tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1188261285477013906..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Why are (some) physicists so bad at philosophy?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger435125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13911094181351617742023-11-18T20:41:55.815-08:002023-11-18T20:41:55.815-08:00"a physicist is a person who has spent his en..."a physicist is a person who has spent his entire career learning how matter works," This is incorrect if by "matter" you mean some sort of material stuff existing independently of our perception. Instead, I would say that physics is the discernment of rules governing our perceptions. In basic high school science they teach independent, material, "matter" made of little particles like marbles. To university physics majors they taught us the mathematical functions and equations that predict our sensations. Belief in "matter" is just that--belief. Many physicists, including myself, do not believe in matter in the sense that a materialist does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21791383631404057612022-01-05T19:23:33.322-08:002022-01-05T19:23:33.322-08:00Feser misrepresented the phycisit.Feser misrepresented the phycisit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71878113767256271022020-08-22T18:42:55.234-07:002020-08-22T18:42:55.234-07:00When I was an undergraduate at the State Universit...When I was an undergraduate at the State University of New York at Albany, my professor of philosophy of science told us that she had been a teaching assistant for Dr. Feyerabend. Since she said that he was a relativist, I asked why he wrote philosophy books. "Because he liked to make money," she replied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13862934957461946282018-06-15T14:26:18.086-07:002018-06-15T14:26:18.086-07:00That's true. The problem is that philosophers ...That's true. The problem is that philosophers think with words. They need they refections to be consistent as a discourse. So they can't understand what the guy who said that something can come from nothing wanted to say. They see that afirmation like a physicist would see a chemist doing a logaritm of a non unitless number. It just hurt their eyes. As I said before they can only thinks with words.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02279677726610393221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74195809117366531382017-10-21T06:52:59.895-07:002017-10-21T06:52:59.895-07:00Apart from Feyerabend, what are other good books r...Apart from Feyerabend, what are other good books refuting the theory of scientism or positivism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91706433939997323012016-04-22T00:26:01.591-07:002016-04-22T00:26:01.591-07:00Ed, Im late to the party obviously ....
But man, ...Ed, Im late to the party obviously ....<br /><br />But man, this is hysterical...<br />" The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe."<br /><br />Thanks for making my day. You really have a great way of stripping all the yellow paint off to reveal their argument fails from the jump:-) <br /><br />Do these people, who are constantly lauding themselves as the pinnacle of human reasoning, even have a rudimentary understanding of proper argumentation...... Did they not come in contact with logic as a discipline....? Im being serious. <br /><br />This is widespread. I do remember from my classes intended for those gifted in Math and Science, there were some whose gifts came with deficiencies... especially social deficiency. I think that a least some of these people actually cannot see they are making no sense, yet because everyone tell them they are geniuses, they think they must be a genius at everything.<br /><br />You would think they would just shut up and calculate and leave the reasoning to those gifted in that area but of course the subject of whether or not a person is going to be separated from God for eternity prevents that.<br />John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90388272382617586862016-03-20T21:15:03.859-07:002016-03-20T21:15:03.859-07:00Ha-ha. Too funny.Ha-ha. Too funny.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288023295837002013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4386021273113949802016-03-20T21:13:46.441-07:002016-03-20T21:13:46.441-07:00Satisfying comment. You saved me time responding. ...Satisfying comment. You saved me time responding. Literally all we can do sometimes is shake our head, then scroll.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288023295837002013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12105264143414484972015-02-28T08:52:45.451-08:002015-02-28T08:52:45.451-08:00Hey guys. You are very logical and all that. Hats ...Hey guys. You are very logical and all that. Hats off. Glad to see intellectuals who are fellow Christians. Even though my expertise is in internet marketing, and I'm still in my early 20‘s, I hope I someday become as well-read in philosophy as you. I really find it fascinating.