Heinrich - a brilliant, if incomplete, philosophical essay. We humans are, regrettably, dammed by dualism. We cannot reconcile it and yet we cannot exist without it, despite the efforts of philosophers across the millennia. However, we need to move past the positivists and linguists. That dead end was eloquently laid out by Wittgenstein, "That whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent," the incompleteness theorems of Godel and even, more recently, the capitulation of Hawking and Mlodnow - "there is no model-independent concept of reality".

If we continue the philosophical journey through the 20th century, as I attempt to do (Faith is Fundamental) we can re-engage with the curse of dualism. Life is comprehensible - but the empirical must be leavened with .... something more. Call it the axiomatic, the bottom turtle, the fundamental --- I call it faith.

Cheers - George Gantz

Dear George,

thanks for your kind remarks!

I agree that the 'linguistic turn' failed for reasons of positivity. That's why I embarked on a philosophy of 'negation' (which has nothing to do with negative theology). Rather, there are some for which modern philosophy does not begin with Descartes, but 200 years earlier with Cusanus (Nikolaus von Kues). He spoke of 'docta ignorantia' and 'coincidentia oppositorum'. So true belief for him (faith) IS knowledge by understanding that learned ignorance (the acceptance that there are unanswerable questions) is not a defeat, but the very condition for there to be knowledge at all. That is, only the existence of unanswerable questions leads to the performative consistency of the 'world'.

So what you refer to as a curse, I consider it as the condition sine qua non. Isn't logic what turns 'coincidentia oppositorum' into problem in the first place? Is there a problem when we stop asking undue questions?

Heinrich

4 days later

Heinrich,

A lovely essay. I studied philosophy with other degrees and well appreciated your points and argument. I think Shut up and Calculate was too high a price to pay and has stunted our understanding.

Good score from me, but more important I hope you may comment on a solution I posit to the problem of binaries, or the 'Excluded Middle'. On many grounds I propose a 'Law of the Reducing Middle' which takes the form of a non-linear Bayesian distribution; Nothing is 100% and all things are possible. My essay describes (astonishingly) a classical derivation of QM from 'soliton' fermion interactions - so also a Cos^2 Bayesian distribution, with NO action at a distance required! (I also show if SR is also slightly rationalised, as my past essays show, with CSL the two unify).

All is from a rational heristic not mathematical approach, though Declan Traill's essay has the matching computer code and plot.

I do hope you'll read it and give me your views. I show an experiment to prove the momenta distribution pattern to doctrinal physicists but have had precious little actual analysis!

Anyway thank you for yours. A great and refreshing text, beautifully written.

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

    5 days later

    The author does show a mastery of the history of philosophy. This essay sets out to challenge the reader with the style of writing and the logical steps of the argument. The cynical, but appropriate use of "Münchhausen" is an example of unique and challenging word use.

    "Cultural interpretation of science is the fundamental. " is what this reviewer understood as the message of this essay. Society is the consumer of science, so it is hard to disagree with this idea. This thesis fits into the overall goal of the contest better than any string theory essay.

    Hope you get a good rating,

    Jeff Schmitz

    8 days later

    For anyone who has read or is interested in this particular essay, my detailed analysis of it is located here:

    Bollinger critique of Context by Heinrich Luediger

    I am respectful, but I do not pull any punches.

    My analysis is unfortunately listed as "Anonymous" due to one of those silent logouts that the FQXi site does every few hours, but my signature is at the bottom of the posting.

    Sincerely,

    Terry Bollinger

    Dear Heinrich,

    It often happens that in my research I decide to go back to some milestones in physics and deconstruct and reconstruct them partially, because the historical context shapes the way we make new theories. The inspirational flow of a new idea solidifies too rapidly, so it leaves little time for the fruit to ripe. Then the inflation of incremental research and of applications of new ideas makes them being captured in amber and new geological strata cover the old ones. The theories die before reaching maturity, and then they become venerated as relics. So I am pleasantly surprised by your criticism, perhaps too harsh, perhaps polemically unfair sometimes, but nevertheless necessary and useful.

