Objectivism and Theoretical Physics

[Godless Capitalist]

I get the Ayn Rand Institute's op-eds e-mailed to me. Most of them are pretty good, but this one seemed to be pushing a point way too far:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/newton.shtml

I'm not a physicist, but my wife is. Her comment was:

"Seems like he's complaining about string theory and its 'applications'. Did he forget that string theory is just one branch of physics (albeit the frontier one). There is a fascinating history that mathematicians go about their work and decades later physicists find that math essential to develop their

theories--even when the math seemed to be pure math with no applications. String theorists happen to be mathematicians taking the math in their own hands and trying to simultaneously develop their physics. Time will tell what is relevant and useful and what is not. We NEED people to do pure research with brave or crazy ideas even if it ends up to be wrong. How else can science proceed?"

Comments? Any physicists in here?

[bidmeadj]

I think the point of it was that these "scientists" were not being rational and that scientists should always be rational. This does not mean a scientist (any scientist) will immediately find a completely correct answer to their questions, but rationality doesn't require them to. It only requires them to fix their error (when it is discovered) and not "fix" the rest of the world to fit around an error. We do need scientists to keep active minds, to discover new things and to propose new theories, but we don't need them to make up BS just to have something to say.

[Godless Capitalist]

I agree with you but the op-ed goes a lot farther than that, seemingly criticizing much of modern physics. It just seems like the author thinks that nothing after Newton is valid, which is ridiculous. Relativity was considered a bizarre idea until it was confirmed by observations. Of course if observations had contradicted it relativity would have been rejected.

[DavidV]

I agree with you but the op-ed goes a lot farther than that, seemingly criticizing much of modern physics. It just seems like the author thinks that nothing after Newton is valid, which is ridiculous. Relativity was considered a bizarre idea until it was confirmed by observations. Of course if observations had contradicted it relativity would have been rejected.

Dr Harriman does not say and does not imply in any way that any scientific discoveries made after Newton aren't valid. When he talks about the “legacy of Isaac Newton” he is referring to the method Newton used, not the specific discoveries he made. (Nevertheless, Newton’s theories are as valid today as they were when he discovered them.) The essence of Newton’s method is the scientific process – forming theories from the evidence gathered by observing reality, and validating all his ideas against empirical evidence.

Today’s physicists on the other hand, reject the existence of an objective reality as such, and thus do not believe that it is necessary (or possible!) to show that their nonsense corresponds to any fact of reality. The only proof their “hypothetico-deductive method” allows is fantastic pseudo-math that takes occasional observations and turns them into complete non-sense. To the extent that it uses any evidence at all, physics today is a study of statistics, not of the underlying causal connections behind them.

Disclaimer: I’m no physicist, so I’m not qualified to debate its intricacies, but I do know something about economics, and I see the same exact situation in that field. I did briefly speak to Dr Harriman after his talk at OCON, and he agreed with the essence of my view on the state of physics today…

[Tom Rexton]

Observation and experimentation confirm only that within a given range of validity the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics are accurate mathematical models of subatomic and cosmic phenomena. They do not by any means confirm the theories' hypothesized causes of such phenomena, nor do they confirm that those equations are themselves laws of nature.

That Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation accurately predict the effects of gravity does not confirm that gravity is space-time curvature, nor does the fact that clocks slow down as their speed approaches the speed of light confirm "time dilation".

That the equations of quantum mechanics give accurate predictions of probabilities up to 20 decimal places does not prove that subatomic particles can come into existence ex nihilo and then just as easily and swiftly cease to exist. It does not prove that reality is absurd, illogical, contradictory, and acausal.

[AshRyan]

Disclaimer: I’m no physicist, so I’m not qualified to debate its intricacies, but I do know something about economics, and I see the same exact situation in that field.  I did briefly speak to Dr Harriman after his talk at OCON, and he agreed with the essence of my view on the state of physics today…

Agreed. I'm no physicist either, but I have studied a lot of philosophy, and the exact same thing has been going on in that field for centuries. In fact, the reason all the other fields are having that problem today is because they have accepted those philosophies and inherited their bad methods.

