NationStates Jolt Archive

It would seen to me that the problem with most philosophical and/or physics theorys is that everything must be ASSUMED. I understand that it is human nature to theorize about certain things. However, it must be conceded that every major theory out there today must assume certain things. It must assume that the laws of physics are indeed applicable to everything in the known universe, or it must assume that string theory is incorrect, or it must assume that a singularity can be achieved. There are so many things that cannot be proven that it is a fair bet to say that no philosophical "theory" will ever be accepted as fact. Ex., you cant just "assume" that the earth is round, it must be proven. The only problem is that, with the earth we just had someone sail all the way around. I dont see a similar solution for most of todays "assumptions".

maybe that's why theories are theories and not theorems

And I assume you all know what happens when you assume.

And I assume you all know what happens when you assume.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b33/TrespassersW/CatThread.jpg

Actually, one the biggest assumptions that modern physics make is that the rest of the universe follows the same sort of laws as we observe in our little hunk of the galaxy. The fact that our current situation is so highly ordered severely limits the ways in which such an ordered system could have come about. These constraints are how we develop theories such as the big bang, etc.

One interesting idea I read about is that the universe we see is only a small chunk of it, because the majority of the Universe is chaotic in the sense that its pre-quark particles never came together to form any sort of laws. Thus, we cannot see or probe such regions because matter and energy do not exist in any way that we understand them. That said, there would be way more "unlawful" regions than lawful regions, and the fact that we live in a highly ordered region is due to the fact that the development of particles into a species that can observe such things could only ever occur in a highly ordered section of the universe.

Makes for a fun argument for a God, and human-exceptionalism.

At least, that's what I remember from A Brief History of Time...

Well, as they say, to assume makes an ass out of u and me.

On the other hand, to not assume makes a... err... Notoriously OrTistic ass out of u and me, right?

(yes I'm pished ^__^)

Well, as they say, to assume makes an ass out of u and me.

On the other hand, to not assume makes a... err... Notoriously OrTistic ass out of u and me, right?

(yes I'm pished ^__^)

*clashes beer steins with Yootopia*

Quite so old chap.

Actually, one the biggest assumptions that modern physics make is that the rest of the universe follows the same sort of laws as we observe in our little hunk of the galaxy. The fact that our current situation is so highly ordered severely limits the ways in which such an ordered system could have come about. These constraints are how we develop theories such as the big bang, etc.

One interesting idea I read about is that the universe we see is only a small chunk of it, because the majority of the Universe is chaotic in the sense that its pre-quark particles never came together to form any sort of laws. Thus, we cannot see or probe such regions because matter and energy do not exist in any way that we understand them. That said, there would be way more "unlawful" regions than lawful regions, and the fact that we live in a highly ordered region is due to the fact that the development of particles into a species that can observe such things could only ever occur in a highly ordered section of the universe.

Makes for a fun argument for a God, and human-exceptionalism.

At least, that's what I remember from A Brief History of Time...

Just a question, then. How is that we see galaxies huge distances away that appear to operate by all the rules of the universe? If there were unlawful regions, wouldn't we pick up some evidence of it?

(yes I'm pished ^__^)

Perhaps you should get sconed as well. Then it will all make more sense.

Just a question, then. How is that we see galaxies huge distances away that appear to operate by all the rules of the universe? If there were unlawful regions, wouldn't we pick up some evidence of it?

No, because they wouldn't exist by our standards.:confused:

So guys time for an easy question:

What is existence?

Click Stand;13556236']No, because they wouldn't exist by our standards.:confused:

So guys time for an easy question:

What is existence?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Click Stand;13556236']No, because they wouldn't exist by our standards.:confused:

So guys time for an easy question:

What is existence?

Well, if light passed through such an unlawful region that "didn't exist", then we would cease to receive light (because the light itself should break down in such an environment) from the galaxy beyond that. The fact that we have a virtually unobstructed of much of the sky disproves the unlawful regions theory.

Though for your question, existence is the process of being. If it is not, then it doesn't exist.

It would seen to me that the problem with most philosophical and/or physics theorys is that everything must be ASSUMED. I understand that it is human nature to theorize about certain things. However, it must be conceded that every major theory out there today must assume certain things. It must assume that the laws of physics are indeed applicable to everything in the known universe, or it must assume that string theory is incorrect, or it must assume that a singularity can be achieved. There are so many things that cannot be proven that it is a fair bet to say that no philosophical "theory" will ever be accepted as fact. Ex., you cant just "assume" that the earth is round, it must be proven. The only problem is that, with the earth we just had someone sail all the way around. I dont see a similar solution for most of todays "assumptions".

