Deriving from this very recent thread I will state the primary question on one of my points of view (which is somewhat ubiquitous, just as I intent it to be) (edit: changed to plural): considering (the most recent advances in) theoretical physics, is the motion of logical deduction (deduction by logic) (the flagship term here, most likely, being String Theory) more philosophical rather than real (I won't say 'empirical', which is a quantifiable term and in this case a priori a fallacy) or vice versa? What I mean is: has the "measure of tangibility" been violated/refurbished by/with the introduction of "hyperrealism", which quite unprovenly extends beyond our reality (or at least pretends to be doing so) or has it merely been affixed to our perception by some means (which are intangible by definition)? Or even more simply: are we disillusioning ourselves with trivia or dealing with (thus far inevitably intangible) fact (while we should not be)? Or - even MORE simply: in terms of our perception of tangible reality, are we dealing with philosophy or fact? For the sake of the argument, I feel myself being a relatively strong proponent of the ideas presented by theoretical physics (and sometimes pure fiction derived from it by means of logic). At the same time I do realize that this kind of physics has, for all intents and purposes, essentially become philosophy (in its purest form) in the process. I, for one, enjoy that kind philosophy and I endorse it. For the better part I "feel" it to be right (although I intend to leave some capacity for it to be wrong), and I think it does provide the brightest glimmer of prospective hope there has been (in terms of abstractions such as "humanity" and "existence") for almost a century (in this case much more so in terms of things to come even though the concept is by definition "timeless"). I also acknowledge the fact that this is something that is to remain on our backs/in our hair forever (in the form of malevolent cancer) - something that undermines the very fabric of existence, something that "science" in its most naive sense tries to achieve, but never can. However, if I had to choose whether our future was science (tangible fact) or philosophy (intangible possible-fact), I would choose "the former very strongly tending towards the latter" with very little regard to the actual constraints that have the capacity of maintaining anything as "physical fact". The question is - would you? Why/why not, and how (would you treat "future reality")? What is this existence we're living? Are we using too big words/should we take a step back or should we make up even fancier words and keep trying to define ourselves (blindly)? (I really hope this wording makes sense because if it doesn't, I'd feel pretty shoddy :) ) edit: fixed clicky [Edited by - irreversible on February 14, 2010 3:50:19 AM]

There's a seven in the wrong spot in that link: http://www.gamedev.net/com7munity/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=562087

Regarding your question, it's both science and philosophy, that's why it's called theoretical physics. If it's done correctly it can lead to experiments. And even when it doesn't appear that way initially, subsequent technological advances can make possible experiments that weren't fathomable when particular theories were developed - for example, lasers and spooky action.

Well first you take the ket |1s> and then you take the bra <r and then you assign it to a wave equation like this Ψ(r)=<r|1s> and you call it a Holographic Universe as imparted by some noise discovered under the absence of matter or squeezed vacuum.... Add in some zero time and evanescent modes and I hope to one day walk through walls :P I feel very comfortable with this...

I remember playin' PSO(pretty sure o-o) and these guys(online players) where like spawning gold and weapons in this room and then they where insta killing me... they kept bringing me back to life and then killing me again.. pissed me right off... last one there and all right???

[edit] someone gave me a frying pan.... best weapon I ever had [/edit]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There's a seven in the wrong spot in that link: http://www.gamedev.net/com7munity/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=562087

Regarding your question, it's both science and philosophy, that's why it's called theoretical physics. If it's done correctly it can lead to experiments. And even when it doesn't appear that way initially, subsequent technological advances can make possible experiments that weren't fathomable when particular theories were developed - for example, lasers and spooky action.

I guess I'm rather asking what everybody's gut feeling on that is. "Theoretical" is a scientific term which actually already classifies the problem (or at least implies a bias). If one were to take a leap of faith (ensuing pun intended) and declare that, say, both religion and the currently popular scientific explanation to life (theoretical physics) to be a form of philosophy, we'd be living a pretty weird existence. Dysfunctional wouldn't even begin to describe it. My argument was that we're approaching that critical point where one can no longer tell a difference. Which is kinda spooky.

>> and I hope to one day walk through walls

We'd just build thicker walls, so don't be so sure about that :D

[Edited by - irreversible on February 14, 2010 4:49:37 AM]

Quote: Original post by Buttacup
Well first you take the ket |1s> and then you take the bra <r and then you assign it to a wave equation like this Ψ(r)=<r|1s> and you call it a Holographic Universe as imparted by some noise discovered under the absence of matter or squeezed vacuum.... Add in some zero time and evanescent modes and I hope to one day walk through walls :P I feel very comfortable with this...

ROFLMAO.

Quote: Original post by irreversible
Or - even MORE simply: in terms of our perception of tangible reality, are we dealing with philosophy or fact?

If you're talking about string theory in particular, then I'm going to have to say fact. The observations could have turned out very different, but they didn't, and no other (existing) theory has anything remotely close to say about why things occur this way.

As for the majority of other theories of quantum gravity, they cannot even predict the long-range behaviour of gravitation (e.g., the theories cannot even reproduce the work of Newton, let alone Einstein). For those types of speculations, I'd say they're not even philosophy. Now, I'm not saying that these speculations shouldn't be worked on, but they definitely should not yet be presented as viable alternatives to a completely functional theory, especially to the common folk in paperback book form.

Quote: Original post by irreversible

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There's a seven in the wrong spot in that link: http://www.gamedev.net/com7munity/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=562087

Regarding your question, it's both science and philosophy, that's why it's called theoretical physics. If it's done correctly it can lead to experiments. And even when it doesn't appear that way initially, subsequent technological advances can make possible experiments that weren't fathomable when particular theories were developed - for example, lasers and spooky action.

I guess I'm rather asking what everybody's gut feeling on that is. "Theoretical" is a scientific term which actually already classifies the problem (or at least implies a bias). If one were to take a leap of faith (ensuing pun intended) and declare that, say, both religion and the currently popular scientific explanation to life (theoretical physics) to be a form of philosophy, we'd be living a pretty weird existence. Dysfunctional wouldn't even begin to describe it. My argument was that we're approaching that critical point where one can no longer tell a difference. Which is kinda spooky.

Religion and theoretical physics can be and are taken as forms of philosophy (and vice-versa). We are living a pretty weird existence. The critical point where these fields of inquiry become indistinguishable is a product of shallow media popularizations and a publishing industry more than willing to profit from the writings of quacks and charlatans. You can see this in the abuse of quantum mechanics to push various religious and spiritual beliefs.

Quote: Original post by irreversible
Or - even MORE simply: in terms of our perception of tangible reality, are we dealing with philosophy or fact?

That question is itself philosophy (epistemology - philosophy relating to the nature and properties of knowledge).

We never know any facts for sure. All we've ever got are best theories. It might be that some of our theories are "facts" in that they're correct descriptions of how the universe actually works, but we'd have to investigate the entirety of space-time to know that they were universally accurate, and I'm not even sure that's the same as true.

For the sake of actually getting stuff done, we act as though many of our theories - the old ones, the ones that have had plenty of opportunities to be proven wrong, and yet are still standing - we call them "facts," as convenient shorthand for "theory that we are very willing to rely on."

Science isn't about finding new facts, because we never do. It's about finding better and better explanations for why the world works the way it does. A better explanation is one that is simpler, or more wide-reaching, or explains aspects of a phenomenon that the previous explanation couldn't - that solves a new problem (such as: why do things have mass?).