A great example is Plato. In reaction against the Sophists, he knew he must be able to prove that knowledge is objective and absolute (not a bad motive). But starting from that, he just made his arbitrary hypothesis of the forms in order to explain it. In other words, he started with what he thought must be true, and tried to force reality to fit it. In other words, this is a pure primacy of consciousness approach, and is exactly what today's physicists are doing. What they should be doing is starting with observation of reality, and making their ideas conform to reality, instead of trying to do it the other way around (which won't work anyway).

[Godless Capitalist]

Well perhaps the problem is just the way the article is written. It sounds as if Harriman is opposed to any speculation or theorizing at all. What's wrong with speculation as long as you acknowledge that your ideas must be confirmed by observations to be accepted?

posted by GreedyCapitalist: "Today’s physicists on the other hand, reject the existence of an objective reality as such, and thus do not believe that it is necessary (or possible!) to show that their nonsense corresponds to any fact of reality."

Sorry, but this is just not true. I challenge you to show evidence that any substantial number of physicists "reject the existence of an objective reality". I spent 3 years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (my wife did her postdoc there). I met a number of people doing cutting-edge theoretical work in astrophysics and string theory. Much of their work was speculative, but none of them doubted that reality is objective or thought that it didn't matter whether or not their ideas conform to reality.

By the way, according to the op-ed Harriman has an M.S. in Physics, not a PhD. In science, an MS is basically a consolation prize given to people who don't finish their PhD.

[AshRyan]

Well perhaps the problem is just the way the article is written. It sounds as if Harriman is opposed to any speculation or theorizing at all. What's wrong with speculation as long as you acknowledge that your ideas must be confirmed by observations to be accepted?

posted by GreedyCapitalist: "Today’s physicists on the other hand, reject the existence of an objective reality as such, and thus do not believe that it is necessary (or possible!) to show that their nonsense corresponds to any fact of reality."

Sorry, but this is just not true. I challenge you to show evidence that any substantial number of physicists "reject the existence of an objective reality". I spent 3 years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (my wife did her postdoc there). I met a number of people doing cutting-edge theoretical work in astrophysics and string theory. Much of their work was speculative, but none of them doubted that reality is objective or thought that it didn't matter whether or not their ideas conform to reality.

By the way, according to the op-ed Harriman has an M.S. in Physics, not a PhD. In science, an MS is basically a consolation prize given to people who don't finish their PhD.

No, you're not misreading the article. He is indeed (I assume) opposed to any of what you mean by "speculation" at all. The reason why is that you can speculate all day, but if you start with that, it's pretty difficult to determine whether or not the theory is true: it's generally impossible to disprove it, since you can't prove a negative, but on the other hand any scrap of evidence that seems to conform to the theory is taken as support for it. But it shouldn't be, since that correlation is not backed up by an appropriate understanding of the causal factors involved. The proper way to form a scientific theory is by a proper method of inductive generalization based ultimately on direct observation via sense perception. Sense perception is our only tie to reality, so if you don't begin there and work toward more abstract conclusions, always keeping every intermediate step firmly tied to reality, you're never going to know whether your theories are true. That's not to say that it isn't possible to start with a theory, then based on actual evidence induce that theory later; but it's highly unlikely, and if you do that then the original speculation was unnecessary anyway.

And as far as today's physicists rejecting objective reality, well of course most of them will deny it and say that they believe reality is objective, but at the same time they pose ultimately groundless theories about "multiple universes" (a direct contradiction in terms) and stuff like that which undercut the idea of an objective reality at its root. Nevertheless, it's not the content of their ideas but their method which is truly wrong.