<br /><br />With that being said, I have to say I'm inclined to think that the tone in some comments here is not 100% adequate. Like, is it really necessary to make fun of those who make typos or aren't experts in philosophical reasoning? What would Jesus say to that?<br /><br />God is my witness that I'm the greatest of all sinners, but I just wanted to say what my thoughts are.<br /><br />Being rude to people who aren't educated in philosophy is also not the greatest idea I‘ve heard. Some have other interests or are maybe single mothers living in third-world countries, struggling to provide to their children in a messy environment, and perhaps are also located in a war-torn country. Is it really appropriate to point fingers and laugh at their ignorance of, say, the nuances of Aquinas thought, saying stuff like "Uneducated savage"? Think about it.<br /><br />Best wishes...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39744606724344735842015-02-06T10:41:05.184-08:002015-02-06T10:41:05.184-08:00Please can you analysis in my web site www.timeflo...Please can you analysis in my web site www.timeflow.org And,<br /><br />Very small free roaming particles lifetime very short.[free photons, free notron, free proton,free<br />electron ,vs].And their lifetime is its energy Mc2. Protons are observed to be stable and their theoretical minimum half-life is 1x10'36 years.Grand unified theories generally predict. That proton<br />decay should take place, although experiments so far have only resulted in a lower limit 10'35 years for proton's lifetime. I see that. The earth lifetime is its Mc'2 energy. When this is calculated<br />the lifetime of earth. <br /><br />Earth Mass= 5.97x10'24 kg. the lifetime 1 kg of mass in space is 2851927903,26 years.<br /><br />Earth Lifetime is 1.7x10'34 years. I think that, this is a very interesting result. Thanks.<br />Salih KırcalarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32693132280493009902014-06-25T17:54:34.987-07:002014-06-25T17:54:34.987-07:00Matter antimatter pairs don't come from nothin...Matter antimatter pairs don't come from nothing, they do so at the expense of total amount of energy in the universe. Just like when matter and antimatter meet they destroy each other and become gamma radiation. Einstein demonstrated this phenomenon with E=mc2. Asking where the laws of physics came from is a ridiculous question and only proves the authors point about some scientist being horrible philosophers. The laws of physics comes from man, the universe just exist, the laws of physics are created by man as a way of predicting how the universe is going to behave.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63942612287257035332014-05-05T13:21:57.090-07:002014-05-05T13:21:57.090-07:00Yes me again. Have you noticed that on uni challen...Yes me again. Have you noticed that on uni challenge (TV show), the physicist is just there to answer what crazy words mean? Classic is the cubic zirconium question. He says jack about anything else while I'm spitting the answers away and away. Physics is no longer about thought, it is about copying, practising, and with a bit of using others, the main one, formality! You don't have a good shirt on and speak entirely proper? Then you may as well give up. Or, for advice to others, ignore others, it will be hard but they do not deserve the attention trying to add to the mess.<br />Anyway, because of the level of practice required because they simply won't shut the F up and think, I personally don't think physicists are suitable to be what they are!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06168885028751458421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37592312138852197052014-05-05T13:12:01.729-07:002014-05-05T13:12:01.729-07:00In my physics class I find the opposite... Well no...In my physics class I find the opposite... Well not quite, don't be fooled by physicists, they accept mostly eloquent sounding logophile's who are actually logically dumb beyond comprehension.<br />Try this on for size: 70% of the class cannot envision simple reflection. Homework 1 question 1, 70% of the class did not get it right and I can account for telling at least 10 people who then got it right. So see if your smarter than my phys class: "a beam is directed towards a mirror at an angle. The mirror is then rotated theta degrees. How much does the reflected beam rotate?", I mean it's one to catch people out but I would think that this standard problem was dealt with way-back-when. The majority of the "smart" ones in my class didn't get it right, surprised yet?<br />I've gained a beautiful vocab from them all which I am grateful for, but I am sorry, this won't do for physicists and apparently across the world its pretty similar, for shame fascist world of physics. Retribution? I'm here to F them up and deface them, relating to work based competition. i.e I am the next big thingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63893463146523872932013-04-12T00:24:01.539-07:002013-04-12T00:24:01.539-07:00The "add some yellow paint" you gave is ...The "add some yellow paint" you gave is a false analogy.