    People tend to absolutize their views, perhaps because they identify themselves with them, and an instinct of conservation takes over. Physicists are humans too, and physicalism is (some) physicists' way of being fundamentalists. This sort of ego is easily fueled by the experimental confirmations of theories we don't understand enough, and of technological applications. This is part of being human, and it is far from the perfection we would like to think characterizes us. I don't think I should be apologetic about this, I really think many physicists are doing great job, even if physics is plagued by historical context, prejudice, and an exacerbated feeling of being closer to the roots of things. I just try to be realist and to avoid some common traps.

    So here are some parts of your essay which I liked very much. You are right to ask "as regards Newton's mathematical innovation, how can a theory become false that first opened up the scientific domain of motion not only of bodies, but also of heat, waves and gases?" There is a tendency of humans to put in opposition the new with the ideas of previous thinkers, and you gave very good examples like Newton and Kant. I don't think they become obsolete, because the new ideas are not as radically new, and they couldn't be without the previous ones, and most likely they will not be the last word.

    You said about theories that "they have in common that, in order to make precise predictions, the state of nothing less than the universe would need be known." Well, this is true, so "precise predictions" will always be a fantasy. Maybe we can hope at least for precise within a certain tolerance? About reaching the end, you said "as if Hume hadn't made clear enough that rules drawn from observations remain contingent forever", which is in agreement with Popper too, and I think most honest physicists would agree.

    I understand your nostalgia over Newton's and Kant's space and time, but I think your criticism of special relativity is unfair. I find your criticism of quantum mechanics unfair too, but I agree with your rejection of the "shut up and calculate", and I must say that many physicists agree too. There are many attempts to go beyond this limitation, which I think is unjustified and a historical accident. The problem is that it turned out to be difficult to find a good description which is also consistent with the experiments. I think that special relativity and quantum mechanics are not mere sociological constructs, and if you said that they have no connection with reality I disagree. The historical context is relevant, but I doubt that things being different it could be possible to save Newton's and Kant's space and time, or that it will ever be possible. I will not engage in a debate about this. I am surprised though that, given that at this contest there are some essays which are doing quite well by trying to "fix" SR and QM, yours got so little visibility. Probably it is because despite the 4 page length, your style may seem too sophisticated. Too bad for them, because even if I disagree with some of your criticism and I have reservations for the polemic style, I think your style is brilliant and entertaining, and the essay is full of content.

    Best wishes,

    Cristi Stoica

      Dear Cristinel,

      thanks for your detailed (and more than fair, given my provocations) analysis of my essay. I see that you belong to the most active commentators, so I will be brief. Since there seems to be quite some common ground I'll concentrate on dissent. You may underestimate the trouble physics is in when you think that my motivation is nostalgia or repairing modern physics - on the contrary. In a nutshell: if we want to go the stars, we need to think us there first. And the only place 'where' we can do this is in the duality of relational (linguistic) 'space' and Euclidean space. Then, is Einstein part of the problem or part of the solution?

      Good luck for your essay,

      Heinrich

      Heinrich,

      Hope you get to read my essay,... carefully! If you're not a big fan of illogical Quantum beliefs!

      Scoring yours now. (seems I liked it more than most!)

      Very best

      Peter

      Dear Heinrich,

      I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

      It is so close to me.

      «The victims along the roadside of modern physics were Euclidean space, Newtonian time and Kantian causality, i.e. conditions of the possibility of experience. Hence it doesn't come as a surprise that mathematically driven physics moves tons of data just to remain void of experience».

      «Einstein believed that only the theory determines what can be observed. So much it seems he was a classical Kantian. But how could he have hoped to defend causality against quantum mechanics' probability after having destroyed the a priori qualities of Euclidean space and absolute Newtonian time?»

      I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

      Vladimir Fedorov

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

      Write a Reply...