Physics and reality Einstein, Albert Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 221, p. 349-382 Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, and whose basis cannot be obtained through distillation by any inductive method from the experiences lived through, but which can only be attained by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the proof of usefulness of the resulting theorems on the basis of sense experiences, where the relations of the latter to the former can only be comprehended intuitively. Evolution is going on in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis. In order further to approach this goal, we must make up our mind to accept the fact that the logical basis departs more and more from the facts of experience, and that the path of our thought from the fundamental basis to these resulting theorems, which correlate with sense experiences, becomes continually harder and longer. Our aim has been to sketch, as briefly as possible, the development of the fundamental concepts in their dependence upon the facts of experience and upon the strife towards the goal of internal perfection of the system. Today's state of affairs had to be illuminated by these considerations, as they appear to me. (It is unavoidable that historic schematic representation is of a personal color.) I try to demonstrate how the concepts of bodily objects, space, subjective and objective time, are connected with one another and with the nature of the experience. In classical mechanics the concepts of space and time become independent. The concept of the bodily object is replaced in the foundations by the concept of the material point, by which means mechanics becomes fundamentally atomistic. Light and electricity produce insurmountable difficulties when one attempts to make mechanics the basis of all physics. We are thus led to the field theory of electricity, and, later on to the attempt to base physics entirely upon the concept of the field (after an attempted compromise with classical mechanics). This attempt leads to the theory of relativity (evolution of the notion of space and time into that of the continuum with metric structure). I try to demonstrate, furthermore, why in my opinion the quantum theory does not seem likely to be able to produce a usable foundation for physics: one becomes involved in contradictions if one tries to consider the theoretical quantum description as a complete description of the individual physical system or happening. On the other hand, up to the present time, the field theory is unable to give an explanation of the molecular structure of matter and of quantum phenomena. It is shown, however, that the conviction to the effect that the field theory is unable to give, by its methods, a solution of these problems rests upon prejudice. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1936FrInJ.221..349E Does this spell the end of an observer-dependent reality where the wave-particle duality of Quantum Mechanics gets thrown out the window for a more usable system that agrees with experience? Or am I wrong to say that the observer-dependent reality does not agree with experience? I am merely basing this thought on the above article. Also, another question, how are the laws of nature as a language built into reality and can they evolve along with everything else?
I don't think I understand your second question but as to your first, Einstein didn't like the implications of QM it is true, but as far as I know the jury is still out as to whether his instinct will eventually be shown correct, or whether QM will stick around in the form it is in. I gather the Hidden Variable people are hoping to get rid of quantum indeterminacy, but so far this seems to be without success.
Why in the world are you attempting to RE-RAISE a question that was posed nearly 80 years ago?????? All that I can imagine is that it means you do not understand SR/GR nor even have a basic idea of how to approach QM.
Thank you. As to the second question, another way to think about it is that without Physics there would be no reality. And without reality there would be no Physics. Every law, every process, is due to there being a reality by which it belies.
Physics is, as a natural science, the study of the nature of reality, and is therefore certainly not reality itself. Reality is, and perhaps always will be, greater in scope and/or potentially somewhat different than what the sum of our scientific knowledge might suggest.
Well hang on. To say without reality there would be no physics is trivially obvious, surely. But the converse, without physics the would be no reality is untrue, surely. Surely "Physics" is the name we give to the discipline in natural science by which mankind models aspects of the physical world, in order to understand it better. There was no physics in the Cretaceous. As to 'laws" in physics, these are nearly always named after specific people who proposed them. So they too are invented by Man. BUT, the underlying ORDER in the universe that these laws attempt to encapsulate IS a feature of physical reality. This may seem a pedantic distinction, but in the history of science many "laws" have either been overturned, or shown to be approximations that only hold in certain circumstances, or subsets of a more general principle, or otherwise incomplete. So I take the views that "laws" in science are parts of the models of reality we make. These models are provisional, because they are aways subject to the possibility of change in the light of fresh observations of the world.
I always thought that Physics was more than just the study of the nature of reality but actual phenomenon occurring in it. So am I wrong?