This is why I'm doing Linguistics in university. Where a bilabial voiced plosive is always a bilabial voiced plosive, and ther ecan be no assumptions.

Although now having studied semantics in detail, and semiotics in almost as much detail, I can safely say that everything is arbitrarily relative!

Actually, one the biggest assumptions that modern physics make is that the rest of the universe follows the same sort of laws as we observe in our little hunk of the galaxy. The fact that our current situation is so highly ordered severely limits the ways in which such an ordered system could have come about. These constraints are how we develop theories such as the big bang, etc.

One interesting idea I read about is that the universe we see is only a small chunk of it, because the majority of the Universe is chaotic in the sense that its pre-quark particles never came together to form any sort of laws. Thus, we cannot see or probe such regions because matter and energy do not exist in any way that we understand them. That said, there would be way more "unlawful" regions than lawful regions, and the fact that we live in a highly ordered region is due to the fact that the development of particles into a species that can observe such things could only ever occur in a highly ordered section of the universe.

Makes for a fun argument for a God, and human-exceptionalism.

At least, that's what I remember from A Brief History of Time...

Then again, that's just one idea. There's many, MANY more out there. But it's also possible that light could simply "skip" over these unlawful regions or even pass through it because although no matter is there, most of space is just that, empty space.
It does indeed make for a fun argument though, I'll agree with you there.

Back to the beginning though, I've always learned that there's a set hierarchy for things. hypothesis is the lowest. It is an idea that has no proof to back it up other than what someone already knows. It can also be tested. When there have been many, many repeated tests confirming one way or the other whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, the congruent findings can become a theory. A theory is something that has, obviously, much information and data to back it up, but it's still possible that it could be proven wrong if given enough data to the contrary. Last but not least, we have a law. Laws are proven irrefutable and provided that there isn't anything working to do something different than the law says, it will happen.

And Assumption, that old and senile God, found often false and careless, capricious, would not relinquish his throne, that hallowed seat at the foundation of the Heaven called Thought....

Fact screamed and thrust, and threw himself forward, armed with that highest regard, and by the time he reached gates, the harsh light left none of him to exist....

Empiricism came forward, thinking to attack in numbers, he brought with him his lovers, Sense and Experience, and though their followers were so many as to eclipse the horizon, they all died in one another's arms, as the Sense carried the disease deception, and they shared this in their love...

Skepticism came, quiet and sure, having waited to come last, and as it gazed at the remnants of the rebel corpses, it stood before Assumption.

No battle cry came. "You and I are friends", she said.

And Assumption said, "Come and sit by me, and in fair regard to one another, perhaps we will bear children, none named Truth, but all alive with the blood of Idea, yet unstained by that needless pox that of so-called Certainty."

- From "Old and Stubborn Gods"
by Sean Bajar

It would seen to me that the problem with most philosophical and/or physics theorys is that everything must be ASSUMED. I understand that it is human nature to theorize about certain things. However, it must be conceded that every major theory out there today must assume certain things. It must assume that the laws of physics are indeed applicable to everything in the known universe, or it must assume that string theory is incorrect, or it must assume that a singularity can be achieved. There are so many things that cannot be proven that it is a fair bet to say that no philosophical "theory" will ever be accepted as fact. Ex., you cant just "assume" that the earth is round, it must be proven. The only problem is that, with the earth we just had someone sail all the way around. I dont see a similar solution for most of todays "assumptions".

You are wrong that everything in physics must be assumed. There is no assumptions about "classical" gravity, thermodynamics or optics. There is mathematical proof for each one and each one works the same regardless of who tests it. Also, I think you misunderstand what a theory is. A theory is a model of how something works based on observation and experimentation. It can make can make predictions, but it is subject to change as we discover new facts.

Several theories about the same thing can exist at the same time with one theory being able model particular phenomena better than another. Quantum physics, Special Relativity and Newtonian physics all describe how light "works" but they model it in different ways.

The last thing any scientist wants is to base a theory on assumptions but some assumptions have to be made in absence of complete data. How do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity will keep working? We don't, we have to assume it will otherwise, nothing will get accomplished. Of course when hard data is found, the assumptions must be put to rest which is the whole point of science in the first place.