And I can't help but get the feeling that they sit around doing this arbitrary speculation just to get federal grant money paid for by my taxes--which is just as bad as federally subsidized modern art (and for the same reasons). Certainly they're not motivated by a true quest to know the nature of reality, because they never consult it by following a proper scientific method.

And if an MS in science is basically a "consolation prize" (although I don't think that that's necessarily true), I wonder why he didn't get the PhD when the clowns running the show are these rationalists who not only don't bother to look at reality very often, but often actually evade it.

[Godless Capitalist]

Very few physicists start out with no observations at all and just make up a theory completely out of nothing. They do sometimes have to start out with very few observations, which does mean that there are many possible theories that could explain them. Then they have to try to find more observations that will either support or contradict the theories. This sort of back and forth is quite normal in science. It's not a matter of collecting huge amounts of data first and only then trying to work out a theory to explain it. Often you need to have some sort of theory even to know what sort of data you need to look for to test it.

Yes there are people who propose pure science fiction like "multiple universes" or speculate about what happened before the big bang, but that is not mainstream physics.

btw I agree with Tom that some of physics is just models that are useful for making predictions but may not reflect reality. I think most physicists agree with that too.

[AshRyan]

Yes there are people who propose pure science fiction like "multiple universes" or speculate about what happened before the big bang, but that is not mainstream physics.

Seeing as how that's the kind of thing that I usually see (from an outside point of view) going on in physics, I wonder what exactly is mainstream physics.

btw I agree with Tom that some of physics is just models that are useful for making predictions but may not reflect reality. I think most physicists agree with that too.

I would think that this would be more akin to mathematics than physics, then. Isn't the whole point of physics to discover the physical laws inherent in the nature of reality?

[Guest Godless Capitalist]

I think the news media tend to focus on the more far-out science fiction stuff just because they think the general public will find it more interesting. Browse through a few issues of Physics Today if you want to see what real physics is. It's very solidly reality-based.

Yes, the goal of physics in to discover the nature of reality. Often, though, you start with a (usually mathematical) model that describes what you observe. In some cases nobody has gotten past that stage. Believe me, there is great reluctance among physicists to conclude that causality breaks down at the atomic level that way some interpretations of quantum mechanics imply.

[AshRyan]

I think that there is definitely good work being done in physics today, but that is mostly on the technological application side of it. When you get into purely theoretical physics, that's when you start seeing all of these arbitrary hypotheses. (And if theoretical physics continues in that direction, that technology will soon follow.) Although I'm sure there is still good work being done in the realm of purely theoretical physics, the problem is why are these clowns doing the bad physics taken seriously at all by their colleagues?

[Godless Capitalist]

Let's look at the example given in the original article:

"The blushing has already begun. Last year, there was a widely publicized controversy over the research of two physicists in France (the brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanov). At issue was whether the published work of the Bogdanovs, which consisted of speculations about the universe before the Big Bang, was intended seriously or as a parody of contemporary cosmology. The truth turned out to be more damning than any parody: the Bogdanovs were serious but nobody could tell—so their colleagues were forced to admit that much research today is indistinguishable from a joke."

Most physicists dismiss this kind of stuff as pointless fantasy, since there is no way it can be tested. It's fringe stuff, and does not mean that "much research today is indistinguishable from a joke." That's my problem with the article; he takes one example and uses it to make a sweeping generalization.

Trust me, there is plenty of good solid theoretical physics being done.

[RadCap]

"Much of their work was speculative, but none of them doubted that reality is objective or thought that it didn't matter whether or not their ideas conform to reality."

Most people who consider themselves democrats or republicans, or anarchists, or environmentalists or others who embrace some variation of collectivism don't "doubt that reality is objective or [think] that it [doesn't] matter whether or not their ideas conform to reality." Unfortunately, their explicit premises contradict their implicit ones - the one's from which their collectivism springs - ie mysticism, subjectivism, and ultimately the Primacy of Consciousness. So just because someone CLAIMS they don't believe in something doesn't mean they don't act upon it anyway nor accept its corollary premises.

