The physical sciences have become fragmented, after years of division of labor and specialization, to a point where highly-trained professionals in close proximity often have very little understanding of the work done by their peers and colleagues – even if they are working ‘together’ on the same project. While a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy can solve many problems and it allows work to continue even when our understanding is incomplete; this approach leaves gaps in people’s essential or working knowledge of Physics. This is a primary cause for the fact certain problems in fundamental Physics, like how to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, remain unsolved after so many years of work and continue to be vexing enigmas. Seeing things from outside the silos of specialized knowledge could be the cure for this.
Seeing Physics from Outside the Silos
Hi Lavender Takin
Following is a summary and review of your essay performed by AI Chat GPT 4. I've provided it for you to demonstrate the theme of my essay, that AI will play a role in the future of peer review. My essay is titled "Age of Knowledge"
I hope you enjoy this review of your work.
Chat GPT 4
The essay discusses the limitations of the "divide and conquer" problem-solving strategy and its inadequacy in capturing important information, particularly in fields such as physics, where the natural world is rough and jagged. It suggests that a multidisciplinary approach is required to obtain a thorough solution to some of the problems that are currently being faced in the field, as silos of information and specialization limit our understanding of reality. The author proposes a solution to this problem in the form of the "overview effect," a term coined by astronauts, which refers to the experience of seeing the entire Earth in one field of view, which highlights the common needs and goals of humanity. This perspective is a defining element across the sciences and their associated maths, and it requires researchers to see reality from a higher-dimensional viewpoint to bridge the gulf between areas of specialization.
The author discusses how the current system discourages innovative thinking, as younger researchers are often forced to defend their research to obtain employment or funding, while many early career scientists do not have the opportunity to learn about competing approaches or obtain a broader perspective from other fields. In addition, the author discusses how theories in physics are imperfect and will likely be superseded in the years to come, and that we must look outside the familiar parameter space to discover new things.
Overall, the essay provides an interesting perspective on the limitations of the divide and conquer strategy and the need for a multidisciplinary approach in physics. The concept of the overview effect is thought-provoking and provides a unique solution to the problem at hand.
The essay discusses the importance of imparting basic learning skills to students, which promotes lifelong learning and makes self-study easier. The author states that the current educational system focuses on rote memorization of facts and that imparting knowledge of general principles is often neglected, resulting in two generations of students who never learned to think for themselves. The author argues that attending high-level conferences provides firsthand knowledge and accelerates learning, allowing one to ask direct questions of top experts and receive a clear answer immediately. The author suggests that cultivating a top-down/outside-in viewpoint, which involves honoring the need for abstract knowledge as well as the practical, is tough to achieve just by staying in school longer, and it involves the need for savvier teachers or professors. The essay also mentions the pushback encountered when instructors attempt to deliver that message, with students interrupting discourse and asking for information that will be on the test or calling for the next equation to learn by rote. The author argues that to fix what is wrong in Physics, views like these must be challenged. The author also suggests that learning to see our dimensionality from a higher, loftier place is a worthy goal because it affords more insight than looking at those spaces from below.
The essay provides a unique perspective on the current state of education and the importance of lifelong learning. It highlights the need for a shift in focus from rote memorization of facts to knowledge of general principles and abstract reasoning skills. The essay also suggests attending high-level conferences as a means of accelerating learning and acquiring firsthand knowledge from top experts. The author's argument is well-supported and provides useful insights into the challenges faced by students and educators in today's world. The language is clear and easy to understand, making it accessible to a wide range of readers. Overall, the quality of the essay is high.
Chat GPT 4
- Edited
Jonathan Dickau
A very important and interesting essay with ideas aimed at finding ways to overcome the modern conceptual - paradigm crisis in the metaphysical/ontological basis of fundamental science, which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. " Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" ), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics").
You write at the end:
<<To seek an encompassing view is a task left to philosophers, as it is not something with practical value that pays the bills. But seek we must, if we want to escape the hall of mirrors we are all trapped in. Then we can learn to see Physics from outside the silos.>>
But "to escape the hall of mirrors" is only possible through a comprehensive philosophical point of view.
John A. Wheeler left good philosophical precepts to theoretical physicists and mathematicians:
"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."
“We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"
Also other important philosophical precepts:
A. Einstein “I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."
P. Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."
You also write:
"I say this because I am sold on Math."
But why do mathematicians "sweep under the carpet" the main "problem No. 1 of the millennium" - the ontological justification / substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general?
Why do you write "Math" and not "Mathematics" or "mathematika"?
Where did the word "mathematics" come from in Greece, its true etymology?
Doctor of Philosophical Sciences Dmitry Bukin in the article "" CRISIS OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS AS A CRISIS OF ONTOLOGY" concludes:
"The crisis of the foundations of mathematics is, first of all, the crisis of ontology, the essence of which is the inability to describe objects, the fact of being or becoming of which goes beyond the usual ideas about the world. Way out such a crisis state should be sought not so much in the improvement of the methods of mathematics itself, but in the renewal of the cognitive means of ontology, which do not deny the classical paradigm, but can go beyond its framework. is a historically proven method of comprehending the existence of a mathematical object in its development and relationship with objective reality."
[http://www.unn.ru/pages/e-library/vestnik_soc/99990201_West_soc_2011_4(24)/15.pdf]
I agrees with him.
Have you dealt with the problem of ontological justification / substantiating mathematics (foundations of mathematics)?
Why did G. Weil draw such a conclusion back in 1946: “Now we are less than ever sure of the primary foundations of mathematics and logic. We are experiencing our "crisis" in the same way as everyone and everything in the modern world is experiencing it." (quoted in Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty")
Why did the mathematician, logician and philosopher A.N. Whitehead leave such a philosophical testament to mathematicians and theoretical physicists:
“A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”?
Do you agree with him?