• universeness
    6.3k
    Descriptive internet quote about bootstrap philosophy:
    "The bootstrap philosophy originated by Geoffrey Chew, constitutes the final rejection of the mechanistic worldview in modern physics."

    Goeffrey Chew was a physics professor who died 3 years ago aged 94. From Wiki:
    "Chew was known as a leader of the S-matrix approach to the strong interaction and the associated bootstrap principle, a theory whose popularity peaked in the 1960s when he led an influential theory group at the University of California, Berkeley. S-matrix theorists sought to understand the strong interaction by using the analytic properties of the scattering matrix to calculate the interactions of bound-states without assuming that there is a point-particle field theory underneath. The S-matrix approach did not provide a local space-time description. Although it was not immediately appreciated by the practitioners, it was a natural framework in which to produce a quantum theory of gravity."

    The bootstrap philosophy imo, attempts to find common ground between a metaphysical and purely physicalist model of the Universe.
    Chew's S-matrix was a forerunner that led to string theory.

    Here is a description of the bootstrap philosophy:
    Newton's universe was constructed from a set of basic entities with certain fundamental properties, which had been created by God and thus were not amenable to further analysis. In one way or another, this notion was implicit in all theories of natural science until the bootstrap hypothesis stated explicitly that the world cannot be understood as an assemblage of entities which cannot be analyzed further. In the new worldview, the universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations determines the structure of the entire web.

    Thus, the bootstrap philosophy represents the culmination of a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship, acquired its dynamic content in relativity theory, and was formulated in terms of reaction probabilities in S-matrix theory. At the same time, this view of nature came ever closer to the Eastern worldview and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter."

    “The new physics is an integral part of the new worldview that is now emerging in all the sciences and in society. The new worldview is an ecological worldview that is grounded, ultimately, in spiritual awareness. Therefore it is not surprising that the new paradigm, as it emerges in physics and in the other sciences, will be in harmony with many ideas in spiritual traditions.”

    "In the new paradigm, the relationship between the part and the whole is more symmetrical. We believe that while the properties of the parts certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole, at the same time the properties of the parts can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the whole. The whole is primary, and once you understand the dynamics of the whole, you can then derive, at least in principle, the properties and patterns of interactions of the parts. This change of the relationship between the part and the whole occurred in science first in physics, when quantum theory was developed."

    "Gradually, physicists began to realize that nature, at the atomic level, does not appear as a mechanical universe composed of fundamental building blocks, but rather as a network of relations, and that ultimately, there are no parts at all in this interconnected web. Whatever we call a part is merely a pattern that has some stability and therefore captures our attention."


    I am not personally a strong advocate of 'bootstrap philosophy' as it is described above but if it drives people like Goeffrey Chew to achieve what he achieved and it can help to create less acrimony between those who see value in metaphysics and those who don't then perhaps it's a good philosophy.
    What do you think?
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    The bootstrap was advocated by Fritjof Capra, in the Tao of physics. There was critique on his book because he didn't take the November revolution into account, which showed bootstrap "wrong". But he wasn't wrong. It's a great idea and has been send to oblivion unrightfully. But recently, it got new attention.

    It wasn't the S-matrix per se that led to string theory though (though of course in the context). It was the strong interaction, where the force was depicted by elastic strings.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    "The bootstrap philosophy abandons not only the idea of fundamental constituents of matter but accepts no fundamental entities whatsoever — no fundamental laws or equations, and not even a fundamental structure of space and time. The universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web are fundamental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations determines the structure of the entire web"

    I can see why Capra was a fan. Bears eastern philosophy. I think Rovelli likes it. Of course, this doesn't mean elementary particles and space don't exist.

    My idol, David Bohm would have liked it. Just read his holographic universe. The universal S-matrix...
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental — universeness

    Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

    EEEE
    E
    EEE
    E
    EEEE

    That's how my brain understands Chew!
  • Hillary
    1.9k


    As a matter of fact, that's exactly what's it about!
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    As a matter of fact, that's exactly what's it about!Hillary

    :nerd:
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Chew!Agent Smith

    Haha! Poor Geoffrey.... He could have known he had it coming though.

    "I Chew my boots mam. I feel trapped!"
  • universeness
    6.3k
    I think Rovelli likes it.Hillary

    I think he probably does as I think he sees time as not really having fundamental quanta.
    Many including I think Brian Cox consider gravity to be a result of interaction and not made of a fundamental quantum, such as the graviton.
    Maybe a quantum theory of gravity will prove to be unrequired after all in the correct ToE.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    EEEE
    E
    EEE
    E
    EEEE
    Agent Smith

    Little E's can make big E's but what are the little E's made of. A fundamental E?
    E's are also illegal in all night clubs in Glasgow!
  • universeness
    6.3k
    My idol, David BohmHillary

    Clever man who sadly, was often very ill and depressed. As I have stated before, I will never understand why he associated with a mystic like Jiddu Krishnamurti.
    It's like Einstein taking advice from a woo woo guru!
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    I think he probably does as I think he sees time as not really having fundamental quantauniverseness

    As he is into loop gravity, he aims for quantized time.