If you learn something about Harriman, you will discover that he has quite an extensive background in physics and the history of physics and its philosophy. He has done extensive work tracing today's MAINSTREAM thought back to Kantian ANTI-rationality, demonstrating that its foundations are philosophically flawed (this doesn't mean they cant produce some predictive theories. Even with an earth-centered philosophy, scientists were able to create models which described the actual movement of the planets. Of course their models were wrong, but that did not mean the observations which led to them were wrong. Claiming you can't have incorrect models if the observations correspond to them is a fallacy).

If you want to understand Harriman's argument, I would suggest listening to his audio tape series entitled "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics". However, if your main purpose here is just to smear him in an attempt to discredit his ideas (his degree supposedly being nothing more than a "consolation prize" - in an attempt to through doubt on anything - ie engaging in a logical fallacy) then you can end your participation in the discussion RIGHT NOW. Such behavior will NOT be tolerated.

[Godless Capitalist]

That one article is all I have read by Harriman. Perhaps he has a legitimate point, but the article as written does not support it well. Unfortunately that is true of many of the editorials I get from ARI; if you are familiar with the whole background development of the writer's ideas they are great but if you are not they are not very convincing.

As for the "consolation prize" comment, it should be obvious that that was just a side note and not my main purpose.

[DavidV]

I have a few experiences with some of today's physicists I'd like to share.

I first suspected that there was something wrong with the state of physics during my freshman year. My physics TA liked to impress us with his “knowledge” of high level physics by talking about “gravitrons” and all sorts of other imaginary particles.

Last year, the famous Stephen Hawkings came to speak at A&M. He drew a huge crowd that not only paid to see him live, but to watch him on tv screens on other locations on campus. Needless to say, his views cannot be described as “marginal”. The topic was called something like “Hegel and the end of physics.” Here is how a physics prof described his talk (according to a fellow club member):

Physics is an infinite search. Since the fundamentals of physics,

with Newton's law of gravity there have been places where new

theories had to be made to explain why certain things happened that

wasn't covered by the earlier theories. Hawking traced down each

fundamental level of physics with the new theories that fixed the

holes in the old theories, all the way to quantum mechanics. His

final conclusion was that physics in on a path of infinite

discoveries(!). That physics is a domain that will never be known

and will forever be questioned(!).

I raised my hand when he finished and asked, "So, basically, he said

reality is unknowable?" He said, "yes, that is right." And he

added, jokingly, "so physicists will always have a job."

A senior professor in our physics department (which is known for “practical” research) has a section on his homepage devoted to exploring telepathy using quantum mechanics. To quote:

Recently I have become interested in the possibility that distant healing, remote viewing, chi and other psychic phenomena are actually mediated by a physical field, not unlike the electromagnetic field, but one which does not weaken over long distances and is not impeded by obstructions like mountains, oceans, or even time translations. This can be possible if the lines of this field propagate in higher-dimensional space-time and do not diverge as they converge on the target.

[Godless Capitalist]

I'm not sure what your objection to gravitons is. They are particles that have been hypothesized to exist based on certain evidence. If more evidence is found to support that hypothesis, it will be accepted; if not, not. I'm not aware of anything inherently irrational about the idea, though.

I certainly agree with you that there are some areas of physics that are irrational, as shown by the examples you give. I just don't think it's fair to say that most of physics is hopelessly disconnected from reality.

It's even debatable whether Hawkings is really a mainstream figure in physics. Despite his popular fame, he has not really made any major discoveries or theoretical breakthroughs.

Can anyone recommend other writings by Harriman that are available online?

[Godless Capitalist]

And as far as today's physicists rejecting objective reality, well of course most of them will deny it and say that they believe reality is objective, but at the same time they pose ultimately groundless theories about "multiple universes" (a direct contradiction in terms) and stuff like that which undercut the idea of an objective reality at its root. 