<br /><br />A correct one would be actually getting the yellow paint form the red & white mix.<br /><br />Yes, both are technically "something".<br /><br />But the yellow paint comes into existence where it didn't exist before.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810144503052102555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79292994187616640732013-04-05T14:50:16.106-07:002013-04-05T14:50:16.106-07:00Come now, Feser, you're not steelmanning. The ...Come now, Feser, you're not steelmanning. The real claim here, from what I can see, is about the universe arising from no matter or energy or something, not from nothing including no laws of physics. I don't know if that claim is physically sound or not, but your objection is really just to their wording.Ethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80761293217808668832012-09-29T21:40:52.494-07:002012-09-29T21:40:52.494-07:00This concept has puzzled me for quite some time be...This concept has puzzled me for quite some time because, rationally, something cannot come from nothing, which anyone who isn't highly educated or intelligent can understand (though I see how it could rile up some christians). To say that, "something came from nothing" is equivalent to implying that something created something from nothing. <br /><br />I particularly like t'Hooft's explaination (though I could not properly define why this makes more sense to me if I had to explain it to well-learned folk) but I will quote and cite the excerpt:<br /><br />[In regards to the Higg's field as being Bose condensed, the following quote pertains]: "This time, however, the condensation takes place not inside some material, but in empty space (the "vacuum") itself. The forces among these particles have then been chosen in such a special way that it saves energy to fill the vacuum with particles rather than keeping it empty."<br />Side-note (from myself): I do not think "chosen" could be argued from a philosophical nor religious stand point because it pertains to the following and preceding passages in the book, "In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks" by Gerard t'Hooft.<br /><br />My understanding, then (and please correct me if I am wrong for I have a vague understanding of physics and one that is insufficient at that), would be that if there is a conservation of energy in the lowest possible state, that "something" could simply exist rather than "nothing" and the controversial "first mover" would, itself, be unmoved...that no creator created something from nothing and that it (this field of something) just is. It would make more physical sense that something came from something else that is infinite and fundamental, but the question is, how? <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89534715914520569912012-03-25T04:34:36.257-07:002012-03-25T04:34:36.257-07:00With what has been said I am glad it isn't phi...With what has been said I am glad it isn't philosophers building our airplanes, designing our computers, building machines that looking at the very elements of our universe.<br /><br />For all the criticism the these philosophers give scientists, not one of them can take the leaps of imagination that have lead to the advances we have today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40239933136689451612011-10-07T18:04:10.151-07:002011-10-07T18:04:10.151-07:00@ Anon August 17, 2011 9:49 PM
Re: Philosophy
Th...@ Anon August 17, 2011 9:49 PM<br /><br />Re: Philosophy<br /><br />This is plainly false. As a matter of fact empirical science itself is based on several philosophical ideas... and that WAS certainly something new at the time.<br /><br />--<br /><br />Re: Cosmology<br /><br />Yes but in the end the 1 megatrillion dollar question is still 'where did everything originally come from'.<br /><br />--<br /><br />Re: Sciencetists<br /><br />Scientis OUGHT to stick to facts and empirical data, and from there build a model and then a theory... in an ideal world.<br /><br />In PRACTICE they often make up a theory or a model that fits SOME data and then they either check if it is real or not (look at string theory which is still not testable by any experiment yet... and had many ideas which might be pure fiction... just like math and philosophy... yet it is considered 'respectable science').<br /><br />Also once they get an idea in their head somethimes they would do anything to defend it.<br /><br />Look at Dawkins' Meme: most scientists and philosophers say it's crap and it is a completely redundand and useless concept, yet Dawkins still presents it as it were an hardcore fact...<br /><br />Indeed 'Scientists aren't philosophers.'... so they should really try very hard not to be bad ones.FXnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13479682887931971202011-09-11T20:50:36.588-07:002011-09-11T20:50:36.588-07:00Thanks for the post.
It was devastating.
