Can philosophy of science have an impact on physics? | Sabine Hossenfelder
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 тра 2024
- Interview with Sabine Hossenfelder discussing creativity in physics, physics and philosophy of science, new developments in cosmology, and more.
For more content on physics and philosophy visit iai.tv/player?YouT...
00:00 Do you have a feeling of awe and admiration towards the universe?
01:37 Is there a place for creativity in physics?
03:36 Is it misguided to look for simplicity and singularity in physics?
06:11 Do you think science will be able to accommodate human subjectivity?
07:40 Do you think philosophy of science can have an impact on physics?
11:11 How has philosophy influenced your work as a physicist?
12:09 Are there exciting recent developments in cosmology?
13:30 What is the best medium to communicate science ideas to the public?
15:03 What are you currently working on?
15:52 What is the biggest question on the intersection between physics and philosophy?
In this interview, leading physicist and author, Sabine Hossenfelder, discusses the relationship between physics and philosophy. She examines the scientific community’s desire to find a unified theory of everything, and contemplates how science can accommodate human subjectivity. She also considers the role of physics in helping us tackle major philosophical issues involving time, free will, and consciousness.
#SabineHossenfelder #PhilosophyOfScienceAndPhysics #TheoreticalPhysicistInterview
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist who specialises in the foundations of physics. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the group on Superfluid Dark Matter. She is the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, and the forthcoming Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions. Hossenfelder also has a popular UA-cam channel called "Science without the gobbledygook".
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
What did you think fo this interview? Do you agree with Sabine Hossenfelder? Leave a comment below!
For more science content visit iai.tv/player?UA-cam&
She looks like from the Jores-Tamayo geniuses side. She went to me in Dimasalang, MasbatePH and consulted me in the 1980s when I was still kinda prolific. Perhaps it was the last effort of the British Monarchy that time (bringing top scientists) to extract knowledge from the Jores-Tamayos relating to Physics, (our) Tokamak and ITER, and Star Trek technologies.
Since you asked what we think of the interview, I'll tell you: I think it would have been much better without all the background noise. That was very distracting, and made it harder to concentrate on what Dr. Hossenfelder was saying.
@@SteveDeHaven -- Whew, I thought it must just be me, that noise was annoying and distracting.
You need philosophy to form coherent ideas and its hard to do science without coherent ideas.
GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
I agree a lot with Sabine here. I'm an engineer, but I also studied philosophy and psychology, and both have proven very helpful to me as an engineer. Philosophy essentially teaches you how to evaluate abstract concepts which have no yes/no right/wrong answer and apply logic to these situations, as well as establish a framework for what constitutes knowledge and how people approach problems based on their theory of knowledge. Psychology has similar benefits in terms of understanding others' viewpoints and why they do the things they do. Being aware of human frameworks and limitations, being taught to question the foundations of knowledge, and being taught to formalize complex, abstract problems are all useful for scientists and engineers.
Define knowledge and consider *whose* knowledge.
At least engineers are useful
@@vhawk1951kl knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
Whose knowledge, or whether it's accurately informing decisions is another story altogether
@@vhawk1951kl Define useful.
Yes, we must understand that which(brain/mind) is doing the understanding of the world if we are to understand our world. Our brain/mind is structured making knowledge possible while the structure limits what we know.
@@bobs182 the world around us is structured also... So it has it's limitations, too...
Biological/evolutionary requirements/constraints are physical ones at the basic level:
we should develop a good understanding of the boundaries but also of the connections between living systems and other natural systems.
Abandoning static pictures of processes, instead thinking of causes and effects (inputs/outputs...) as guiding principles of stable systems will leade us to reveal answers to one of the major questions:
to what extent the deterministic nature of cognitive processes limits the area of possible knowledge...
Sabine is a very inspiring person and I am full of admiration about the way she arrives to transmit complicated stuff in a easy and simple way on her own channel. Thank you for this video
I enterely agree!
Is your "admiration" your only "inspiration"? lol
@@radupopescu9977 And me. Thank you for the video.🌱
Yeah frankly she should just pursue her career in music, it’s clearly where her talents lie. That and her contributions to string theory are mind blowing; she’s just an all around rock star, it really is astounding.
@@cloroxbleach6344 Sabine Hossenfelder's talent lies in her ability to communicate complex issues such as theoretical physics to the person, such as myself, in a way that makes physics more understandable and interesting. Her music is a side note. 🎵
I love Sabine! I hope to see more and more of her.
I've recently read a book on AI from the 70s, written by mathematicians, and they criticize physicist for viewing "more accurate" as always strictly superior to "more understandable" (which is not necessarily the same as simpler). The discussion on how philosophy can impact physics reminded me of that, even though it's not the same point being made.
Well, and we're not even talking about "more useful" because then it's got to be appended with "for whom?"
Could you tell me the name of the book please?
So I am in the company of Sabine again ... and she is clear, distinct and to me she shines like the sunflowers of the decor.❤
Sabine Hossenfelder
I see Sabine doing a great job of pushing the boundaries of science. Being critical of the status quo is something most scientists will not do. She is a brave soul, in my mind, capable of understanding the conceptual dynamics and voicing concerns without the trappings of emotional overtones. Pushing the limits of what we know sometimes involves questioning what we know.
What you say is true. Sabine is a breath of fresh air...a free thinker.
@@poksnee One can only hope that the philosophy adopted by science is truth based and robust. It is common knowledge that scientists are under the influence of factors that support their world view/sustenance. There seems to be no underlying philosophical construct that defines science with a set of goals - no analog to the oath of office, or Hippocratic oath. These have not stopped politicians from abandoning the will of the people, or doctors from being influenced by drug companies. This general lack of ethics are a negative indicator for everyone being affected. Scientists have no code, such as to support the advancement of humanity, for instance.
Honestly, I am in love with this amazing woman and my wife of 39 years completely understands :)
The more I watch and listen to Sabine, the more my respect for her grows, both as a physicist and a general thinker.
Why are you telling us that you have bad taste in the saints you venerate? :-)
Would like to hear Dr. Hossenfelder have a discussion/debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Both are brilliant. I understand they are friends, but they differ quite a bit on theory. Dr. Carroll will be teaching Philosophy of Physics soon on the faculty at Johns Hopkins.
Sabine Hossenfelder, you've just become my home of ontological security. Thanks for this interview
Cant wait to read her new book she mentions coming out this summer about the intersection between philosophy and the foundations of physics!
Thanks Sabine!
The philosopher Aristotle discovered the hierarchy of ideas, w/philosopht at the base. He also discovered scientific method and was the first scientist. Even the attempt to deny philosophy rests on philosophy.
Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as inductive; a new theory of induction
Definitely admire Sabine. It's great to see someone that can make science legible and have a decent amount of people listen. It gives me hope.
I wish to see a discussion between Sabine and David Albert
Just subtly blew my mind
I love this woman! She understands real science! Math is a tool to explain what reality is. Not the other way around!
She is so awesome. Love you Sabine!
Nice interview. Sabine is one of the most interesting educators on UA-cam. I always enjoy watching her. She's always got something interesting to say.
excellent questions thankyou, I have followed sabine for a few years
I really respect Sabine for this! Just because she's very skeptical and down to earth doesn't mean she doesn't recognize the value of philosophy.
Some people seem to outright dismiss any aspect of reality not discoverable by the scientific method as religious, simply unknowable, dishonest, etc
I like her view on how philosophy’s role could be more proactive and useful by critically examining it @8:30
Have been subscribed to SH for quite a while. Love how she pokes at the holes in the various hypotheses.
Sabine just ROCKS!!!
Bravo!!!
Fabulous🤩!!
Philosophy is perhaps the only disciplinary field that intersects and can inform all other human endeavours.
In fact it was not that long ago that British Universities inserted what they called the "classics" into ALL University qualifications.
Irrespective of what studies a student undertook, Physics, language, Medicine, Accounting, Art, Economics etc, within your course was an introduction in Philosophy and music etc.
Over the past 3 or 4 decades this requirement and educational culture has been phased out.
And I think it has been to the detriment of all studies, including Philosophy itself, which fed off external problems and themes.
Compare the graduates today to previous years. They are Ultra specialised in their field today.
You can see it in the Nobel Prize winners in Physics: compare the first 60 years to the previous 60 years.
The Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to a few researchers for inventing the Blue LED about a decade ago.
Compare that to say Paul Dirac's Nobel Prize for theoretically predicting the existence of the anti-electron in his 80 page PhD thesis that he hand wrote in his 20s.
Fundamental Physics has stagnated since about the mid 1970s. Technology and innovation has increased due to the demands of short term corporate profit or fueling the military machine.
But overall Physics has stagnated: Physicists were even afraid to talk about Hugh Everritt III's work.
"Shut up and calculate" is not a healthy catch cry for Physicist to adopt. For any scientists to adopt for that matter.
It will turn around - I see positive healthy signs emerging from Physics and Philosophical discussions have played a big role in that turn around.
Just my opinion - what the hell would I know folks?
Yes! Beautifully said, I agree fully. I think science got engangled in it’s own web, as it has become way too specialised, so no one can actually understand the big picture - a job that was in the past reserved for philosophers.
@@oldrichpriklenk5089 Someone actually read my post and responded?
Many Scientists are offended or their ego gets bruised when I highlight this change in the way Scientific fields have been commodified and corporatised - in particular Physicists seem to be the most fragile and insecure in this regard. In the USA about half of all the Physicists are directly or indirectly employed by the military industrial complex and Corporate defence contractors developing and maintaining weapons and defence systems, including WMDs. The scientific goals become short term and very narrow.
We also saw this in Big Pharma during the Pandemic (and before). It's a cultural and political issue rather than a scientific one. (imo)
Cheers
Love you Sabine. Awesome person! Love your tussled hair also...
I love her way!
Good interview and discussion. I like the way Sabine Hossenfelder phrases most of the stuff she says. My take on the title question is that there's a necessary philosophical component to physics which necessarily impacts physics. Then there's the philosophy of science, which is a separate field, and which is not necessarily, or very often, impactful. The idea that time is an illusion is one of the least interesting philosophical views, imho. Good channel. Thanks
Excellent.... thanks.
❤️
I love it when I see Sabine in a video because I immediately know I'm out of my depth.
Such a great interview and a great woman. Also, I want to know everything Dr. Hossenfelder thinks about the measurement problem. And I want to know now! :-)
I wish I could think like Sabine, but unfortunately I often times get too caught up in wonder to question things.
I hope Sabine does more talks about superdeterminism.
have a look at gerard t’hooft lectures if you want to learn more about it
We need to embrace Philosophy Psychology Physics Mathematics Art Music to trend towards a better understanding of Existence. One discipline is not enough.
I am a fan of Sabine's honesty, great content, thanks!
This lady
¡¡¡SABINE!!!
15:38 Now THAT seems to be a great book to read!
I'm in love
Science requires scientists who are honest and ethical. Philosophy is profoundly important to our future progress.
As usual, Sabine is correct 😘
The more she learns the skill of getting complicated ideas across to those w/o the math background the more fascinating are the depths and reaches of her awesome universe of a mind to those less gifted and unschooled. Excited about the new book.
It is a mixed blessing because without the math the ideas never truly get across. I thought I understood so much as a fan of pop physics, until I took higher math and physics courses. Then realize I had only understood extremely simplified versions or analogizes.
@@vids595 My intuition is that is probably correct. Ideas whose comprehension perhaps surpasses what is available through ordinary spoken language-- which could say something maybe about math and realism. Thanks.
There is really no reason for a layman who is unable or unwilling to do the work to know these things, they’ll simply misuse it. See quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra.
@@peterader3073 Brian Greene did a funny bit (I think it was Prof. Greene) as do others on folk quantum whacko-ness. On that score, it is hard to disagree. It is sad if not often tragic how the laughing primate insists on finding ghosts in the machine.
The book is excellent. I swallowed it up pretty quick. Tackling great questions. Common sense to the nth.
Feynman did exactly what Sabine argues for when he developed the Feynman diagrams.
I agree with Sabine, and find her UA-cam channel both approachable and informative. Especially impressed that in a challenging interview format like this, Dr. Hossenfelder manages to come back with eloquent, thought-provoking answers at the drop of a hat, that we can all appreciate.
The whole of Mathematics (& its yet to emerge branches) is but a tool to explain the Physical reality of Nature around us.
I would add it also needs psychology and history. We need to see patterns of human behavior, especially deviant and destructive tendencies, and look forward in time to the end products and stages that COULD be acheived...for better or worse.
The role of mathematics in modern physical science is undeniable, making measurements of objects in the natural world, and the ability to make predictions require skills in mathematics and a method to communicate limits.
fascinating discussion, and to the extent that I can judge the picture of contemporary contributions from philosophy accurate, but this has to do a lot with the abandonment of metaphysics as an ambitious project and the idea that tends to dominate or at least represents the consensus of reasonableness is that metaphysics should be done in the broader context of physics. While there are lots of different ways this idea informs cont metaphysics one clear effect is the sociology of science feel to much phil sci. By contrast reading anything from 17th-18th c metaphysics (say Leibniz) the debates and ideas seem to me very relevant to cont physics - at least the big questions. I realised this listening to different theories of wave function collapse, when expressed in natural language rather than math, they seemed to be positions in a metaphysical landscape that 17th and 18th c metaphysicians and critical metaphysicians would definitely recognise. By contrast in the contemporary philosophical environment this sort of speculative thought does not flourish and there are interesting and important reasons for this I'm just putting this out as n observation.
In case you like Sabines interview, you will probably like interviews with or presentations by Markus Gabriel, best selling philosopher from Germany. There are many German and several english videos here on youtube, e.g. "Making sense of thinking" , 7.September.2019 .
Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication - it's about continuous creation of concepts. Contemplation, reflection and communication ought to be already an inherent part of everything, be it science, art, society, politics, social media etc. but since they obviously are not, we need philosophers reflecting on things outside philosophy...
A theory in itself is never right nor wrong it is at best fitting to explain observations
At the beginning of the discussion, Sabine started by mentioning the measurement problem, should we eliminating the human factor. Strange, this simple concept is central to all of physics.
I think that Objectivism is can fix the mysticism and formalism in physics.
The concept of a soul is only important to people who want to live forever.
I'm just wondering what th result would be if Sabine cooperated on a book with Randall Munroe (xkcd)?
Deniel Dennett says that the purpose of philosophy is to refine the question but that where it goes astray is when people try to use it to provide "answers". Answers require empirical input.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control.
As soon as a model better at prediction and control come along, the old models are set aside in favour of the one that woks better.
Models are tools created for a purpose - a human all too human purpose, a human all too human creation, a human all too human hope
We never get to a final, exclusive, complete "truth".
All we get is abstractions, man-made abstractions.
The greatest mystery in the universe is the consciousness doing the questioning, the abstracting/ model building/ predicting and the observing/ measuring - the one who cares, the centre of care, the origin of care.
Consciousness cannot "know" itself, model itself, because when consciousness tries to look at itself, it enters into an infinite regress. We never get to the "bottom" of it. We never "wrap it up".
And that brings us to the philosophical/ spiritual/ religious realm.
It's a never-ending process of generating more questions, modelling wider contexts, more subtle observations, finer measurements, more precise provisional "conclusions".
But I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy the ride. And appreciate the awe and wonder of it all.
Keep an open mind.
Find out what works to accomplish what.
Creator. Creation. Creativity.
Consciousness is an irreducible part of the cosmos. A sine quo non. As far as we know, eternal.
Thank you for your detail, Ms hossenfelder. My philosophy is that everything is the center of infinity. Your curiosity at the forces great and small that centers us here burning daylight is quite enlightening.
Thanks for the conversation with Sabine. The background is too annoying on some angles.
Sabine Hossenfelder is always excellent. Thanks to IAI for bringing this kind of content to the world.
Idealism's dominance of contemporary philosophy (rather than Realism) might unfortunately keep this phenomenon alive well into the foreseeable future.
@@54eopifkg3ehfkj43 Idealism (Kant, Plato) is the basis of Western culture (including the its current state of entropy). Materialism (Aristotle, Democritus, Marx) has never truly held sway beyond the press it gets as being the source of critique.
The scientific disciplines live in the cultural milieu of Idealism and as such, they are affected by its inherent magical thinking.
Realism, but especially Speculative Realism & Object Oriented Ontology (Deleuze, Harmon, Morton) takes a dynamicist approach which is decentered from/properly disrespectful of the human subject as prime mover regarding object relationships.
Even if philosophy of science spent its time exclusively on what emerges from science and then tries to make sense of it and asks what it might mean (which it doesn't) this would hardly be 'useless'. Asking what something might mean or what sense it might make is a crucial activity.
I have noticed that physicists who deride philosophy engage in poor philosophical constructs. I think of Larry Krauss and his extreme spite of philosophy in any way. Or Stephen Hawking writing that "philosophy is dead." in his book, The Grand Design, it is a self stultifying statement and cannot be true. Hawking's book like Krauss' was full of philosophy, poor philosophy.
As for does the Past or Future exist? It does if there is more than one dimension of Time such as a plane of time. It would certainly answer a lot of mysteries like how electrons can be in two places at the same time or why quantum particles cannot be measured in more than one way. I mean we can measure its speed, but then lose its position or measure its position, but not its speed. It would explain how quantum particles pop in and out of existence. To say they come from not anything nowhere is not science, it's just ignorance.
Not to mention, a large portion of philsophers of science/physics actually have degrees in physics.
@@handzar6402 George Ellis comes to mind.
@@MountainFisher Yes, and many others.
I love her brain! Also, the interviewer was very good, but his identity was not disclosed.
I want to be as exact as possible, but it gives me the abdabs!
Sabine Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I am fascinated by the nexus of philosophy and physics. I recently published an article that looks at time with regard to illness, Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Autism, and ME/CFS in the peer-review journal Science & Philosophy.
Lovely interview. The choice of sunflowers are a subtle statement also, in these trying times.
Yes of course it does. Now I will watch.
Just look around at the social effects of science. Good, and bad. Philosophy can possibly mediate.
Watching a tree grow and a bonfire tell you a lot about the forces in nature. Also watching how humans create societies, fight wars and fall in love, gives you information on the same forces. Our modern science tells us a lot about individual forces and makes us able to create all kind of tools. In my view, our old knowledge made us able to understand complex systems of life and create wisdom in our minds.
well said.
Curiosity and compassion with all their is rather than "old knowledge". What you are pointing at is that we lost the awe in which open questions pend and the courage to bear with it. We ran from complexity towards detail as it's easier, even when challenging. We define all by what we know and boast about it, looking down on less knowledgeable previous generations which did exactly the same with their predecessors. This arrogance is our down fall as we miss to see the space and the natural limitedness of gathered knowledge.
Unless we correct this initial mistake, all scientific and technological endeavours will continue to be a very risky business for human kind. It's ignorant of us not to see how we are driving a dangerous zickzack and call it progress. It's repetitive clouded by inevitable findings, but our view of life and ourselves remains...."old" and underdeveloped. After more than one shove close to full disaster in the 20th century, we should come to our senses and see that technological findings are a great pastime and sometimes quite practical, but yet kid's play compared to really unfolding our intelligence beyond just explorimg every grain of sand in the box we played in so far.
Those who made real impact on Physics always had profound knowledge of and engaged in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, Descartes, Galileu, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, you name it. When this stopped, Physics pretty much stopped as well. It's common knowledge that we have not made any great leap in Physics after Einstein and the quantum guys. And, mark my words, we won't until physicists start paying attention to Philosophy again.
on the contrary, Aristotle effectively put back science 1500 years, as everybody assumed that because Aristotle had decided something, that was settled, and and disagreement was heresy. It was not until Bacon and Newton that science took off again, as science rather than "natural philosophy"
It seems to me a great failing of our time is hyper-specialisation. It seems like great thinkers / scientists of the past were much more well-rounded in general. A simple example being that John Adams was deeply interested in mathematics, the arts, law etc., nowadays he would have done 4 years at The Diplomatic School for Diplomats.
It seems trivial to say that now we have experts who spend their whole time thinking in one paradigm, when say mathematics itself takes its greatest leaps forwards when the links from seemingly disconnected areas reveal a deeper truth.
I've found in my own life my mind feels more barren when it is focused on one thing. There are obvious counter-examples where someone specialises in a real niche place and does amazing work without reference to anything else, but my sense is that the ones who make the greatest leaps are consciously or subconsciously influenced by (and crucially are interested in) a much wider array of things.
@@Pippins666 In Western Europe, maybe, but the Islamic world made decent progress in mathematics and astronomy after Aristotle, because they didn't take his metaphysics as dogma. Surely the blame shouldn't be on philosophy, but on the repression by the Catholic Church, right?
@@vauchomarx6733 partly, but not entirely. It is certainly true that Aristotle had the deadening effect I mentioned, but equally true that the Vatican destroyed science in southern Europe. After the inquisition of Galileo the centre of scientific knowledge moved to northern Europe, away from the dead hand and even deader brain of the Catholic hierarchy. Coincidentally this was about the time the Islamic scholarship and enlightenment was at its peak.
The philosophers Popper, Kuhn & Feyerabend offer quite useful epistemological guide lines about what science is all about, because the fundamental foundation of all sciences is DOUBT!
Science is just knowledge. And every branch of science may have different parameters or methodology.
Yep, definitely. For instance many scientists don't distinguish between causal determinism and predictive determinism. And many are being influenced by their views on free will.
The issue is that none of that matters. My views on free will have nothing to do with writing down a number produced by a machine.
@@cougar2013 compatibilist?
So help me out here:
With the question at 9:09 she goes on to answer, that this is “that happened to be a topic that I’m not very familiar with”.
But she goes on to say @ 15:30 that she has a book coming out that deals with “time” “is time an illusion”.
What gives ? What did I miss…or misunderstand??
Yeah, that is an odd contradiction.
The topic she isn't familiar with is how philosophers speak about the "illusion of time."
The topic she is familiar with is how physicists speak about time.
No contradiction.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Okay, that’s fair enough, yet very peculiar, especially considering (in her own words) her gravitation towards philosophy of late.
However I suppose, not even a scientist/aspiring philosopher can be abreast of all discourse emanating from the two disciplines, even though the interviewer seems to be appraised.
IMO, Quantum Mechanics is doing the same for advancement of understanding of the physical world as Roman Numerals did for the advancement of understanding of arithmetic.
OBTW, great interview...
You asked Sabine about the transcendentals of beauty and truth... but not about the transcendentals of feeling, being, and identity. Science and our very existence derives from the transcendentals and yet Science cannot measure the transcendentals at all. For example, we all have the feeling of free choice, but Science cannot measure feelings like free choice. Even if you do not believe you have the feeling of free choice, you do have it.
Sabine is rightly critical of the doldrums of unification of gravity and quantum charge and far too many in Science have no escape from the doldrums. It is clear that not much can really move forward until Science shows that the quantum bond of matter to the universe is a form of the quantum bond of charge.
Philosophy is not ideology. Don’t mix or confuse the two. Ideology is the opposite of science
For ideology read religion?
@@vhawk1951kl or politics
Or any "idea" based system where the idea comes first and is defended without regard for reality.
Everyone needs to philosophize when screw ups inevitably happen.
