Being open mind in Science between orthodoxy and crackpottery: Einsteinian visio

TanAardwolf

Like all other human activities, Science is also strongly influenced by "politics", lobbies and economic interests. This does not scandalize us or make us unworthy, as it is precisely part of human nature, however it places serious limitations on the development of Science itself and on the introduction of new ideas. The solution could be to return to the Einsteinian concept of the beauty of doing Science for its own sake and to interpret each new proposal with an open mind using only the yardstick of the Galilean scientific method to give a final judgement. This would allow, on the one hand, to limit the strong conservatism of scientific orthodoxy often present in the most important international journals, and, on the other, to distinguish new serious proposals from potential crackpottery. In this context, the famous case of quantum black holes and of the black hole information paradox is analyzed here.

Download Essay PDF File

Download Reference PDF File

Vladimir Rogozhin

TanAardwolf
A very strong critical essay and ideas for discussion and brainstorming. But I would say - philosophically not critical enough, with regard to the problem of the ontological foundations of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology)
You speak:
<<standard physics>>...

Can physics or physical theories be "standard"?

C. Rovelli in the article "Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics" notes:

"Here is a list of topics currently discussed in theoretical physics: What is space? What is time? What is the “present”? Is the world deterministic? Do we need to take the observer into account to describe nature? Is physics better developed in terms of a "reality" or in terms of "what we observe," or is there a third option? What is the quantum wave function? What exactly does "emergence" mean? Does a theory of the totality of the universe make sense "Does it make sense to think that the physical laws themselves might evolve? It is clear to me that input from past and current philosophical thinking cannot be disregarded in addressing these topics."

The first two key questions are purely ontological/metaphysical questions. Therefore, in search of ways out of the modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis 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"), it is important to recall the philosophical testament of Pavel Florensky:

“The problem of space lies at the center of world understanding in all emerging systems of thought and predetermines the composition of the entire system. With certain limitations and clarifications, one could even recognize space as a proper and primary subject of philosophy, in relation to which all other philosophical topics have to be evaluated as derivatives. And, the more closely this or that system of thought is worked out, the more definite the peculiar interpretation of space becomes as its core. We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding.

and philosophical testaments to theoretical physicists by John A. Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science":

"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?'"

To understand the "EXISTENCE itself" means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial ontological structure of matter. That is, to build a ontological model "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming" and introduce a new concept, the semantic core of the model - ontological (structural, cosmic) memory, "soul of matter", its measure.

A. Einstein “I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."

<<In fact, the two main pillars of modern physics are Einstein’s general relativity (GR) and quantum theory.>>

Any theory that claims to be called "fundamental" or "standard" must be an ontologically grounded theory (methodology "ontological basification").
Quantum theory and General relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist. "effective") theories without ontological justification (ontological basification).
To overcome the crisis, the Big Synthesis is needed, a critical look at the entire path of philosophy and science, new ontological and dialectical ideas.
Today, problem no. 1 ("the problem of the millennium") is the ontological justification / substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the new information age: ontological framework, carcass, foundation. That is, the Big Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics".

KhakiHeron

I agree with you that "Therefore our knowledge and understanding of physics cannot be limited to
accepting everything written in textbooks as if they were the Bible. We must accept scientific facts
following the Galilean method, i.e. we must propose new ideas, but we must then develop these
through mathematical rigor and seek the consistency of what we will obtain with experiments and
observations"
I agree with you that politics influence science production ,thinking, publishing and awards delivery.

TanAardwolf

KhakiHeron
Thanks a lot for your interest in my work.
Cordial greetings.

TanAardwolf

Vladimir Rogozhin
Thanks for your interest in my Essay.
It is my opinion that we cannot discuss the problem of the ontological foundations of fundamental science if we do not first solve the problem of "political"-economic influence within the Scientific Community. It is necessary to introduce a systemic meritocracy within the Scientific Community that goes beyond the powerful lobbies that dominate it and that takes up the Einsteinian ideal of doing science for its own sake, driven only by amazement, curiosity and beauty of our work as researchers.
Thanks again and best wishes.

Vladimir Rogozhin

TanAardwolf
For the past 15 years, the Foundational Questions Institute's open worldwide competitions have provided an excellent opportunity to discuss many of the "crazy" ideas in the foundations of the fundamental sciences, despite the dominant position of the scientific mainstream. This is extremely important for modern Science!
An example of overcoming all barriers is the scientific position and views of A. Einstein on the development of science, who left important philosophical precepts to theoretical physicists and all seekers of truth:
“It would be truly a miracle if a person could discover the basis of all sciences: physics, biology, psychology, sociology, etc. We are striving for such a goal, although we can give all sorts of arguments against its attainability.”
“At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science.”

MustardGorilla

You have a lot of comments about controversies in theoretical physics, and suggest that the subject would be better if physicists were more like Einstein. But Einstein was more egotistical, more political, and more misguided than those you cite. He spent much of his life pursuing unified field theory, and not nowhere. So what was better about his approach?

TanAardwolf

MustardGorilla
I don't know what problem you have with Einstein, unless you're one of the usual anti-relativity fringe researchers. In that case, I have no intention of arguing with you. I limit myself to emphasizing that in my Essay Einstein was simply recalled for his point of view of living Science as a passion and in a curious and joyful way, not caring about glory, fame, money and recognitions, which are instead often the main objectives of most scientists.
I wish you to have fun in making Science in Einsteinian sense.

MagnoliaCentipede

A to the point essay. I gave it a 10. For the reason that it delineates the group think I have seen in black hole physics research,. In addition the issue of if we understand quantization procedures has been woefully mishandled

TanAardwolf

MagnoliaCentipede
Thanks for your interest in my Essay , for nice comments and for the highest score. This honors me.
Best wishes.

ApricotCapybara

As you wrote, Science is also strongly influenced by "politics", lobbies and economic interests. You seem more willing to accept this fact as part of cultural development than I am in "Global Externalities and a New Science." I also quote Einstein and his words. Your reference to Galileo is a good addition for his scientific method, an open mind and a great imagination when we make science, starting with plausible proposals and axioms. Certainly the duty of the scientific community is important in accepting new idea. I do add the need for science and scientists to look at problems of irrational thinking that leads a culture astray in the serious problem of climate change and the science that alerts us, neurological features or the brain. Science has the answer and the solution of how science can be different. I like your approach being between orthodoxy and crackpottery and you BH example something demanding the new thinking of an Einstein.