The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science

  • 20 Replies
  • 6667 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« on: November 16, 2018, 08:17:42 pm »
The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science

Quote
...If not much that happens in nature is, in fact, as orderly and regular as we have been led to believe by physics, then we must expect even less order when we enter the world of the human sciences. Hence, if the economist attempts to lay down laws, he or she is well-advised to equip them with ceteris paribus conditions – that is, if he proposes that “taxes increase prices” he will protect his hide by informing us that they will only do so if other things are equal. But other things rarely are equal. All kinds of countervailing trends may be at work, as well as quite unexpected events – a run on the dollar, an oil bonanza, a devaluation of the currency – so that it is possible that a tax increase, far from raising prices, may be followed by a fall in prices.

Does this mean that the ‘law’ in this case is wrong? Not at all. In explaining why the law failed to apply on this particular occasion the economist will have recourse to counterfactuals: that is, he will explain that the tax increase would have caused a rise in prices if x or y or z had not occurred. In which case, one may think, it is not much of a law, if it cannot guarantee that the cause will give rise to the effect. However, Cartwright argues that this situation is scarcely peculiar to laws of economics; it applies equally to the laws of physics.

Normally the laws of physics do not come to us armed with ceteris paribus clauses: physicists are rather more confident of the robustness of their laws than are economists. For Cartwright, however, this confidence comes from the fact that, unlike economists, physicists are able, in the closed world of the laboratory, to ensure that the outcomes they predict are in fact attained. They create, that is, the severely restricted conditions in which their predictions will come true. Here Cartwright quotes the econometrician Tyrgve Haavelmo who praises the cleverness of physicists who “confine their predictions to the outcomes of their experiments.” When it comes to predicting things in the real world – the world of avalanches, floods, and earthquakes – the task is somewhat trickier...

Quote
Cartwright, unusually for a philosopher of science, displays a concern not only for science as knowledge but for its potentiality to change the world. If we are practically concerned with science our main interest is less with conceptual purity than with getting things to work. She cites the example of building a superconducting device which would allow us to detect the victims of strokes. Superconductivity occurs when a metal’s electrical resistance vanishes below a certain critical temperature, and is understood in terms of quantum mechanics. In the practical business of designing such a device, Cartwright finds that the supposed primacy of quantum physics disappears. It is the case, rather, that quantum and classical mechanics are applied on an ad hoc basis, as and when they are seen to work. In general she argues that quantum mechanics, rather than offering (as is often alleged) a more basic, ‘truer’ account of the world than classical physics provides, is instead severely limited in its scope of operation. It is not a case of the one being true and the other false. Rather, she argues that quantum physics works only in very specific situations, and not at all when classical physics works best. The latter in no way supervenes on the former. In order to make sense of the world we need both. The world, it seems, does not acknowledge the requirements of scientific faith that it be rational and well-ordered.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 08:19:38 pm by sciborg2 »

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2018, 09:05:06 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2018, 09:08:19 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2018, 09:13:17 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2018, 09:14:50 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2018, 09:25:07 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2018, 09:28:35 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2018, 09:32:31 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...
Why synthetic? And what if they don't have any clue about laws at all, but simply just do ala Blindsight.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2018, 09:35:37 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...
Why synthetic? And what if they don't have any clue about laws at all, but simply just do ala Blindsight.

I'm just doubtful biological life could travel through space and reach a level of advancement to do the kind of large scale studies we'd need to be confident about the science conducted.

I never read Blindsight, but couldn't such entities - p-zombies right? - at least do the experiments and see what laws work where?

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2018, 09:38:26 pm »
We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...

Probably depends on how they/we solve the problem of heuristics.  That is, how those "beings" don't end up suffering the same problem of imagining the part as a whole.  If that is even possible. If facts are even close to infinite, how do we/they know which to "safely" ignore?  And if values come from heuristics, broadly, do we imagine these future beings would even care about such metaphysical problems?
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2018, 09:42:22 pm »
We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...

Probably depends on how they/we solve the problem of heuristics.  That is, how those "beings" don't end up suffering the same problem of imagining the part as a whole.  If that is even possible. If facts are even close to infinite, how do we/they know which to "safely" ignore?  And if values come from heuristics, broadly, do we imagine these future beings would even care about such metaphysical problems?

Hmmm...not sure I understand fully but yeah they might not care about science as a pursuit. Yet if there are variations of regularities in the Universe then those entities which can travel at least across large swaths of our galaxy would [possibly] have to deal with, say, different universal constants.

Of course we could also just figure out if reality is Dappled by finding specific exceptions. We wouldn't really know until we built [more] tech based off quantum mechanics right?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 09:50:13 pm by sciborg2 »

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2018, 10:11:01 pm »
Hmmm...not sure I understand fully but yeah they might not care about science as a pursuit. Yet if there are variations of regularities in the Universe then those entities which can travel at least across large swaths of our galaxy would [possibly] have to deal with, say, different universal constants.

Of course we could also just figure out if reality is Dappled by finding specific exceptions. We wouldn't really know until we built [more] tech based off quantum mechanics right?

Well, part of the problem of consciousness, and of conscious thought, is that we don't really access facts as such, rather facts through our perceptual and conscious heuristics, right?  So, inevitably, there is a problem of how those heuristics just fail to allow us knowledge passed a place where they just aren't able to go.  There simply might not actually be any heuristics capable of comprehending the full complexity of the universe.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2018, 10:15:11 pm »
Hmmm...not sure I understand fully but yeah they might not care about science as a pursuit. Yet if there are variations of regularities in the Universe then those entities which can travel at least across large swaths of our galaxy would [possibly] have to deal with, say, different universal constants.

Of course we could also just figure out if reality is Dappled by finding specific exceptions. We wouldn't really know until we built [more] tech based off quantum mechanics right?

Well, part of the problem of consciousness, and of conscious thought, is that we don't really access facts as such, rather facts through our perceptual and conscious heuristics, right?  So, inevitably, there is a problem of how those heuristics just fail to allow us knowledge passed a place where they just aren't able to go.  There simply might not actually be any heuristics capable of comprehending the full complexity of the universe.

Ah gotcha. Yeah I think this gets into the same issues brought up by Hyper Chaos - what makes us so confident we're finding deep truths about Reality rather than contextual truths that happen to work well enough?

Additionally, is the only Science we can take seriously the aspects which produce reliable technology?

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2018, 10:33:01 pm »
Ah gotcha. Yeah I think this gets into the same issues brought up by Hyper Chaos - what makes us so confident we're finding deep truths about Reality rather than contextual truths that happen to work well enough?

Right, that's what Chomsky was getting at (I think) in that video a while back about how the bar got lowered, after the "failure" of mechanical philosophy, from "definitively True" to "True enough."  That is, if something is predictive "enough" than it is "true enough."

Additionally, is the only Science we can take seriously the aspects which produce reliable technology?

Hmm, that's interesting.  It think I'd need to think a bit harder on that.  But what is an example of science that doesn't produce technology and so isn't taken seriously?
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2018, 10:42:57 pm »
Hmm, that's interesting.  It think I'd need to think a bit harder on that.  But what is an example of science that doesn't produce technology and so isn't taken seriously?

Sorry what I mean is there's Science that has gone from theory to, at the least, being able to produce laptops and drugs that really work well.

Then there's "in play" Scientific Hypotheses like, for example, a possible underlying reality consisting of quantum information from which Space & Time "emerge". Or arguably even more generally accepted aspects of quantum theory that haven't yet produced any technology?