You are wrong that everything in physics must be assumed. There is no assumptions about "classical" gravity, thermodynamics or optics. There is mathematical proof for each one and each one works the same regardless of who tests it.

I agree with you in principal, but I have heard some physicists observe that its not impossible that there are some (as yet unobserved) scenarious that might violate thermodynamics in some area or situation we can't observe.

They are sound enough that I'd bet my life on them in any instance, no hesitation, but I don't claim to approve that those laws of thermodynamcs are unilateral across all existences, I'm just very willing to assume for practical purposes.

But again, I think your point as a whole is very cogent.

It would seen to me that the problem with most philosophical and/or physics theorys is that everything must be ASSUMED.


I dont see a similar solution for most of todays "assumptions".I recommend picking up the Philosophical Investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations). From what I've learned from it, I believe it would be quite helpful to you in solving your problem. Here's a bit you can read online (http://www.voidspace.org.uk/psychology/wittgenstein/one.shtml) (another somewhat useful page about it here (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/investigations/context.html)). I do recommend reading the original book itself first; that's what I did. The processed versions like in the last link simply don't have the same kind of impact. My personal answer to your question is: not everything is assumed, just as not everything is justified.

I agree with you in principal, but I have heard some physicists observe that its not impossible that there are some (as yet unobserved) scenarious that might violate thermodynamics in some area or situation we can't observe.

They are sound enough that I'd bet my life on them in any instance, no hesitation, but I don't claim to approve that those laws of thermodynamcs are unilateral across all existences, I'm just very willing to assume for practical purposes.

But again, I think your point as a whole is very cogent.

I have to agree with you about areas of the universe where "our" physics may not work. Also, I just read an article in Scientific American where it was postulated that astronomers in the far future would have no evidence that the Big Bang ever even existed because of the cosmic background radiation fading away. No observation, no theory.

I have to agree with you about areas of the universe where "our" physics may not work. Also, I just read an article in Scientific American where it was postulated that astronomers in the far future would have no evidence that the Big Bang ever even existed because of the cosmic background radiation fading away. No observation, no theory.

Well, its likely that those researchers will have access to synthetic humanoid love slaves of sufficient refinement so as to spend one's life in the act of amazing sex.

They aren't going to get anything done anyway.

Well, its likely that those researchers will have access to synthetic humanoid love slaves of sufficient refinement so as to spend one's life in the act of amazing sex.

They aren't going to get anything done anyway.

Damn. Lucky bastards.

You are wrong that everything in physics must be assumed. There is no assumptions about "classical" gravity, thermodynamics or optics. There is mathematical proof for each one and each one works the same regardless of who tests it. Also, I think you misunderstand what a theory is. A theory is a model of how something works based on observation and experimentation. It can make can make predictions, but it is subject to change as we discover new facts.

Several theories about the same thing can exist at the same time with one theory being able model particular phenomena better than another. Quantum physics, Special Relativity and Newtonian physics all describe how light "works" but they model it in different ways.

The last thing any scientist wants is to base a theory on assumptions but some assumptions have to be made in absence of complete data. How do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity will keep working? We don't, we have to assume it will otherwise, nothing will get accomplished. Of course when hard data is found, the assumptions must be put to rest which is the whole point of science in the first place.

Exactly. They do not know how light works, so they must model it. It is currently difficult to prove any of their models, and so they must assume. Is light an electromagnetic wave, or is it a stream of photons?

In response to the second bolded statement there, I will reply by saying that not everything can be observed. Many things can not be proven either ever or on a realistic human timescale. We can not prove that their is only one universe or that there is many, we can not prove that consciousness is everlasting, or that it is not (in response to the omega point theory thread). These are just 2 examples of many extremely important subjects that must be assumed and theorized.

BTW I understand what a theory is, its just that all im trying to say is that many theories must assume certain things in order to work properly.

Exactly. They do not know how light works, so they must model it. It is currently difficult to prove any of their models, and so they must assume. Is light an electromagnetic wave, or is it a stream of photons?

In response to the second bolded statement there, I will reply by saying that not everything can be observed. Many things can not be proven either ever or on a realistic human timescale. We can not prove that their is only one universe or that there is many, we can not prove that consciousness is everlasting, or that it is not (in response to the omega point theory thread). These are just 2 examples of many extremely important subjects that must be assumed and theorized.

BTW I understand what a theory is, its just that all im trying to say is that many theories must assume certain things in order to work properly.
So what exactly is your point?