Nice to...Thanks for the post.<br /><br />It was devastating.<br /><br />Nice to see that the philosophers are finally waking up to the mushrooming epicycles of the best-buy cosmology, which have long since crossed over into the realm of metaphysics.<br /><br />Dr; George Ellis smells it too:<br /><br />"The extreme case is multiverse proposals, where no direct observational tests of the hypothesis are possible, as the supposed other universes cannot be seen by any observations whatever, and the assumed underlying physics is also untested and indeed probably untestable.<br /><br />"In this context one must re-evaluate what the core of science is: can one maintain one has a genuine scientific theory when direct and indeed indirect tests of the theory are impossible? If one claims this, one is altering what one means by science. One should be very careful before so doing."<br /><br />Indeed.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72139892365574016182011-08-17T21:49:05.912-07:002011-08-17T21:49:05.912-07:00RE: Philosophy
In so far as philosophy is an exerc...RE: Philosophy<br />In so far as philosophy is an exercise in thinking it has value. Logic reveals correct thinking only given the premises. Logic however does not reveal anything new and likewise philosophy does not.<br /><br />RE: Cosmology<br /> I'm cringing at the poor use of logic in the cosmology debate. <br /> When we speak of how the universe came into being, it is a different question from, where the physical laws came from.<br /><br />RE: Scientists<br /> Scientists aren't philosophers. Philosophy, like math, can describe an infinite number ideas that have no basis in reality.<br /> Scientists stick with the reality part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-429252606089426472011-08-17T05:00:09.962-07:002011-08-17T05:00:09.962-07:00I'm real glad the hard working, deep thinking ...I'm real glad the hard working, deep thinking philosophers of the world gave us computers, cars, electricity, healthcare, and other wonders of the modern world! Why, just yesterday, when I had a cough, I went to see my philosopher, and today I'm cured! <br /><br />My bad! :-) Sorry, wrong blog. I was meant to be at <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/the_physics_of_nothing_the_phi.php" rel="nofollow">Starts With a Bang</a>, where you can actually learn something.Tallies the Techno Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271368669433295547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3547748690750556822011-08-16T14:45:46.770-07:002011-08-16T14:45:46.770-07:00Ping, Edward.
Not everyone who disagrees with you...<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/the_physics_of_nothing_the_phi.php" rel="nofollow">Ping</a>, Edward.<br /><br />Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and the fact that quantum mechanics runs counter to the fundamental precepts of Aristotelian logic certainly doesn't invalidate the scientific truths one derives from quantum mechanics.Ethan Siegelhttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14411080760398887532011-07-28T09:39:12.980-07:002011-07-28T09:39:12.980-07:00Guth provides a nontechnical explanation: "Al...Guth provides a <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=7toILlSQtI0C&lpg=PA184&dq=guth%20inflationary%20theory&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q=Vilenkin&f=false" rel="nofollow">nontechnical explanation</a>: "Alexander Vilenkin … suggested that the universe was created by quantum processes starting from "<i>literally nothing</i>," meaning not only the absence of matter, but the absence of space and time as well. This concept of absolute nothingness is hard to understand, because we are accustomed to thinking of space as an immutable background which could not possibly be removed. Just as a fish could not imagine the absence of water, we cannot imagine a situation devoid of space and time. At the risk of trying to illuminate the abstruse with the obscure, I mention that one way to understand absolute nothingness is to imagine a closed universe, which has a finite volume, and then imagine decreasing the volume to zero. In any case, whether one can visualize it or not, Vilenkin showed that the concept of absolute nothingness is at least mathematically well-defined, and can be used as a starting point for theories of creation."Steve Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38384858273408341682011-07-28T09:38:36.396-07:002011-07-28T09:38:36.396-07:00For others who may be interested, here's both ...For others who may be interested, here's both a technical and popular description of how a universe from literally nothing is possible.<br /><br />A technical account of the universe <i>ex nihilo</i>, following Vilenkin, "<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269382908668" rel="nofollow">Creation of universes from nothing</a>". <i>Physics Letters B</i> Volume 117, Issues 1-2, 4 November 1982, Pages 25-28. Available <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/gpdimonderose/universe-from-nothing" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />1. Observe the <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric" rel="nofollow">Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric</a> for universal expansion:<br /><br /><i>ds</i>² = <i>dt</i>² – <i>a</i>(<i>t</i>)|<i>d</i><b>x</b>|²<br /><br />This is describes the space-time geometry with the spatial scale term <i>a</i>(<i>t</i>) describing the growth/contraction of the universe. This is Vilenkin's equation (2).