observed fact that true change comes from within.

In reality, the temporal continuity which is described by the law of inertia, and which we have come to take for granted as a brute fact, through the acceptance of this law, is not a demonstrable necessity. Therefore the temporal continuity of physical existence which we know and observe ought to be considered as a contingency. It is contingent on the internal force, inhering within every physical body, which maintains the coherency of that body. Until we replace the law of inertia with a proper understanding of this internal force (The Will of God), which acts consistently through the passage of time to maintain the coherency of physical existence, physics will always be fundamentally flawed.

Classical physics works well to solve problems in the world of physical reality of space and motion — magritte

Hi Margarite

Exactly. This makes it the only one of the 3 models/ScientificTheories offered by Physics that directly applies to "our daily lives". The other two are specialist theories that relate to the behaviour of light and sub-atomic particles.

how can that be extended into our daily lives? — magritte

We can create a Visual "Black Box Model" that illustrates HOW Form defines function through the "electroMechanical" properties of reatance, "reluctance" and "Resistance" to produce "The larger Reality we all Inhabit, act upon and seek to Control".

It is well known that "A picture is worth a thousand words". After using the p/+P-\properties R, XC and XL to repair, service and occasionally design "electroMechanical" Systems for so many years I believe I may be able to supply one.

The problem is how to validate it because "Science" has it own method/Rationale.
The only answer seems to Socratic Debate and validation through general discussion.

Ideas?
Comments?
Do you think it is even possible to get to a unified physical model?

Anyway: Thank you for your insight. Look after you and yours, I'm of to do the same for a while.

Looking back: I do find materialism satisfying. Will explain why later today when I have tidied up.

↪jgill
You might be thinking of the well-known Heisenberg quote: 'We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.' — Wayfarer

"The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how nature works, you won't understand why nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that."

R. Feynman, QED, page 10. :cool:

:up:

Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer

Well, physics has uncovered lots of WHYs, recently including why matter has mass. But why questions always yield more why questions. It is almost inevitable that any answer to a why question will demand some physical underpinning, but it doesn't follow that physics depends on answering them. Physics is about what things are made of and how they behave.

3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer

True. That doesn't mean physics is flawed though. For physics purpose is not to explain why, but to explain what and how. I'm sure as an engineer, you understand that it is a tool for a particular job, and should not be criticized because it is the wrong tool for a different job.

Hi back. "Chores" done. Wife happy. Much easier to think when I used to disappear off to work. Not so many distractions

In the early sixties I walked into my fathers radio and TV shop to help out and discovered a whole host of new and exciting Electrical and electronic gadgets. I was fascinated by them.

I simply had to know HOW they functioned, WHAT they were made of and WHY they did what they did.

In an instant I had gained a profession that requires a Materialistic outlook. A career that would keep my future wife in a manner to which she would soon become accustomed and a job "electroMechanical engineer" that has held my interest and provided a deep sense of satisfaction up to this day and beyond in the guise of a "hobby".

It does this for me because it is a quandary at heart: It involves solving practical "real life" problems e.g. "Why has my television stopped working" and yet it requires an understanding of the purely theoretical Classical Properties of Resistance, reactance and reluctance to do it.

It is puzzle solving at it purest and deeply satisfying. Very similar to being a doctor:

Except the "patient" does not "whine" when you blow it up and you do not have to "poke and hope". Classical Physics has provided the underlying framework and properties.

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘ — Wayfarer

Permit me to do a quick recap of Aristotelian causes (the better word as per wiki is "explanation"):

The answer to why? in re a wooden table
1. Material cause: made of (wood)
2. Efficient cause: maker (carpentry)
3. Formal cause: design (table's shape, proportion, etc.)
4. Final cause: purpose (eating)

As you said, science seems to be about 1 and 2, only a little bit or not at all about 3 and definitely never about 4.

For my money, science doesn't answer a particular variety of why questions, ones that ask for an explanation for why scientific descriptive laws are the way they are. To reiterate, the scientific descriptions of gravity, how it works, is accurate to, if memory serves, to the 12th decimal place. However, ask scientists, "why there's gravity?" and they're as stumped as we are. FYI, Einstein managed to answer that question - mass causes space to curve but that doesn't help at all since the next question is "why does mass cause space to curve?". I gather even Einstein had no answer to that question.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in such questions because take the scenario in which an observation Z is given a scientific description Y. We could ask, "why Y?" and that would prompt scientists to explain Y with X but then we can ask, "why X?" and scientists would've to come up with an explanation W for X which would prompt the question, "why W?", so on ad infinitum. At some point scientists would have to put their feet down so to speak and say "no more why questions"!!

Thanks. :up:

Yes, science does not explain why reality is what it is. Science is a description of reality: A causes B, if x then y, etc. Like looking at a landscape and describing it. It doesn't really explain any more than primitive relationships between things.