Also: please give an example of something that isn't ultimately assumed....

Even cogito ergo sum assumes that your experience of consciousness is exactly that - YOURS and not someone else's that just appears to "you" to be yours.

At the end of the day, we cannot even prove or disprove solipsism to the satisfaction of everyone....

Is light an electromagnetic wave, or is it a stream of photons?

Yes. *nod*

Exactly. They do not know how light works, so they must model it. We don't know how light acts? That's a strange thing to say. Or perhaps you mean: the noumenon of light is unknown to us. I suggest that the noumenon concept contains no information content about its object. It's not unknown to us - that implies that it could be known. An assertion of knowledge (or lack thereof) does not make sense when applied to the noumenon.

It is currently difficult to prove any of their models, and so they must assume. Is light an electromagnetic wave, or is it a stream of photons? Assume what? Is the concept of proof (in a logical sense) even applicable to scientific theories? Why does light have to be like either photons OR a wave? That strikes me as dangerously close to an assumption.

BTW I understand what a theory is, its just that all im trying to say is that many theories must assume certain things in order to work properly.Remember what it means "to assume" something first.

Yes. *nod*
I concur

It would seen to me that the problem with most philosophical and/or physics theorys is that everything must be ASSUMED. I understand that it is human nature to theorize about certain things. However, it must be conceded that every major theory out there today must assume certain things. It must assume that the laws of physics are indeed applicable to everything in the known universe, or it must assume that string theory is incorrect, or it must assume that a singularity can be achieved. There are so many things that cannot be proven that it is a fair bet to say that no philosophical "theory" will ever be accepted as fact. Ex., you cant just "assume" that the earth is round, it must be proven. The only problem is that, with the earth we just had someone sail all the way around. I dont see a similar solution for most of todays "assumptions".

No philosophy doesn't like assumptions, that's why there's loads of debates in philosophy. Philosophy abhors assumptions and hidden premises, it spoils the game.
But if you think about it, everything we do is an assumption that it's a reliable piece of knowledge.
E.g. You must assume that when you talk to other people in the same language that they understand you, or in Mathematics where numbers are a human idea such as 1+1=2, what happens if this is wrong in another dimension? Therefore mathematics is also based on assumptions.
Assumptions are everywhere, that's how humans work because it would be very difficult to work without them, even saying you exist can be an assumption.
As for the earth one, that's easy, if you look at the horizon of the sea (say Atlantic) it curves away, if the earth was flat it wouldn't curve. Ancient Greek people's calculated the size of the earth by ingenius methods.
Of course you could say these are wrong, and everything cannot be trusted, that you are in a matrix being fooled. I could explain problems with this idea, but i don't want to make this post too long.

Exactly. They do not know how light works, so they must model it. It is currently difficult to prove any of their models, and so they must assume. Is light an electromagnetic wave, or is it a stream of photons?


You say this like the two options are somehow exclusive.


In response to the second bolded statement there, I will reply by saying that not everything can be observed.


Okay. But, physics basically deals with what can be observed - that's almost definitive of it as 'scientific'.


Many things can not be proven either ever or on a realistic human timescale.


Okay. But hardly a deathblow. It's implicit in the scientific model to show evidence, not to 'prove'.

On the other hand - if I watch the decay of a radioactive element, and it is halved in a year, halved again in another year, and becomes increasingly small - by halving each time - constantly... do I need to observe it for 50 years to make a guess about the nature of the material in a half a century from now?


We can not prove that their is only one universe or that there is many, we can not prove that consciousness is everlasting, or that it is not (in response to the omega point theory thread). These are just 2 examples of many extremely important subjects that must be assumed and theorized.


Consciousness, everlasting or not, may be philosophy, but not so much about the physics.

We can make assumptions - by basing extrapolations on what we DO know, and I don't see why we should consider that a bad thing.


BTW I understand what a theory is, its just that all im trying to say is that many theories must assume certain things in order to work properly.

Yes. They assume that reality is pretty much as it seems to be.

If it's not, it doesn't matter, because it ACTS like it is.

r this not a general problem with human existence in that we must assume that what we perceive is really real?

It would seen to me that the problem with most philosophical and/or physics theorys is that everything must be ASSUMED.
That’s how most fields of enquiry work, with perhaps the exception of philosophy. Mathematics wouldn’t work unless we assumed that, say, ‘2+2’ will always come up with the answer of ‘4’. Any of the natural sciences wouldn’t work unless we assumed that if an experiment produces result x then, granted the same conditions, the experiment will always produce result x (with caveats here for the intricacies of quantum mechanics).

