Does logic have a place in science? You must answer this as “yes”. You have to then say that there are many things in science that defy logic. As soon as you propose something logical that contradicts something in science that defies logic you can expect to hear that the universe doesn’t care what you think is logical. However, often it is different branches of science that contradict each other. In that case you have to say something like General Relativity doesn’t care what Quantum Mechanics says is logical. I maintain (for purposes of getting a discussion going) that physics is completely logical and if a theory defies logic it is either wrong or it predicts or at least requires some physics that is operating but is misunderstood, unexplained, or undetected. This includes General Relativity and the singularity, Big Bang Theory that lacks a cause of expansion, Classical Quantum Gravity that fails in the Planck regime, Quantum Theory that gives us a goofy cosmological constant, and all of my ideas that require new physics.
Logic (part of the trivium) and science (part of the quadrivium) both comprise the liberal arts. However both logic and science, like metaphysics and religion, rely upon first principles that cannot be demonstrated. In logic they are called major premises. In geometry they are called definitions, postulates, and common notions. And in science they are called hypotheses. Bertrand Russell writes in Our Knowledge of the External World: Saying something is logical doesn't really mean all that much because in logic there are always assumptions (major premises, the "if" part of if/then).
You defy logic when you talk like that. Physics is completely logical; hypothesis, test, falsified or proved. That is what science is about. It is not like any other endeavor and operates on a set of rules that are invariant. Logic means everything in physics. I did like your quote from Bertrand Russell though. It reminds me of the difference between realism where the real world out there (RWOT) must exist independently of us, and the techniques of Quantum Mechanics Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! where measurements become part of what is observed.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!:shrug: So? In terms of using logic, physics is exactly the same as geometry or metaphysics. Not really. Logic is just a tool of physics. Logic is worthless without a hypothesis or premise. And you don't arrive at premises or hypotheses using logic because first principles cannot be demonstrated. "There are some people who expect even this to be demonstrated, but on account of lack of education, for it is a lack of education not to know of what one ought to seek a demonstration and of what one ought not. For it is impossible that there be a demonstration of absolutely everything (since one would go on to infinity, so that not even so would there be a demonstration), and if there are certain things of which one ought not to seek a demonstration, these people are not able to say what they think would be of that kind more than would such a principle. But even about this there are ways to demonstrate that it is impossible by means of refutation, if only the one disputing it says something; if he says nothing, it is absurd to seek an argument to meet someone who has no argument, insofar as he has none, for such a person, insofar as he is such, is from that point on like a plant." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1006a
Quantum Wave: No it doesn't. Science is empirical. Logic is analytic. The only thing is that scientific theory cannot contradict itself, as contradictions are immediatly wrong. Thus the Laws of Thought have a metaphysical priority to pretty much everything.
First principles demonstrate themselves. For example the universe has always existed, no cause necessary. The universe consists of energy so everything in it is composed of energy. Matter exists because there is too much energy, i.e. the energy density of the universe forces a certain proportion to take the form of matter and the rest spends its time equalizing its density across the background. All self demonstrating first causes; all logical.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!oke:
Exactly! It is all very logical. There is empiricism which precedes logic. Logic is the stimulus; how does what we see make sense.
That is also true but that is also why the scientists keep investigating the things that do "defy logic".
And thank God for that because without scientists applying the scientific method to their work we would be taking two steps forward and one step back all the time. Oh wait, that is happening anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I am saying that there is pure logic in the scientific method and though other endeavors may claim to be just as disciplined, science is not science without the application of the method. The method is pure logic and science is therefore logical. Like you say, the things that defy logic stimulate further science. In science the best answers are provided but are often not the right answers, and almost always are not the final answer. Therefore, as you point out, the process in ongoing.
Quantum Wave: No. No empiricism predates logic in the Laws of Thought. But science is primarily empirical.
Yes, I must concede that when it comes to the very fundamentals of science you are correct. The method is logical but it is preceded by empiricism :worship:.
If you think you can demonstrate that you probably also believe hydrocarbons come from decaying dinosaurs. http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html
My policy is to never come right out and say I disagree with Hawking. So :shh:, there were preconditions to the big bang and the cause of the current expansion came from the preconditions. As for the source of oil, I will read some of your links and I am open to your conclusion. I have subscribed to that thread.
There are many unanswered questions in physics, and it's well known that there's a conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That's why scientists are seeking to replace these two theories with a single unified theory that incorporates features from both models. It's also hoped that having such a unified theory would also answer some of the mysteries we're currently investigating. What's so new about this?
How are you going to prove that any of these things are self-evident truths? What logical contradiction is there in a universe existing for only a finite amount of time? If, for instance, I postulate a universe in which time is cyclical, then there's no need to postulate a beginning. Or I can postulate that causality is irrelevant without time, therefore there need not be anything "before" the Big Bang, at least from pure logical principles. Causality is not a fundamental principle of logic, it's an assumption we make as human beings based on everyday experience.
You are on top of you GTR and QM, and being a physics grad student I am pleased to make your acquaintance. I hope you will critique my speculations which is why I found Pseudoscience Forum here at SciForums. There isn't anything new about the need to combine GR and Quantum theory to solve the problem of quantum gravity. I look forward to the day. Maybe you will be involved. This thread serves several purposes. I wanted to get to know a few people here, I wanted to get my 20 posts so that I can use several other features of the forum, and I wanted to get my foot in the water as to presenting my pseudoscience ideas just like others so here.
That is very logical Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. What I do is not science and I don't employ the scientific method because it doesn't apply to speculation. I speculate. Though I maintain that speculation has a role in science I don't pretend to be doing science when I speculate. We've all heard about the blue unicorns or the green meanies that leave a trail of multiverses as they wind their way across the cosmos (or maybe not Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Your suggestions for possible postulations are more reasonable than that of course. The cyclical idea has a major shortcoming in that is seems inevitable that there would be some energy loss with each cycle and at some point there wouldn't be enough energy to pull off the next cycle. The result would be complete entropy if that were the case. The time issue is fine to postulate when finding comfort with the big bang. Usually the time issue is invoked like that when the zero volume infinitely dense point singularity is being postulated. One of my speculations, and more than an idle speculation, is that nothing can be infinitely dense. I just insist on that in my personal cosmology as a primary speculation and so I don't backtrack GR all the way back to the zero volume infinitely dense point. My technique for speculating does have rules though they aren't as clear cut as the scientific method itself. My rules for speculation require that they be reasonable and responsible. When I post a speculation I will identify it as such as I present it to the community for review. If anyone takes exception and has an alternative speculation or better yet knows of a theory that is already peer reviewed I will consider it. If it changes my speculation I post the revised speculation or accept the theory in place of it. I also speculate in tiny steps. One speculation leads to another in a logical fashion based on my logic. When I post the step by step speculation they are there for review by the community and I use any input to improve the logic. After awhile I am able to get pretty far into a speculative cosmology that uses reviewed responsible and reasonable speculation in a step by step fashion. Please check out my (future) threads and keep in mind that I am speculating about things that science does not yet have the answer.
