4 Answers

  1. You seem to have an idea of physics and philosophy as two neighboring suburban areas, where you can climb from the borders of one to the other?;)

    In fact, everything is somewhat different. Philosophy and mathematics are two abstract sciences that, without having their own objective subject of study, serve as an operational apparatus for the natural sciences. Only mathematics provides these sciences with a numerical apparatus, and philosophy with a verbal one. And correct results in physics, for example, are possible only if they are correctly interpreted philosophically, as the results of studying the microcosm and quantum mechanics constantly convince us.

    Continuing the analogy, physics is yes, a suburban area, and philosophy and mathematics are a fence around its perimeter: you can't go beyond the fence )

    This is why any physical “theory of everything” is bound to fail. As long as physics deals with the description of specific phenomena, using mathematical and philosophical apparatus, it is successful. As soon as it sets out to create a “universal explanation”, it either runs into specific phenomena that contradict it, or it is forced to ignore these phenomena, which is also not comme il faut…)

  2. One of the branches of philosophy is metaphysics. Philosophy is an exact science. It is based on laws and regularities. For example, what is the concept of “table”? General. What is the concept of “desk”? Something special. And what is the concept of “the table where you first made love”? An isolated event. There are no other such tables anywhere else.

    Only with the assimilation of the essence of philosophical laws, laws, categories is it possible to know what exists.

  3. In his speech at the Maxwell Anniversary conference, Einstein outlined the program (as he sees it) for the further development of physics “from the Maxwell milestone”. This program provides for the study (and understanding) of these phenomena as interactions of “irreducible entities”. That is, field phenomena exist, their nature is fundamental, but it is impossible to try to describe fields using the established physical definitions (entities). You need to learn how to operate with “irreducible” entities. And attempts to build MECHANICAL MODELS (in the framework of Newtonian mechanics, for example) will be unproductive. That's what Einstein said. It was about a century ago.

    Of course, there are a lot of problems here. One can only assume that Einstein believed that the systematization of phenomena, even if they are “irreducible” (to mechanics), will develop its own defining base. And it will become clear, for example, no worse than Newtonian mechanics. Has this happened by now? – Everyone decides for themselves.:)

    Only one corollary from Einstein's program speech is obvious. – Philosophy, BY DEFINITION, could not set foot in the space of irreducible entities. The task of philosophy is precisely different – to formulate fundamental phenomena in a language developed by the entire civilization. – Clear words that operate on reducible entities, in other words. The definition base should not consist of islands in “parallel worlds”. It must be intact and not torn. Just like Nature.

    Thus, in that program speech about the further development of physics, space for philosophy was not affected. But I would not say that the return of philosophy to science somehow violates the boundaries of the latter. As soon as a clear definition base appears, it will happen – get up in the old way like your MOTHER put it! Having in mind exactly her (physical) mother. In the form of a philosophy of natural science, as Isaac said.

    From that momentous conference, quantum physics became quantum mechanics, and then gradually an understanding of the need for a theory of “everything”was formed. I hope – reducible. (this is me from the point of view of a philosopher, if shto). Philosophy must return to science.� …

    What about Carthage? … “Well, it's just a story. So it happened. People often take revenge on idols. This is the custom.

  4. In the sense of why, physics seeks to build a theory that describes all physical processes. Perhaps in a philosophical sense, it is impossible to build such a theory, because we will never, say, be able to collide two particles with energies equal to the total energy of the observed universe. But, in any case, it is reasonable to hope that it is possible to construct a closed, consistent theory that describes all the physical processes we observe. This is the theory that physicists are trying to build.
    None of the current theories is physically complete. In the general theory of relativity, which lives on large scales, there are black holes, and in them there are singularities that must be described by some other theory. In addition, it is not quantum, and all other interactions are quantum. It is impossible to construct a consistent theory that is half non-quantum.
    At the same time, the standard model is a low-energy effective theory that must somehow change nontrivially at Planck scales, as shown by the Wilsonian approach to the renormalization group.�

    There is a conceptual example of a theory that combines Einstein's gravity and is similar to our particle physics – this is the M-theory and the theory of the heterotic superstring (which is the limit of the M-theory). But it is not clear whether these theories can describe exactly our universe, and in general, little is clear about these theories when they work in a highly nonlinear mode (and little is clear about M-theory in a linear mode). There is a crisis in this area now, and it is not clear how to solve the problems that scientists are facing.

    Physicists do not think about what to recognize as paradigmatic or not. They have problems describing specific phenomena, and they combine some theories with others.

Leave a Reply