You can always re-ask your question but replace physics with the description of what you thought it meant, chances are though, you'll find yourself answering your own question immediately.
This might be confusing physicalism with physicSalism. The former should be about generalizations that qualify the world as being physical, leaving it incomplete or open to future development as to what specific properties can (and can not) be subsumed under those broad characteristics. It should not be a claim that reality is entirely dependent upon what a single field of study [physics] has already outputted or will output. Whereas physicSalism [according to the distinction that Galen Strawson makes between the two] is "the view that the nature or essence of all concrete reality can in principle be fully captured in the terms of physics [alone]". The consequence of that formal or informal doctrine has been: "Because experiential phenomena cannot be emergent from [the] wholly non-experiential phenomena [which this stance attributes to matter], philosophers are driven to substance dualism, property dualism, eliminative materialism and 'all other crazy attempts at wholesale mental-to-non-mental reduction'". Strawson: "It is the obligatory starting point for any theory that can legitimately claim to be 'naturalistic' because experience is itself the fundamental given natural fact; it is a very old point that there is nothing more certain than the existence of experience." I.E., the alternative of "nothingness" would lack evidence that even inferential processes were transpiring which were producing some kind of non-empirical, intellectual version of evidence for the natural world.
Those generalizations may only describe part of reality, but it still is reality, in part anyways. That is what I meant by the title. PhysicSalism is interesting and may be on the money but I meant the title as saying that Physics is legitimately a part of reality as anything else.
One of the practical problems I have with theoretical physics of reality, is that most of these theories about the fundamentals of reality, don't interface very well with the preponderance of all the scientific data we have about physical reality. Most of the science data is connected to chemistry not physics. For example, how do quarks or strings make chemical reactions and the physical states of matter possible? These reactions, states and phases represent 1000 times more data than the quarks and maybe 1000000 times more data than the strings. Yet the 0.1% is called the answer even when it does not interface the 99.99%. It is like looking at a huge crowd of people and basing the theory of the crowd on something that does not interface anyone in the crowd. Ironically, all the tools of physics, that generate physics data, make use of the tangible physical chemical states of matter (preponderance of the data) for everything from materials, wires, silicon chips, monitor screens, to magnetics. We don't see a device that uses only quarks or strings to run any experiment, yet this by-product of matter is called the basis for matter. It almost seems like a magic trick, where you create an illusion, like levitation, using the tangible matter of old fashion physics and chemistry, with the illusion data only appearing near the magic apparatus; collider. If it appears outside that it is rare yet called the rule and not the exception. Physical chemistry is the physics of old, during Einstein, and is the limit where modern physics stays in touch with the preponderance of hard data. This connection is associated with all the tools. No tools of physics are fabricated beyond the physical chemical. Fake stuff does not make good tools.
The grand total of your contributions to these forums, across all of your numerous sockpuppets, amount to this: reality is reality. Very profound Logic101. Positively astonishing. I stand enlightened.
Appears to whom? Not to me. As I've explained in my previous post. And not to Rav, either. And not to cornel, it seems. So for you to restate this contention, in the face of three dissenting replies, you should now tell us why you are sticking to it, shouldn't you?
You know that's not true. Thanks to JamesR I was given another chance and I defined what a "self" is. I defined what consciousness is like. I defined "evil". I defined "Chaos". I imparted a new field of science. I helped unify science and spirituality. I took subjectivity to whole other level. What are some of your contributions?
The reason I am sticking to it, though I am open to other perspectives, is because I read a paper on the Physics of reality and I reached the conclusion that Physics is a feature of reality and therefore can be considered a reality in itself.
Well, that means either your contributions, or those made by others in the subsequent discussion, are thought to be illuminating. Which is great. But listen, if you want this thread to get star rating, you need to go beyond simply restating an initial position others have disagreed with. We have given reasons why we do not agree. Can you explain why it is you do not find these responses persuasive to you? That might be interesting to know, as we would gain insight into how you are thinking.
Basketweaving is more than just a field of study. It is something that occurs in reality. Once we've established that physics is the study of nature and its laws, then it's OK to say to use the word in other contexts, such "the physics of the moon, the Earth and the tides demonstrate conservation of energy".
