The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 08:17:42 pm
-
The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science (https://philosophynow.org/issues/28/The_Dappled_World_A_Study_of_the_Boundaries_of_Science_by_Nancy_Cartwright)
...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...
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 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 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.
-
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...
-
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 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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
Well, not knowing exactly what we could apply it to doesn't forgo it being useful. For all we know, we could find faster than light travel by way of it. I mean, chances are against it, but we don't know for certain what really lies past that conceptual horizon. I think we are at pains to take it seriously.
It's just hard to do that when you can't "pay" for the research with practical, money making dividends...
-
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?
Well, not knowing exactly what we could apply it to doesn't forgo it being useful. For all we know, we could find faster than light travel by way of it. I mean, chances are against it, but we don't know for certain what really lies past that conceptual horizon. I think we are at pains to take it seriously.
It's just hard to do that when you can't "pay" for the research with practical, money making dividends...
I agree all the not-yet-applicable Science should still get funding, but we might separate applicable Science and "in play" Science that has yet to yield dividends.
Not sure it really matters that much, but it might keep us from overextending what is "settled Science". OTOH, some things could be true but never yield technological dividends...or only yield dividends far down the line like Number Theory leading to Cryptography...
-
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?
No! Like, e.g. nobody used general relativity for any technology until GPS decades later.
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?
Well, not knowing exactly what we could apply it to doesn't forgo it being useful. For all we know, we could find faster than light travel by way of it. I mean, chances are against it, but we don't know for certain what really lies past that conceptual horizon. I think we are at pains to take it seriously.
It's just hard to do that when you can't "pay" for the research with practical, money making dividends...
I agree all the not-yet-applicable Science should still get funding, but we might separate applicable Science and "in play" Science that has yet to yield dividends.
Not sure it really matters that much, but it might keep us from overextending what is "settled Science". OTOH, some things could be true but never yield technological dividends...or only yield dividends far down the line like Number Theory leading to Cryptography...
That's already happening though. I'm pretty sure cancer research gets much more funding than number theory, and also private companies often fund support certain research at universities.
On a personal note though I think it would be absolutely awful to defund physics, even the more obscure parts, since the whole subject has brought so much and continues to bring much in terms of both practical applications and more existential knowledge about how the universe seems to work.
Evolutionary psychology however, fuck those guys. Take all their funding and give it to my boy Nima.
-
No! Like, e.g. nobody used general relativity for any technology until GPS decades later.
I wasn't talking about funding with regard to dividing settled and unsettled science by technological applications. Just a classification scheme that can distinguish what is actually known about the universe from what is speculation.
Technology like airplanes run on physics that we know has to be true insofar as airplanes work. Isolated observations regarding the quantum level of reality, OTOH, can be seen as speculation that yields successful results in the context of the lab but may not apply universally.
But this is just idle speculation, I don't even know if matters much either way for our level of civilization. More advanced civilizations may be debating this sort of thing b/c they are trying to crack interstellar civilization-supporting space travel and exceptions to certain assumptions may yield big dividends.
-
No! Like, e.g. nobody used general relativity for any technology until GPS decades later.
I wasn't talking about funding with regard to dividing settled and unsettled science by technological applications. Just a classification scheme that can distinguish what is actually known about the universe from what is speculation.
Technology like airplanes run on physics that we know has to be true insofar as airplanes work. Isolated observations regarding the quantum level of reality, OTOH, can be seen as speculation that yields successful results in the context of the lab but may not apply universally.
But this is just idle speculation, I don't even know if matters much either way for our level of civilization. More advanced civilizations may be debating this sort of thing b/c they are trying to crack interstellar civilization-supporting space travel and exceptions to certain assumptions may yield big dividends.
I don't get it. How can you know what is known without knowing? Maybe I'm getting a bit tired here...
Isolated observations regarding the quantum level of reality, OTOH, can be seen as speculation that yields successful results in the context of the lab but may not apply universally.
So the laws of physics not being constant in the universe? That's an interesting idea and would certainly fuck up our attempts at ever understanding it.
-
I don't get it. How can you know what is known without knowing? Maybe I'm getting a bit tired here...
That's an interesting idea and would certainly fuck up our attempts at ever understanding it.
I mean we do know the results of the experiment, but we see the extensibility of the results through application. I don't think it's much different than the way we progress from animal lab research to human trials to marketed drugs.
We find success in a smaller context then look to see how extensible it is.
As for laws, that's a thorny concept anyway but I don't know if the metaphysics really matters in practice. Scientists still gonna Science. :-)