And if an MS in science is basically a "consolation prize" (although I don't think that that's necessarily true), I wonder why he didn't get the PhD when the clowns running the show are these rationalists who not only don't bother to look at reality very often, but often actually evade it.

I agree that "multiple universes" is a contradiction in terms, but that does not mean it is an invalid concept. It just means that if there turn out to be more than one "universe" we should call each one something else. (or more likely just change the meaning of "universe" and use the term "multiverse" to mean "everything that exists.") The real problem with the concept is that it is a wild speculation unsupported by any observations.

Also, I would like to retract my "consolation prize" comment. I don't know the circumstances under which Harriman got his MS, so that comment was unfair. It is true for many people, but not neccessarily for him.

[AshRyan]

The real problem with the concept is that it is a wild speculation unsupported by any observations.

Exactly!

Also, I would like to retract my "consolation prize" comment. I don't know the circumstances under which Harriman got his MS, so that comment was unfair. It is true for many people, but not neccessarily for him.

Now that seems reasonable.

[RadCap]

I agree that "multiple universes" is a contradiction in terms, but that does not mean it is an invalid concept.

Since reality is non-contradictory, and since reality is the standard for the validity of ANYTHING, then NO concept can be considered valid IF it is contradictory. Therefore your above statement is false. Not ONLY is the problem with the concept "that it is a wild speculation unsupported by any observations" (ie an unsupported assertion/floating abstraction, which logic demands must be discarded without consideration), but it is ALSO an INVALID concept as well.

--

Concerning your comments about Harriman, the problem with them is NOT the "circumstances" under which he got his degree. Such "circumstances' are immaterial to his argument. Whether he is a crack phd, got a degree from a cracker jack box, or has NO degree whatsoever, does not change the validity (or invalidness) of his premises. So even if what you claimed WAS "true" for Harriman it would STILL NOT belong in your comments. By adding these comments, you were attacking the PERSON and NOT the argument. That is a SMEAR. It is a logical fallacy (one of those pesky "rules" you must follow). And, as I stated, it has NO place on this forum.

(And whether it was your 'main' point or not, does not change the fact that you used it to throw doubt on the argument by throwing doubt on Harriman himself. Thus, no matter WHAT part of your post it was, it still has NO *rational* business being there.)

[Godless Capitalist]

Why is "multiple universes" an invalid concept? Because we currently use the term "universe" to mean "everything that exists"? That definition is based on the knowledge we have and can be changed if knowledge changes. We used to think nothing existed outside our galaxy (or, earlier, outside our solar system). Did that mean that the idea of other galaxies existing was an invalid concept? Obviously not.

I admitted that the "consolation prize" comment was unfair, and retracted it, yet you still attack me as if I had not retracted it. Why?

[RadCap]

You SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY claim the concept is a CONTRADICTION in terms. You also claim it is VALID. This means you believe a thing may be contradictory AND valid. This is a violation of the Law of Identity. The fact that you accept this as true means you reject the Law of Identity (whether you realize it or not).

--

As to your 'retraction', I quite clearly stated WHY I objected to it. Your retraction was *qualified* - ie you said BECAUSE you didn't know of Harriman's "circumstances" your comments were unfair. I was TRYING (unsuccessfully apparently) to show you that NOT only was your comment wrong but your REASON for the retraction of that comment was wrong as well. In other words, I was trying to correct a logical fallacy you employed - hoping you would learn from it. My mistake.

[Godless Capitalist]

You are misrepresenting my position (since you are usually so precise about everything, I will assume it was an honest error). I said that the TERM "multiple universes" was contradictory, not the CONCEPT. All that means is that if we do discover more "universes" we will have to change the meaning of the term. It has nothing to do with the Law of Identity, which I fully accept.