<br /><br />2. Solve the evolution equation:<br><br><i>a</i>(<i>t</i>) = (1/<i>H</i>)cosh(<i>Ht</i>)<br /><br />where <i>H</i> is the <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hubble%27s_law" rel="nofollow">Hubble constant</a>.<br /><br />This is Vilenkin's equation (3). So far, there is no explanation of a universe from nothing because the de Sitter space isn't nothing, as we all agree.<br /><br />3. Observe that at <i>t</i> = 0, the physics has the same form as a potential barrier, for which it is known that quantum tunneling is possible. The description of quantum tunneling involves a transformation <i>t</i> → <i>it</i>, with <i>i</i>² = –1.<br /><br />Now the evolution equation is<br /><br /><i>a</i>(<i>t</i>) = (1/<i>H</i>)cos(<i>Ht</i>) [the cosine "cos", not the hyperbolic cosine "cosh"]<br /><br />valid for |<i>t</i>| < π/2/H. This is Vilenkin's equation (5). Space-Time is simply the 4-sphere, a compact, i.e, bounded space. At the scale <i>a</i>(<i>t</i>) = 0, this space is literally <i>nothing</i>. No space-time, no energy, no particles. Nothing. The interpretation of (5) is quantum tunneling from literally nothing to de Sitter space, the universe as we know it. See <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/gpdimonderose/universe-from-nothing" rel="nofollow">Figure 1a</a> for a depiction of the creation of the universe from nothing using this explanation.<br /><br />Vilenkin says in the paper, "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions. … In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally <i>nothing</i>, and which is free from the difficulties I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This scenario does not require any changes in the fundamental equations of physics; it only gives a new interpretation to a well-known cosmological solution. … The concept of the universe being created from nothing is a crazy one. To help the reader make peace with this concept, I would like to give an example of a compact instanton in a more familiar setting. …"<br /><br />This is what physicists mean by "nothing". Nonexistent space-time, subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.Steve Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71676104454363507402011-07-28T09:37:57.604-07:002011-07-28T09:37:57.604-07:00I'm late to the party, but I feel obligated to...I'm late to the party, but I feel obligated to point out that Feser's post contains demonstrably and remarkably ignorant mischaracterization of Hawking's and other's scientific assertions. But ignorance is no sin, so I'll point everyone to a popular explanation of why what Hawking says about gravity is so interesting in so-called <i>ex nihilo</i> theories of the universe. Guth's <i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=7toILlSQtI0C&pg=PA184&dq=guth+inflationary+theory&hl=en&ei=Nk4vTuuaM4i00AHP4q3TAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=appendix&f=false" rel="nofollow">Inflationary Universe</a></i> is a must-read, and he explains the physics of the ideas that Feser ridicules. Guth explains <i>ex nihilo</i> theories with the colorful statement:<br /><br />"The question of the origin of the matter in the universe is no longer thought to be beyond the range of science—<i>everything</i> can be created from nothing … it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch."<br /><br />Guth's provides technical reasons for his claims:<br /><br />"Now we can return to a key question: How is there any hope that the creation of the universe might be described by physical laws consistent with energy conservations? Answer: <i>the energy stored in the gravitational field is represented by a negative number!</i> … The immense energy that we observe in the form of matter can be canceled by a negative contribution of equal magnitude, coming from the gravitational field. There is no limit to the magnitude of energy energy in the gravitational field, and hence no limit to the amount of matter/energy it can cancel.<br /><br />For the reader interested in learning why the energy of a gravitational field is negative, the argument is presented in Appendix A."<br /><br />Guth goes on to explain a simple argument for all this that if you grasp, you will understand a fact of gravity that evaded Newton. Unfortunately, Google books doesn't have Appendix A online. <br /><br />Guth's technical explanation above is what is meant by the nontechnical, poetic description, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” that Feser attacks.<br /><br />Ironically, this explanation of the universe appears to differ in no way from Feser's. When asked caused the photon in a Feynman diagram, <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/grow-up-or-shut-up.html?showComment=1311715688144#c2794214776758263382" rel="nofollow">Feser said that physics is the cause of photon</a>, just as those he attacks say that physics is the cause of the universe.<br /><br />Next, I'll provide pointers to a quick technical explanation of the creation of a universe from literally nothing subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.<br /><br />You can see from Guth and the comment that will follow the picture is strikingly different from Feser's, who is apparently ignorant of these facts.Steve Smithnoreply@blogger.com