Looking at the above conversation, man's need to create a branch of thought which is not science, and which endeavours to learn the purpose of physical laws screams at the reader. "Why is gravity a good thing? Is it a good thing in the first place? Why should we accept gravity as presented, and not protest to have it a different way? What is morally good about Laplasse's equation, and why is PV/T = pv/t an evil phenomena? why are we doing physics research into QM, when the whole thing could be so much easier to decide by plebisite?" (SP)

Faith excludes knowledge — god must be atheist

Hi again.

I would argue that faith does not exclude knowledge.
It is simply a different form of knowledge:

Real Life experience stored as memes and "intuitive" Learned Response. individual reality" that is ultimately tested across generations and social structures through Socratic method and Darwinian survival to create "Wisdom".

Thank you for the insight your individual reality and mental exercise have provided. Look after you and yours. Regards Chris

What hasn’t been mentioned is the role that physics has assumed as paradigmatic for science generally. The ‘Laws of Physics’, said Whitehead, assumed the role accorded to the ‘inexorable decrees of Fate’ by Greek drama, in modern thought.

What physics offers is unprecedented clarity, certainty and control with respect to the objects of its analysis. When Newton’s Principia were published, it was if mankind had suddenly learned the ‘levers of the Universe’. Of course those principles were superseded or subsumed by the discovery of relativity but the fact remains they were the beginning of the ‘universal science’. Hence the influence of physicalism in modern culture and the phenomenon of ‘physics envy’ which is the desire for other scientific disciplines to attain the same level of clarity and certainty as physics.

For my money, science doesn't answer a particular variety of why questions, ones that ask for an explanation for why scientific descriptive laws are the way they are. — TheMadFool

There’s an important distinction to be made between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The former is simply the judicious assumption to leave aside, or bracket out, factors which are not reasonably in scope for scientific method. And there are many such factors. But methodological naturalism morphs into metaphysical naturalism when those methodological assumptions are treated as ‘statements about reality’. That is why physicalism can be compared to a ‘Procrustean bed’ (Procrustes being a mythological Greek bandit who would stretch or squeeze hapless travellers into his iron bed.)

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, has a kind of Socratic modesty - it doesn’t make assumptions beyond its warrant or make statements beyond its domain. But you don’t see a lot of that. Rather the spirit of science nowadays is Promethean rather than Socratic; having displaced God, we now want to replace him. (A journalist once asked Craig Venter, synthesiser of DNA, whether he was concerned by the accusation that scientists like himself were ‘playing God’. ‘We’re not playing’, was the response - with a wink, I suspect, but still...)

physics has assumed as paradigmatic for science generally. — Wayfarer

`
It shows in my posts and probably in those of other members.

What physics offers is unprecedented clarity, certainty and control with respect to the objects of its analysis. — Wayfarer

This is why.

Hence the influence of physicalism in modern culture and the phenomenon of ‘physics envy’ which is the desire for other scientific disciplines to attain the same level of clarity and certainty as physics. — Wayfarer

This seems inevitable given what you said but, on analysis, seems like a Zohnerism.

In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion". — Wikipedia

Dihydrogen Monoxide Parody

I mean to become a adherent of physicalism just because physics in particular and science in general is highly accurate in its predictions is like thinking the best sharpshooter in the army has the answer to every conceivable question. Bad analogy? I don't know. Just saying.

There’s an important distinction to be made between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The former is simply the judicious assumption to leave aside, or bracket out, factors which are not reasonably in scope for scientific method. — Wayfarer

A wise decision - avoids controversies which might otherwise distract and no useful scientific work will ever get done.

But methodological naturalism morphs into metaphysical naturalism when those methodological assumptions are treated as ‘statements about reality’. That is why physicalism can be compared to a ‘Procrustean bed’ (Procrustes being a mythological Greek bandit who would stretch or squeeze hapless travellers into his iron bed.) — Wayfarer

Do you have any examples, instances, of the "travellers" that don't fit in physicalism's Procrustes? If you have the time that is.

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, has a kind of Socratic modesty - it doesn’t make assumptions beyond its warrant or make statements beyond its domain. But you don’t see a lot of that. Rather the spirit of science nowadays is Promethean rather than Socratic; having displaced God, we now want to replace him. (A journalist once asked Craig Venter, synthesiser of DNA, whether he was concerned by the accusation that scientists like himself were ‘playing God’. ‘We’re not playing’, was the response - with a wink, I suspect, but still...) — Wayfarer

Interesting take on the issue. Thanks a ton!

Do you have any examples, instances, of the "travellers" that don't fit in physicalism's Procrustes? — TheMadFool

Non-materialists. There are many varieties.

Non-materialists. There are many varieties. — Wayfarer

You seem like a non-materialist. Why? Was/is there anything that led you down that path?