    Many including I think Brian Cox consider gravity to be a result of interaction and not made of a fundamental quantum, such as the graviton.universeness

    Yeah, that's the emergent gravity theory. Erik Verlinde (a weird Dutch guy not responding to any email at all...) has such a "revolutionary" view on gravity (which even got him the Spinoza prize: 2000 000 euro, no kidding! Dear mother of god, for obvious nonsense woowoo!). The theory has it the wrong way round. Its, among other things, based on the ADS/CFT correspondence and entanglement, but it's got things the wrong way round. Dark matter and dark energy are pushed in the wrong closet or better, two equal poles are pushed together.

    Gravity is just as well as the 3 basic interactions, is a means for all forms of energy to interact by coupling to virtual gravitons. The problem with gravitons is that they have to curve spacetime as well. A condensate of gravitons around or in between masses is what the masses couple to, but, contrary to the other gauge particles, the gravitons work on the metric of space (and thus time, if the speed of light is finite, too).
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Clever man who sadly, was often very ill and depressed. As I have stated before, I will never understand why he associated with a mystic like Jiddu Krishnamurti.universeness

    What on Earth has that got to do with his physics?
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    I will never understand why he associated with a mystic like Jiddu Krishnamurti.universeness

    Because your natural desire for the mystic is suppressed by the ruling powers.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    As he is into loop gravity, he aims for quantized time.Hillary

    I think his up-and-coming paper will suggest equations for loop quantum gravity that do not include a time variable. At least, that's my understanding from his most recent interviews on YouTube.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    It's like Einstein taking advice from a woo woo guru!
    12mOptions
    universeness

    My dear mother god... Why shouldn't he. Like you think, science will never progress. Pointing at the fact of not being peer-reviewed or published, and being afraid to be banned on Quora when the dogma is challenged...
  • universeness
    6.3k
    What on Earth has that got to do with his physics?Hillary

    All that you are influences all that you do!

    Because your natural desire for the mystic is suppressed by the ruling powersHillary

    No, I am just not easily duped. I am not immune but I am not lost to woo woo, like someone who is a....oh I dunno?....a polytheist!
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    All that you are influences all that you do!universeness

    Exactly! That's why you don't understand the gods or mystics. You're brainwashed by science.

    No, I am just not easily duped.universeness

    Neither am I. Especially not by science.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Why shouldn't he. Like you think, science will never progress. Pointing at the fact of not being peer-reviewed or published, and being afraid to be banned on Quora when the dogma is challenged...Hillary

    He could have but I think he chose not to waste his time. He was published and peer-reviewed.
    I don't think Einstein was ever concerned about being banned from physics media, even though his ideas were very new and quite revolutionary. They were nonetheless very plausible. I think that's what makes the difference to the established science community.
    They want to focus on the most plausible ideas which is probably why the mobius strip/klein bottle guy can't get a contract with a group like Patreon to do monthly MobiusklineScape podcasts on Youtube.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Exactly! That's why you don't understand the gods or mystics. You're brainwashed by scienceHillary

    Neither am I. Especially not by scienceHillary

    Well, I am not suggesting you are Egyptian or anything but you are certainly in DEniAl.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    All that you are influences all that you do!universeness

    So there is a Jewish science? My dear mother of gods. And dont say I put words in your mouth because that's exactly the same. Capra and Chew are the same mystics. Elementary particles don't exist? Irrational woowoo nonsense. Only interactions count? Woowoo!
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Neither am I. Especially not by science
    — Hillary

    Well, I am not suggesting you are Egyptian or anything but you are certainly in DEniAl
    universeness

    I don't deny anything. You deny the woowoo. Not me. I like woowoo science as well as gods.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    So there is a Jewish science?Hillary

    The nation and culture you are nurtured in, will affect your approach to science in many nuanced ways. Some nuances will be strengths and others weaknesses.

    Capra and Chew are the same mystics.Hillary

    Possibly true, I didn't know them personally, did you? Personally, I wouldn't label Chew a mystic, maybe Chew founded the bootstrap philosophy to try to bridge some gaps as well as view the issues of the time and the hot questions in physics at the time from 'new' angles. I don't know, hence the thread to invite the opinions of others.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Possibly true, I didn't know them personally, did you?universeness

    I know what they wrote. Mystics!
  • universeness
    6.3k
    I know what they wrote. MysticsHillary

    You are quite mystical yourself!
  • Hillary
    1.9k


    That can't be denied. But my physics is rather straight to Earth. What's mystical is the content of matter and the eternity of the gods who created this divine matter.
  • universeness
    6.3k

    I have very little interest in mysticism!
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    I have very little interest in mysticism!universeness


    I can't help you with that problem, brother Uni! I'll pray forya!
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I've hit the limits of what I know and my analytical ability. I kinda feel stupid right now. :snicker:

    Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

    :zip: You shut me up!
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Haha! Poor Geoffrey.... He could have known he had it coming though.

    "I Chew my boots mam. I feel trapped!"
    — Hillary

    :snicker: I don't get it but since you're so smart, I know it's funny! :grin:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    mysticism! — universeness

    A desperado's escape hatch! Something must give, si?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.