Why don't you address my example? At one time astronomers thought that nothing existed outside our galaxy. Suppose they had defined "galaxy" to mean "everything that exists." Does that mean that the existence of other galaxies is impossible? Obviously not, since they in fact do exist. It just means the original definition needed to be changed based on new knowledge.

I see your point about the "consolation prize" comment. It was never intended to be an attack on Harriman, just a side comment about the circumstances under which MS degrees are usually awarded. I agree that Harriman's educational background is not relevant to the validity of his argument. (Although that being the case, why does the op-ed mention it at all?)

[RadCap]

I did not misrepresent your argument. You are suggesting invalid solutions to a problem created by the joining of contradictory concepts. I was simply pointing out this fact.

As I stated, "multiple universes" is a contradiction in terms. As such, it is a contradiction in concepts (since the terms - the words - represent the concepts).

The concept "universe" is defined specifically. As even you agree, it means "all that there is". And in this context, the concept "multiple" means "more than one; many". Thus by adding the modifying term "multiple" to the term "universe" one creates a new concept "more than one all that there is". Of course this is a BLATANTLY contradictory CONCEPT (which is why it doesn't MATTER if the term used to identify the concept "all that there is" is called "universe" or "galaxy" or "cell" - which means your 'example' is meaningless).

The point is - the concepts "multiple" and "universe" separately are VALID. They represent facts/aspects of reality. As such, the terms are NOT subject to change or elimination.

Furthermore, the concepts are mutually exclusive. They CANNOT rationally be combined for the reasons stated above.

Now, IF some new structure in reality was discovered (which it has not - thus making this WHOLE discussion pointless), it would NECESSARILY be subsumed under the concept "universe". BECAUSE it exists, it would NECESSARILY already be included in the concept "all that there is". To identify this 'new' structure or thing, one would have to either create a NEW term - or - modify some OTHER existing term (ie expand it to include more). The reason one CANNOT modify the term "universe" is because the concept and therefore term "universe" ALREADY includes EVERYTHING. And one simply CANNOT expand BEYOND that. Attempting to do so IS the contradiction. It is irrational, because there is nothing in ADDITION to EVERYTHING. Which means, IF, in the future, the need arises to describe some previously undiscovered facet of reality, one can NOT use the term "universe" to do so. One would HAVE to create a new concept using new terms or modifying some OTHER existing one concept instead. Those are the ONLY logical - ie NON-contradictory - options available.

As it stands, "multiple universe" is simply an ANTI-concept. It not only creates a contradiction, but it does so at the expense of a VALID concept.

So, as I correctly stated previously, not only must the concept "multiple universes" be dismissed because it is a floating abstraction, it must ALSO be dismissed because the CONCEPT is contradictory.

--

As to your Harriman comments, I am glad you see the point that your comments had no business at ALL being in an discussion related to the validity of a particular argument.

As to your question, if you will note, his degree is NOT included in the article as you suggest. It is posted AFTER the article by the EDITOR of the site in order to IDENTIFY the author of the article. This is not a practice unique to the site. And it is done consistantly for ALL authors ON the site.

That said, whether or not it was included in the article or not is AGAIN irrelevant. It does not excuse or justify the inclusion of your comments IN your argument. As such, the question is, at best, a non-sequitor.

[Guest Godless Capitalist]

Thus by adding the modifying term "multiple" to the term "universe" one creates a new concept "more than one all that there is".  Of course this is a BLATANTLY contradictory CONCEPT

As it stands, "multiple universe" is simply an ANTI-concept. It not only creates a contradiction, but it does so at the expense of a VALID concept. 

I don't think we really disagree about the fundamentals of this issue. The problem is that the people who coined the term "multiple universes" intended it to mean "multiple parts of the universe" Yes, using that term was sloppy of them, but everyone in the field understands what the intended concept is. That concept is still valid, it just should have been called something else, such as "multiple partiverses." You can't dismiss a concept just because someone named it improperly.