This is known as the ‘problem of induction’.

A huge amount of enquiry rests upon this assumption, but that’s not a terrible thing; we could hardly enquire into anything without it. And, fortunately, we have a whole field of enquiry dedicated to examining those assumptions and methodologies other fields use: philosophy.

I understand that it is human nature to theorize about certain things.
We are curious beings, true. But ‘human nature’? Arguable.

There are so many things that cannot be proven that it is a fair bet to say that no philosophical “theory” will ever be accepted as fact.
As a budding philosopher, I’d ask you to define the words ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ in your statement above. It’s a bit too woolly for my liking.

Some philosophy does express facts. Think on this popular little number:

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

It expresses a number of propositions, which are true, and logically deduces a conclusion, which is also true. Now, not all philosophy is ‘factual’, but we’re straying into deep metaphysical/linguistical waters here. Too assess whether “right actions maximise well-being” is a good rule of thumb to guide social policy, do we need to find out if “right actions maximise well-being” is a fact? Some would say we can and should do, while others would say that such a statement cannot express an objective fact about the world at all (this is where Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, as Shotagon recommended, comes to play). From there, we are led to further questions about whether there are any objective facts in the universe... and so on.

I think you’ll see that there are plenty of assumptions going on, but that philosophy, and to a lesser extent other fields of enquiry, investigates these assumptions, examining them and their implications.

You are wrong that everything in physics must be assumed. There is no assumptions about “classical” gravity, thermodynamics or optics. There is mathematical proof for each one and each one works the same regardless of who tests it.
Actually, that’s an assumption right there; the problem of induction.

To assess whether “right actions maximise well-being” is a good rule of thumb to guide social policy, do we need to find out if “right actions maximise well-being” is a fact? Some would say we can and should do, while others would say that such a statement cannot express an objective fact about the world at all (this is where Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, as Shotagon recommended, comes to play).From what I understand, the 'cannot express objective facts about the world' point of view is mostly from the early Tractatus-Wittgenstein. The Investigations-era Wittgenstein would be perfectly comfortable asserting objective facts about the world.

Many of you are entirely missing the point of my statement here. Let me give you an example of a common statement in physics.

If we assume THIS is true, then THAT is also true.

There you have it, that is the problem. That is all im trying to say here.

Many of you are entirely missing the point of my statement here. Let me give you an example of a common statement in physics.

If we assume THIS is true, then THAT is also true.

There you have it, that is the problem. That is all im trying to say here.Well... why is saying things like that a problem?

Many of you are entirely missing the point of my statement here. Let me give you an example of a common statement in physics.

If we assume THIS is true, then THAT is also true.

There you have it, that is the problem. That is all im trying to say here.And what are you trying to say with that?

Many of you are entirely missing the point of my statement here. Let me give you an example of a common statement in physics.

If we assume THIS is true, then THAT is also true.

There you have it, that is the problem. That is all im trying to say here.

Recognizing the inherent nature of implicative statements isn't really a problem, in fact, one might view those limits, and specificially the acknowledgement of those limits, as one of the great strengths of science as an explorative method.

Even the most rigorous fields, like discrete mathematics, recognize the place of assumption, and they are not thus made less useful.

I'd even go so far as to say that in some ways, once you surrender the need for absolute and categorical Truth, you may find you can penetrate ideas with both greater freedom and depth.

And Assumption, that old and senile God, found often false and careless, capricious, would not relinquish his throne, that hallowed seat at the foundation of the Heaven called Thought....

Fact screamed and thrust, and threw himself forward, armed with that highest regard, and by the time he reached gates, the harsh light left none of him to exist....

Empiricism came forward, thinking to attack in numbers, he brought with him his lovers, Sense and Experience, and though their followers were so many as to eclipse the horizon, they all died in one another's arms, as the Sense carried the disease deception, and they shared this in their love...

Skepticism came, quiet and sure, having waited to come last, and as it gazed at the remnants of the rebel corpses, it stood before Assumption.

No battle cry came. "You and I are friends", she said.

And Assumption said, "Come and sit by me, and in fair regard to one another, perhaps we will bear children, none named Truth, but all alive with the blood of Idea, yet unstained by that needless pox that of so-called Certainty."

- From "Old and Stubborn Gods"
by Sean Bajar

Thank you for this! I got something new to cherish today :fluffle: