Is physics empty?
February 2, 2009 6:54 AM Subscribe
Is physics all structure and no content?
Does physics simply tell us HOW MANY different kinds of fundamental items there are (particles, fields, etc.), and how they're DISPOSED to move or affect movements, without saying anything more about these items that are disposed in these ways?
Compare: Suppose it's true that there are X's and Y's, and that X's and Y's are inclined to come together. That, though true, doesn't say much about X's or Y's, even if, structurally, it is deep.
Think of the adjectives in physics -- mass, charge, spin, etc. -- ARE ALL THE ADJECTIVES IN PHYSICS DISPOSITIONAL? If so, then physics, though structurally deep, is empty.
Does physics simply tell us HOW MANY different kinds of fundamental items there are (particles, fields, etc.), and how they're DISPOSED to move or affect movements, without saying anything more about these items that are disposed in these ways?
Compare: Suppose it's true that there are X's and Y's, and that X's and Y's are inclined to come together. That, though true, doesn't say much about X's or Y's, even if, structurally, it is deep.
Think of the adjectives in physics -- mass, charge, spin, etc. -- ARE ALL THE ADJECTIVES IN PHYSICS DISPOSITIONAL? If so, then physics, though structurally deep, is empty.
This post was deleted for the following reason: This is darned foggy as answerables go -- it reads more like you're trying to start a philosophy-of-science debate than get a clear answer questioned. Maybe try again with a clearer statement of your actual question next week? -- cortex
Without understanding much of what you're saying and being pretty sure this will be removed as chatfilter, all I can say is "welcome to science!" All we've got are observations and attempts to describe them.
posted by Schismatic at 7:19 AM on February 2, 2009
posted by Schismatic at 7:19 AM on February 2, 2009
Although there are many interpretations, you can say that physics only talks about observed quantities: There is no other meaning to mass, other than the quantity measured with a balance. This may sound empty, but it works --- everything else is metaphysical.
posted by ghost of a past number at 7:19 AM on February 2, 2009
posted by ghost of a past number at 7:19 AM on February 2, 2009
What would the content be? Other than patterns in space & time.
posted by Gyan at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2009
posted by Gyan at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2009
This is a yes and no kind of answer.
Typically physics doesn't care a rats ass about what reality truly IS. It only cares about being able to characterize it's motion mathematically so that it can be predicted.
What is gravity? Who cares? As long as THIS certain formula works and can predict getting to the moon.
That said, there is a lot of "physical" description going on, but they're not really an attempt to be truthful as much as to give you mental picture to go along with remembering or thinking about the math and transactions.
Descartes was the "What IS it" and Galileo was the "Hey, here's the FORMULA, who gives about the other shit: brass tacks baby." And Newton sided with Galileo and it's been down that road for the most part ever since.
The String Theorists do attempt to say "Hey, it's REALLY physically a close-looped string or open string," but then again, it's sooooo small, they admit there's no way to prove their shapes, so then, how can you know? So we are back to the "physical" descriptions serving more so as an aid, but not necessarily the Truth.
Besides, what IS real? Nothing IS solid yet they appear to be. Everything you see is turned upside-down by the brain, ignoring all the blood cells in the eye, interpreting colors, ignoring eye-lashes and so on. So you're brain interprets reality. and even then, only the light not absorbed by reality. Most things you can't see directly because they aren't in the light spectrum so you're forced to see indirectly most of nature.
I'm with Galileo on this one. Brass tacks. Formula. It works. Imagining little monkeys is just as good as strings to me.
posted by Kensational at 7:31 AM on February 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Typically physics doesn't care a rats ass about what reality truly IS. It only cares about being able to characterize it's motion mathematically so that it can be predicted.
What is gravity? Who cares? As long as THIS certain formula works and can predict getting to the moon.
That said, there is a lot of "physical" description going on, but they're not really an attempt to be truthful as much as to give you mental picture to go along with remembering or thinking about the math and transactions.
Descartes was the "What IS it" and Galileo was the "Hey, here's the FORMULA, who gives about the other shit: brass tacks baby." And Newton sided with Galileo and it's been down that road for the most part ever since.
The String Theorists do attempt to say "Hey, it's REALLY physically a close-looped string or open string," but then again, it's sooooo small, they admit there's no way to prove their shapes, so then, how can you know? So we are back to the "physical" descriptions serving more so as an aid, but not necessarily the Truth.
Besides, what IS real? Nothing IS solid yet they appear to be. Everything you see is turned upside-down by the brain, ignoring all the blood cells in the eye, interpreting colors, ignoring eye-lashes and so on. So you're brain interprets reality. and even then, only the light not absorbed by reality. Most things you can't see directly because they aren't in the light spectrum so you're forced to see indirectly most of nature.
I'm with Galileo on this one. Brass tacks. Formula. It works. Imagining little monkeys is just as good as strings to me.
posted by Kensational at 7:31 AM on February 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Take the humble electron: we can assign and measure mass, charge, spin, lepton number, etc., to it.
What else are you attempting to assign to the electron?
Is that thing testable? measurable?
In some sense, physics says, "We don't talk about what X or Y is unless we have a way to prove it, measure it, and so forth."
posted by adipocere at 7:18 AM on February 2, 2009