I think it's important Sabine, that you have a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) in physics.
Sabine
What is the significance of the white wrist-band on your right hand ?
And that's what she talked about today.
Time reversals, evolution law, space time, quantum entanglement,...can be seen in bhagavad githa
Skip ciphers of any sufficiently large text always reveal interesting statements.
What kind of philosophy are we talking about exactly?
The question I ask my philosopher friend is how to distinguish correlation from causation and I never get a good answer and sometimes no answer at all.
You do it again and again and again. :-)
one of the best actual physicists explaining the most difficult physics to the layman online, by a long chalk. However, she is only part of the way there - her lack of a view of philosophy as 'thinking about anything in terms of its meaning' is very deficient and/or under-expressed. The reason most philosophy is poorly regarded by physicists, and many others, is that philosophers fail to fully assert themselves by explaining that the foundations of all science, not just reductionist physics ('everything is explained by particles, atoms, and the void'), rely on a very exacting set of philosophical assumptions concerning: objectivity versus subjectivity; the strict reliability of human logic and reasoning in general (ie, epistemology); and realism versus idealism. She presents Ockham's Razor (from the 14th century English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, apologist, and Catholic theologian) as a principle of science, but without deeply understanding - or at least presenting - that fact that the Razor of William of Ockham is a principle of economy of all cognition, not of 'science'. Thus she blurs the boundaries of science and philosophy and confuses the two. In short, her scientific training and general habit of mind leads her to see everything thru the scientific lens and subsume it into a 'science = everything' worldview.
Sabine is pretty darned good by really really big Texas standards
Clear, natural no gobbledegook here
good that shes moving more toward philosophy- physics is narrow in the end- solve how to get beyond human centric measurement problem - is not spacetime not doomed?
"Science" has a philosophy, it is called empiricism. The next question is whether one is committed to limiting the field of knowledge to that which is derived via positivistic falsification.
It's very dependent on what definition of creativity you use. I would argue that although physics is fundamentally a convergent activity, attempting to find the answer, rather than a divergent activity, one might some times use divergent thinking in order to entertain ideas that wouldn't otherwise occur to you.
The big problem comes when crackpots use this as an excuse to base their "physics" in imagination rather than converging on an answer that is corroborated with evidence.
Answers that can be reach with other people using different equipment in different places and reaching the same result.
So Mathematics is not First MetaPhysics?
The majority of the notable philosophers were also brilliant mathematicians -- Descartes, Whitehead, Pascal, Aristotle, etc., etc.
Could add Sabine Hossenfelder on your list
New book on the way? Sign me up!
Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
I’m confused. @15:30 she says her new book addresses philosophical intersections and questions like: Is time an illusion? But earlier in the interview she said that topic wasn’t something she studied deeply and therefore couldn’t comment on @9:16
Yes, as I see it, the interviewer was interested in the topic and threw out some statements, she's not in agreement with. Think she didn't want to discuss it in that interview, and therefore tried to bypass the issue
Natural Philosophy is at the forefront of science.
Natural science is crystallised natural philosophy
What science needs is to not have an agenda.
What is the counterpart and alternative to science??
The alternative to science is not-science: not observing, not questioning, not testing claims, not reproducing results, not sharing knowledge.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself you mean "religion" 🤣🤣🤣
Ideology. And nowadays the very popular escapist fantasy fiction called Alternative Facts.
If it happens it will eventuly be measurable
Here's the problem I see with quantum physics today. We are not past the point of describing what it is, let alone why it is the way it is. For example, we can't describe the effect of gravity at the quantum level. We need to be able to describe it before understanding how it works. Another example would be quantum entanglement. We need to describe the process before understanding the how. There's still a debate over particle or wave. But since matter is just energy compressed to what appears to us to be a solid and thus a particle it seems to me that any discrete packet of energy, like a photon, could look like both.
The problem comes in when physicists speculate as if they actually know how these things work. Sabine is one of the few who never seems to do this. She says what she knows and also what she doesn't know.